Die Hard 4 in the works - now out. - Page 12

TravisR · 06-30-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt

So is John Williamson dead?

My money is on that he's waiting in line for Transformers tickets.

Shawn_KE · 06-30-2007, 11:46 PM

LOVED it. The best action movie of the year. A few over the top parts, but this is a action movie. And a pretty good for PG13. Though Timmy could have done without the wild deranged stare. Thought McClane looking at the lock of hair in his fist was great!!

todd s · 06-30-2007, 11:51 PM

Loved his one lines about the badguy's asian ninja girlfriend.

Scott Calvert · 07-01-2007, 02:35 PM

Saw it, liked it. Entertaining 2 hours at the movies. Won't make you forget the original Die Hard, though.

Saw it in DLP, and it was my first experience w/ digital projection at the movies. Couldn't believe that I was seeing pixels and video artifacts at the theater. I just don't know what the world is coming to...

I don't know why so many people are throwing around the term "old school", because this flick has CGI all over it. The digitally composited backgrounds during the interior driving shots were terrible. And that final sequence...couldn't they have gotten a real F-15 for just a few shots?

Wish the film had better cinematography. Almost seemed like it was shot in the current trendy style of exaggerating the look of the film with very cold blue hues like the Underworld flicks but someone decided to pull back during postproduction and put some color back in Bruce's face. Overall, a very crappy looking image. Why are all the hot young directors so afraid of having their films look anywhere near like reality?

Chuck Mayer · 07-01-2007, 03:18 PM

I rewatched the original last night. It's still that good. I basically enjoyed my time at 4, but it's a generic action film with a name it doesn't really earn. Willis has some nice moments in 4. He's on FIRE in 1

Robert Crawford · 07-01-2007, 04:06 PM

Watched this today and had a good time at the show. Not as good as the original, but it was alright considering the quality of other sequels I've seen this year.

Holadem · 07-01-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

I don't know why so many people are throwing around the term "old school", because this flick has CGI all over it. The digitally composited backgrounds during the interior driving shots were terrible. And that final sequence...couldn't they have gotten a real F-15 for just a few shots?

No F15 does what the aircraft needed to do inthat sequences, i.e., some form of trust vectoring. Although it can take off and land vertically, I wouldn't be surprised if the hovering agility of the F35 was exagerated in that scene as well. If not, then that is one badass aircraft

.

--
H

Patrick Sun · 07-01-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

Saw it in DLP, and it was my first experience w/ digital projection at the movies. Couldn't believe that I was seeing pixels and video artifacts at the theater. I just don't know what the world is coming to...

I've seen a couple of films (POTC3 and Ratatouille) in DLP at the theaters, and I also see what I call the SSE (silk-screen effect) in the bright spots of the image, and I see it in DLP RPTVs and it just drives me nuts at times. Can't say I'll be seeking out DLP showings at the theaters anymore. But I digress...

Obtopic - Looks like the PG-13 rating helped in the larger box office take for the 3rd sequel in the Die Hard series in its opening weekend, compared to the previous 3 films.

Chuck Mayer · 07-01-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holadem

No F15 does what the aircraft needed to do inthat sequences, i.e., some form of trust vectoring. Although it can take off and land vertically, I wouldn't be surprised if the hovering agility of the F35 was exagerated in that scene as well. If not, then that is one badass aircraft

.

--
H

I think it was exaggerated a bit. The F-35 does have the vectoring capability, but not the usability for such precise, fine control. No pilot could ever be that good

That sequence was way out of place in a DH film.

Brent M · 07-01-2007, 10:46 PM

Just got back from the flick and I enjoyed it quite a bit. All my fears about the PG-13 rating pretty much went out the window after the first shootout at the kid's apartment. Sure it wasn't as good as the original, but it was definitely better than Die Harder and I'd probably put it above Die Hard With a Vengeance as well. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a very solid 8.

Mark Kalzer · 07-02-2007, 02:27 AM

Strange. I found this pretty dissapointing. I just felt somehow, despite a few good sequences of explosions...that I had already seen all of this before in so many non-Die Hard movies.

The John McClane/'I'm a Mac guy' duo tries so hard to match the McClane/Sam Jackson duo, but just cannot find any kind of rhythm beyond, "I'm old", "I'm young...and digital..." The old guy vs. new guy thing has been done to death countless times before, and it hardly goes any deeper then 'You listen to old music? Ewww!' Mr. "I'm a Mac" performs a single emotion for the entire film, up until the extremely predictable small moment of heroism. Somehow I just felt it was a huge missed opportunity. The Kevin Smith character 'Warlock' to me would be a far greater match as it remains clear no one in Hollywood can play the geek like Kevin Smith! He has a sharp natural wit which 'I'm a Mac' cannot match. To me...the classic duo would be McClane, the tough and rugged, with the Kevin Smith, the overweight, social reclusive and extremely sarcastic, but still brilliantly minded computerwise. Why must all sidekicks be fit and thin? Is it not time some fat slob saved the world? (With all due respect to Kevin Smith... I love the man!)

I also had problems wrapping my head around the plot. I am a firm believer that it should not be expected of a viewer to turn his brain off during a movie, and maybe my expectations are too high... but I just could not help but keep wondering why this plot had to involve John McClane. In a scenario he clearly knows nothing about... he immedietely concludes, in the middle of the streets, amidst all this chaos and with no real resources, it is up to him to save the world. Why? How is it remotely possible that he and his hacker friend could know more then the US intelligence? And why must it be he alone (with sidekick) who goes to to that central hub station if it is so seemingly obvious a computer terrorist target? The whole thing seemed awkwardly shoehorned around McClane, if only because this is what a franchise film demands. Somehow, McClane has to be worked in, and this time it isn't as simple as him hanging out in a bathroom in an inconvenient time.

Finally the PG-13 thing, I cannot ignore. We've been told it was always intended to be this way, but it was glaringly obvious that they were overdubbing parts. When the lips are quite clearly saying 'fuck' repeatedly, we're hearing something else, and the dubbing work is utterly atrocious. This is a mature action movie sanitized for the wrong reasons, and in the wrong ways. Inevitably, I can only shake my head at this Hollywood mentality that if you murder people mercilously, (Which McClane the cop does repeatedly without even thinking to figure out who these guys are) smack innocent women around, that is okay, but only as long as you watch your language! Exactly what message is this industry sending to teenagers? They should be quite confused indeed. (Our Canadian ratings system acknowledges that teenagers have heard all these swear words before, hence 'Billy Elliot' is free of the absurd R rating) Usually the ratings system has little effect here in Canada, but at times like this, it is really grating to see mature films sanitized in such ludicrous manner.

Just how long does hollywood intend to continue to market the same stuff over and over again?