Just got back from the Cinema de Lux/directors lounge, of my local Showcase and...mixed feelings about this one. I didn't like the first hour of the movie. It fell into the category of 'action with no context' feel to it, with amazingly-well choreographed car chases, guns firing, lots of explosions and stealthy take downs of people, but despite the flawless execution of the shots, it was pretty dull. Not boring, but dull, with a lot of 'we gotta do X Y & Z' dialogue about character and places I didn't really care for. The first hour had a lot of shaky-cam, too. Nothing really against it, just hate its overuse when there is no need for it. No establishing shots, or, hardly any at all - so characters would be at a location, whether that's a car or a building and it's very sudden and I didn't really have any introduction as to why they were there or where they were going or what the context or purpose was for them being there. It was like '...oh, ok, I guess they are in a car shooting guns now...oh, they are in a building shooting guns now...oh, I guess these guys are the people they have to shoot now...'. Scene after scene. I really didn't like the look of it. It had that saturated blue-green haze over every shot, just like any of the born movies, so when they are in a street in Moscow and the camera is following cars, it all just blends together into a blue-green nothingness - a bit like Metro or Wake Island on BF3. I guess it's something to do with shooting on digital perhaps? or just ridiculous amounts of color correction in post - shame, it really needed colour. Was it a Die Hard movie? Well, sadly; no. It lacked that 'right guy in the wrong place' feel to it and the father-son relationship was the only thing it had going for it; and even that felt tacked-on. The 2nd half was better than the first, but fell apart with dumb villains and endless supplies of enemy cannon fodder wrapped up in a dumb plot. John McClane looks old, very old and this franchise along with it. Oh, and there is the F word in it, (surprising for a 12A) but it's not where it should be: Yippee-ki-yay.
Aside from the first one (perfect) they've all been gratuitous action for the sake of itself. If you didn't expect that going in, I'm not sure what to say. Would I like another die hard like the first, with seemingly real people in a situation..sure. But its not like its being marketed as that. You can tell from the trailers its just action for action's sake.
Thanks for the review. Watching Hollywood try to bring these aging action hero's like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis back to their former glory is just painful to watch imo.
Hearing the same thing myself, but i planned to wait for it on BluRay anyway as very few movies these days give me a reason to go to a cinema and see. As per IPL, only the first one was any good, and one of the best action movies ever, the second had it's moments but it had slow parts and silly parts. Third was just a dumb buddy movie, but did have a better "baddy" than 2, the fourth was nicely directed, but was even more generic than 3, and alot less fun. I don't think the problem is with Willis being too old though, most of the older guys are alot more convincing than the new action stars.
I liked it. I personally think you're over critiquing it a bit. Nothing can touch the original (and third) movie. It was "dumb" action, and pretty entertaining. The only thing I didn't like was the semi large plot hole about how clueless the "dancer" guy was. Not to spoil, but you know what I mean I'm sure. All his men automatically knew, but him? Nope.
Ninja comment: I forgot to mention: it isn't very wide for a cinema showing. According to this, and something I can attest to from watching it, it's 1.85:1, which is extremely close to the aspect ratio of your 16:9 1920x1080 television (1.78:1). They didn't even have to adjust the aspect ratio of the screen from showing the commercials/trailers before the movie, to just before the BBFC logo popped up - and I immediately thought to myself "is this the start of the movie?" Movies at the cinema (IMHO) should be W - I - D - E, like 2.35:1, or 21x9. This felt like an extended episode of CSI with Bruce Willis and $100 mill budget. Like I say, it's just my humble opinion, but you're reading words typed by someone who remembers watching Star Wars in 1977 and watching the curtains pull back to reveal a silver screen that is super-wide, and then watched a film fill it with richness. The last film I watched which really was that wide was I think Django Unchained or Batman Rises, glorious wide aspect pictures. Movies should lead the way...not try and conform to what people have in their living rooms.
Just back from seeing it. It was laughable, I cracked down laughing at a good 3 points. Such a flimsy grasp on radiation. But aside from the whole ridiculous chernobyl segment, it was near on incomprehensible at times, both in dialogue and plot, and the near 16:9 aspect ratio was pretty shocking for a million dollar hollywood production. In fact, i'm not entirely sure I know why john went to russia in the first place.
That's normal, and has been for 30-40 years? The AR of a movie changes alot based on director choice, some people prefer something along the lines of 2:35/40.1 while others like 1:85.1/1:78.1. Personally i hate if a movie is 1:85 at a cinema, but there are also people who hate BluRays that are 2:40. Ignoring my aspect ration geekiness, i do agree this film should of been 2:35/40.1 as the other 4 were, and for action movies i think it's essentially as it clearly increases the scale of the movie, which is why i dislike James Cameron as a director, but that is a story for a different thread.
that's what the main review's say. but i hear the action is entertaining, so i'll give Bruce some money probably
I so very RARELY go to movies anymore...none of them are progressive(60fps)...most of the projectors have washed out colors in comparison to my home setup on my PC...its just NOT worth the $40+ outing it once was...I'd rather save and get a new video card instead... just my $.02... yes....and Im sure you are thinking 'the hobbit' was...but im not going to pay almost $20 for a TICKET to see that...**** that ****. and then another $20 for pop/popcorn, nope. Not for a movie where they are just walking around more...prolly why I didnt goto the theatre for the LOTR...and DHard wasnt in progressive either..or shot in it either.
Sounds like another 'vehicle for the talent'; as I heard one film guy call these type of films on a documentary years ago where they just increment the number and offer the actor the chance at some more publicity to keep their film career going for another year.
What the hell is progressive? Just say framerate as calling 48/60fps progressive is just nonsense as well it just doesn't make any sense to call it that lol. FYI, The Hobbit looked awful at 48fps, 3D was nice but the framerate ruined the movie for me, well the movie did as well. Actually got dragged to see this and it's not terrible unless you compare it to the first two movies, some of its ok especially the second half and Bruce is always watchable. Visually i thought the movie was pretty good looking, i did see it at a digital cinema though and it wasn't as good looking as Skyfall, but i liked how it looked.
at least this movie was better than that horrid Last Stand. Arnie should just retire from acting altogether.
No not at all........ The problem is ALMOST EVERYTHING IS CRAP TODAY!! No one has the ambition anymore to make a good movie...... I have NO INTEREST in seeing this,in my opinion there are only 2 DIE HARD MOVIES DIE HARD - EXCELLENT DIE HARD 2 - VERY GOOD The 3rd one was BAD to OK .. 4th one was OK
A Die Hard film....that's 12A..really don't know why i bothered. And did anyone else notice how many times he said he was "on vacation". Stupid. But there were some pretty epic action scenes. As for framerates and resolution and colour saturation etc etc...i didn't notice. It must be difficult to enjoy any film if you've got that much on your mind.
Yeah, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed to see they were planning this film. I really thought "Live Free or Die Hard" would have been great way to wrap up the franchise, and then they continue to string it out like this. Honestly, it is becoming one of those washed up series where people will begin to say "well the old ones were good". I hate to say that about Die Hard too, because I love those movies! I just wish they stopped the damn thing with the last one and that this one never happened. I'll pretend. The :biggun: Die Hard :biggun: franchise :biggun:
Seeing it this weekend and more than likely I'll just leave my brain at the door and keep expectations low. I would've been just as happy if they let it end after the previous film.
