I'm not trying to be a hero! I'M FIGHTING THE DRAGON!!

DIE HARD 5 to be directed by guy who did MAX PAYNE

tn_diehardBruceOkay, that’s not official, but I’m going by the time honored rule that if the insider Hollywood people report a “short list” of possible directors it will go to one of the worst or least interesting on the list. For example this happened with THE WOLFMAN (Joe Johnston over John Landis, Frank Darabont, Bill Condon). In this case Deadline is reporting three directors people around here like and John Moore.

The alleged candidates:

1. Joe Cornish. This is the guy that directed ATTACK THE BLOCK. I haven’t gotten to see it yet, but everybody tells me I should. He also wrote THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN with friend of the internet Edgar Wright. I have no opinion yet but I plan to see ATTACK THE BLOCK.

2. Justin Lin – FAST AND THE FURIOUS 3-5, plus that BETTER LUCK TOMORROW movie and FINISHING THE GAME. He has shown a penchant for good practical action and stuntwork, charismatic and manly characters, nice visuals and a good sense of humor. I would hope his DIE HARD would be a little more grounded than his FAST FIVE, but I think he would be a good choice. Possible drawback: could delay FURIOUS SIX. Possible bonus: could delay TERMINATOR 5: TERMINATION OF THE TERMINATRIX.

3. Nicolas Winding Refn. This kind of seems like the most interesting choice on the list, but I gotta admit I’ve only seen BRONSON and I honestly didn’t love it as much as you’re supposed to. I’ll have to check out the PUSHER trilogy and VALHALLA RISING, which I’ve heard good things about, and of course his new one DRIVE everybody is excited about. Plus I think there’s one more action movie lined up after that one.

And then it’s John Moore, who did BEHIND ENEMY LINES, FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX, THE OMEN REMAKE and MAX PAYNE. I don’t know, did anybody see FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX? I think I might’ve heard it was pretty good. I saw MAX PAYNE and it did have a couple good parts, but not enough to imply that he could handle a DIE HARD. He did all his movies at Fox and apparently they like hanging out with him or whatever so they look at him for every big movie that comes up, like THE WOLVERINE and everything. (Then again they didn’t choose him for that one, so maybe we’ll get lucky here.)

Anyway, they’re saying this one will take place in Russia, will have McClane teamed with his son (not seen or mentioned in the series since he was a little kid), and is still unfortunately written by Skip Woods, whose best movie I’m sorry to say has gotta be THE A-TEAM. He wrote and directed the painful Tarantino ripoff THURSDAY and wrote SWORDFISH (aka Halle’s Berries), HITMAN and X-MEN’S ORIGINS PRESENTS WOLVERINE. So you see, there are alot of obstacles for McClane to deal with on this one.

VERN has been reviewing movies since 1999 and is the author of the books SEAGALOGY: A STUDY OF THE ASS-KICKING FILMS OF STEVEN SEAGAL, YIPPEE KI-YAY MOVIEGOER!: WRITINGS ON BRUCE WILLIS, BADASS CINEMA AND OTHER IMPORTANT TOPICS and NIKETOWN: A NOVEL. His horror-action novel WORM ON A HOOK will arrive later this year.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 at 1:15 am and is filed under Blog Post (short for weblog), Bruce, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

121 Responses to “DIE HARD 5 to be directed by guy who did MAX PAYNE”

  1. Can’t be worse than part 4, which might be the first movie that I like for having well staged and directed action scenes, but hate it so much for everything else, that I never want to watch it again.

    I doubt Joe Cornish will take the gig, just because he seems to be allowed whatever he wants to do in the UK. He has at least one more “personal” movie in him, before he moves to paycheck gigs.

    Justin Lin seems to be too busy with FAST & FURIOUS movies. He was already attached to every other big action movie of the last few years and I doubt he will change the franchise at this point either.

    Refn: Got no idea. He seems not unlikely, considering that he isn’t in Hollywood for that long. But if DRIVE becomes a hit, he might pick a better project.

    I also think that it’s either gonna be Moore (since he is obviously FOX’s go to guy for rushed productions, when Brett Ratner is either not available or too expensive) or maybe another, completely unexpected candidate who will pop up out of the blue. Most likely a first time director with some Britney Spears videos under his belt.

    Also you have to keep in mind that the thing with the WOLFMAN director, was a question of availability. Kinda like back when the original director decided to quit a few hours before shooting started, they just took the first who crossed the street in front of their office. (And then was not allowed to offer any input while shooting.)

  2. John Moore is one of the most mediocre and bland directors out there, anyone ever see the amazingly boring and unnecessary Omen remake? the one that was made only so they could release it on 6/6/06?

    and lol at “Halle’s Berries”

  3. Well, F&F 6 shouldn’t be delayed, it’s already in the works, and according to The Rock(who also confirmed his return), already has a release date!(Memorial Day 2013).

  4. Based on VALHALLA RISING, Refyn would seem like a *very* odd choice for a DIE HARD.

    I would base a similar judgment on MAX PAYNE and whoever directed it, if it were possible to remember such generic claptrap.

    Isn’t Renny Harlin available? Or how about Mel Gibson?!

  5. Justin Linn would maybe have the good grace to bring back Samual L, “Argyle”, “Al Powell”, “Thornburg”, “Marvin” where they are mysteriously invited for one last Die Hard in Russia to battle the bastard love children of the Gruber brothers!! And don’t forger a cameo for Mother & Daughter in the closing credits…..

  6. I love the Mel Gibson suggestion. He might be an anti-Semite, but the man knows how to stage an action scene. If you could just get him away from his own racist vision, Gibson could become a fun director for hire.

  7. Couldn’t we have McTiernan back for one last hurrah?

    He hasn’t directed a film nearly a decade, and I think he’s still knee-deep in legal troubles, but surely something could be worked out.

  8. Is McTiernan out of jail?

  9. billydeethrilliams

    August 2nd, 2011 at 5:51 am

    …And then John Travolta joined the Expendables sequel. Also I still want to see Michael Haneke direct an action movie.

  10. My gut reaction to this is that this project really sounds like it’s scraping the bottom of the barrel now if we’re looking at the guy who directed Max Payne and the script is by the guy who “wrote” Hitman (like Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem, that film feels like a franchise was crow-barred into an existing script).

    Although thinking about it, I am a little bit curious as to how McClane’s son turned out. Obviously, while McClane was stalking his daughter during his off-duty hours and scaring away her boyfriends, the boy was left to his own devices. Did he grow up to be a man’s man or maybe he became an obese nerd, disowned by his old man?

    And which English actor are they going to get to play the Russian bad-guy (my money is on Ian mcShane), and can they please ensure that the No 1 henchman is none other than Uri Boyka….

  11. McClane’s son turns out to be a fat nerd obsessed with My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

  12. Am I the only one who kinda liked the action sequences in Max Payne? I like that the game was already ridiculously John Woo-y and “cinematic” and Moore actually didn’t use slow mo except in a few scenes. That shootout in the parking garage where Max mows down a whole bunch of dudes actually looks sped-up, and it’s kinda awesome. The movie itself was boring and i’d never watch the whole thing again though.

    Flight of the Phoenix is just there, the only thing I remember is that a) it marks the exact point I was tired of hearing Massive Attack’s “Angel” in a movie, and b) Moore is a raging asshole in the bonus features on the DVD. I think he screams at his crew and kicks a trashcan or something, like Harry Knowles with roid rage.

    On a somewhat related note, remember when we were discussing these fan-made Saul Bass-ian posters and how they’ve gotten a little out of hand? And how we’re all supposed to say they look cool but we secretly think they’re kind of shit but we’re trying to be nice because someone took like 30 minutes out of their day to make one?

    Yeah I don’t want to be nice anymore –
    http://www.monoscope.com/quickimagepost/2009/04/www.kottke.org_plus_misc_images_media-mash-02.jpg

  13. I did in fact see Flight of the Phoenix on dvd, good Lord, talk about an unmemorable movie

  14. Jareth Cutestory

    August 2nd, 2011 at 7:18 am

    VALHALLA RISING really stuck with me. It’s one of those rare films that almost haunts the imagination. Also it’s the only film with the word “rising” in the title that I will tolerate. At least until they get around to making REVENGE OF THE NERDS: BOOGER RISING.

    In short: let the VALHALLA RISING guy go do his own stuff.

  15. Max Payne is one of the worst movies ever made. It amazes me that they could take an already interesting enough story in the game and completely fuck it up. Not to mention strip away the real reason to play the game in the first place, lots and lots of gun fights. The gun fights in the movie were short, stupid, no two gun action really anywhere. Aren’t we at the point where it’s ok to start filming gun fights like John Woo used to?

  16. I was at the bar the other night and they were playing Hitman on the big screen. That’s another movie that’s really really bad that has like no action sequences anywhere.

  17. Oh and also re: Flight of the Phoenix, does anyone else remember when it was bombing in theatres, so after maybe week 2, they started focusing the TV and print ads to revolve around a big “twist”? Like “Don’t give the secret away!” bullshit? I have to admit it intrigued me and is part of the reason i rented it. (And yeah, there is kind of a surprise but not really – i have to admit the marketing geniuses got me)

  18. Go crazy. Hire Joseph Kahn. Because if they’re talking up guys like Noam Murro, they’re clearly just flying blind.

    Refn is shooting a smaller film called Only God Forgives next, but after that, he’s attached to Logan’s Run. And he’s talked nonstop about doing Wonder Woman. Lin, meanwhile, is Summit’s guy for Highlander, has been for awhile.

    Vern, I look forward to what you have to say about Attack The Block. It’s got the flavor of a Carpenter/Walter Hill mashup, believe it or not. I saw about eight of the movies that came out last weekend, and it was leagues ahead of everything else.

  19. I would be really, really interested in reading Vern’s take on VALHALLA RISING. Fascinating and challenging film. DRIVE is gonna rule!

    On DIE HARD – Lately, there seems to be a disconnect between the action scenes and the dialogue/character work. I think this has to do with first and second unit directors who don’t communicate. You need a strong personality in the action director’s chair to keep it all together and coherent. Someone who understands the value of emotional investment in an exciting action scene.

    Also, does Bruce Willis have to play McClane? What if the franchise went DTV to give up-and-comers a shot at an established property? Just a thought. Don’t freak.

  20. I’m not at all excited about the prospect of another Die Hard. I would much rather see something original instead of another shadow of a great film.

    If it has to be made I would like to see Refn do a Valhalla Rising version of Die Hard. That would be great.

    And, yeah, Vern needs to review Valhalla Rising. That movie really sticks with me and the more I think about it the more I like it.

  21. Jareth Cutestory

    August 2nd, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Darryll: I guess I’m not against a different actor playing McClane in principle – after all, I think Mel Gibson could easily be replaced in any of his so-called iconic roles (even ROAD WARRIOR) without the films suffering (maybe they’d even be better) – but finding a suitable replacement for Willis seems a lot harder than finding a replacement for Gibson. Willis has more Lee Marvin DNA in him than most of his peers, and, as we all know, Lee Marvin DNA is one of the rarest natural resources on the planet. Not to mention Willis is a classic hardened wise ass. That’s pretty rare too.

  22. I’m pretty cool with seeing a new McClane adventure every five or six years for the rest of Bruce Willis’ life. That’s keep the remake beast at bay.

    Maybe it’s because I am a fan of detective novels. The fun is checking in with a character to see what he’s gotten himself into now, not necessarily the hope of any particular installment being any better or worse than any other. Of course, there are favorites, but I wouldn’t give up any of the weaker ones because they somehow besmirch the reputation of the stronger ones.

  23. Vern,

    Did you see this interview with Stephen Tobolowsky? He tells a funny story about making The Glimmer Man:
    http://www.avclub.com/articles/stephen-tobolowsky,59769/

  24. Do you ever get the feeling that the internet wants to be more than friends with Edgar Wright? But sigh, he just doesn’t see the internet that way. They even slept in the same bed after Shelly’s birthday party and nothing happened.

  25. Jareth Cutestory

    August 2nd, 2011 at 9:49 am

    If Edgar Wright gave the internet his jacket, the internet so totally wouldn’t take the jacket off even to sleep.

  26. The internet is such a slut. Remember that time it was all over Guillermo del Toro at the Halloween dance even though he already had a girlfriend? And it was only like two days after the internet broke up with Bryan Singer? What a skank.

  27. Dan – That Tobolowsky interview is hilarious. I’m PRETTY sure he did get killed in The Glimmer Man, though, they must not have used his voiceover. And I like how Seagal always seems to have concerns with “karma” and whatnot when he brutally finishes off a vanquished foe in practically every movie.

  28. That’s why he always has to kill someone twice. If he’d just stabbed Tommy Lee Jones in the top of the brain, it would have been bad karma, but ramming him through a computer monitor afterward balanced it out.

    Then you see the triple death of Screwface and you wonder what could possibly even that out.

  29. Wait, so killing is wrong, but what about when he was shooting Brian Cox in the leg to get information? That’s not negatively impacting his Karma? And doesn’t his character lie……..to a polygraph machine? That’s very bad.

    I wonder if they’re setting 5 in Russia to have a winter feel? The first films happening around Christmas were a big part of the whole thing for me, and there wasn’t really anything to replace that aspect in the next two.

  30. Die Hard 4 (I refuse to mention the actual title, which is too stupid for words) wasn’t bad but the PG-13 rating meant that it lacked the piss and vinegar that made it a Die Hard movie. It almost felt like you were watching it on TBS with all the good parts cut out. Hopefully 5 will be R rated and not have a stupid title.

  31. I’m going to second the choice of Ian McShane as the bad guy. One of the problems with Die Hard 4 (and to a lesser extent 2) was the absence of a really great villain. I felt like Timothy Olyphant was completely wasted in that film. Although, I’ve never been a huge fan of Olyphant’s film work. But he absolutely kills it when he’s on television. My guess is that it’s less about the medium than it is about the material.

  32. Yeah let’s not even get into how he beats the shit out of the maitre’ d at the restaurant. Seagal’s character in The Glimmer Man is definitely one of his most unlikable. (Alot of my friends argue he’s ALWAYS unlikable)

    Stu – I definitely hope they bring the Christmas vibe back. I did like Die Hard 3 better than 2, but 2 definitely feels more “canon” to me – the almost real-time feeling, the returning supporting characters, the somewhat enclosed setting, etc… 3 and 4 really do feel like “action movies with Bruce Willis” rather than true Die Hard movies.

  33. That Stephen Toblowsky story is a must-read for any Seagalogist, thanks Dan. I guess that probably explains a lot about that movie.

  34. It would indeed be disappointing news if they go with Moore. Hopefully the fact that none of his Fox movies were actual hits will disuade them. Refn would be an awesome choice to do a dialogue-light, all self-explanatory visuals/acting Die Hard. They wouldn’t let him do it that way though and Refn is so badass he wouldn’t accept it.

    Of course I’d support Joseph Kahn. He’d do crazy shit with it and keep it Die Hard. I don’t think Lin is actually a good director. The Fast movies seem to work despite him. If you see Annapolis or Finishing the Game… man, oh man.

    But it’s a studio franchise and it’ll be at least 5 years by the time the next one comes out and that’s about when Willis wants to do ’em. I think Live Free is great and we probably only get one great one a decade or so.

  35. I have only seen Better Luck Tomorrow, Toky Drive, Fast and Furious, Fast Five, and his episodes of Community and I think he’s a pretty good director. This may be one of those cases where I’ve managed to miss all of his bad films. Even still, he managed to take the Fast and Furious franchise and rejuvenate it. I don’t think Tokyo Drift was going to automatically be good. I don’t know, I’m thinking Lin can be held responsible for action scenes that are comprehensible and exciting, fun character moments that can be funny, and everything else I love about the Fast and Furious movies.

    I would much rather see M Night and Bruce Willis Unbreakable 2 than another Die Hard.

    Actually, to merge another topic but I would be curious to see what Burton or someone like M Night would do with a new Die Hard movie.

  36. Is there any possibility that this will be better than the fourth Die Hard? It doesn’t seem very likely unless they studio take some risks in hiring the director, and doesn’t hire a hack like John Moore.

    Speaking of Die Hard 4, anyone seen this interview with Len Wiseman about the Total Recall remake: http://collider.com/len-wiseman-total-recall-underworld-awakening-interview/106992/. Three breasted lady, but a PG-13 rating (not surprising with the $200 million budget). I don’t know what to think about this. I think the pleasure of Total Recall are the great one liners and the over the top violence. Love Verhoevens use of blood squibs. It’s pure art. Also no Richter, but I love Bryan Cranston so it’s not all doom and gloom. But this film seem to be more Sci-fi version of Bourne Identity, where Quaid knows martial arts, instead of brutally gunning down the goons in glorious fashion. Die Hard 1-3 also had some great squibs work. Damn, I really miss the use of squibs. Even when it’s R, it’s more use of CGI then squibs.

  37. Hey, business is business. You use a blog, they use a studio, what’s the difference? Let’s put it in my terms, you’re in an environment hostile to good bad ass cinema, you snatch up the audience for some green mail, but you’re not expecting some poison pill to be running around the script and behind the camera, am I right? Vern, *booby* there is no white knight.

  38. I think going to Russia is stupid, as is pairing him with his son. I’d prefer something grittier and a more contained setting (like parts 1 and 2). The more expansive and cartoonish it gets, the less interested I am. Even part 1 had some pretty unbelievable, ridiculous moments, but the conceit of him being confined to the building, trying to wiggle his way around made it work. Once you have him romping all over the place, crashing his car into helicopters, etc., I think the Die Hard identity is pretty much lost. How about somebody actually putting together a decent, original action film script for Bruce (doesn’t even have to be a Die Hard), rather than a cynical attempt to squeeze blood from this dying franchise.

  39. On the TOTAL RECALL nonsense – if they’re supposedly trying to be closer to the original story shouldn’t they be calling it WE CAN REMEMBER IT FOR YOU WHOLESALE? Or preferably just going away and not doing it at all. And if they really must remake a film with a multi breasted lady, the rights to THE WARRIOR AND THE SORCERESS are probably going pretty cheaply, and the lady has FOUR breasts.

    I think what I’m really saying is that there are plenty of PKD stories that no ones made bad films of yet, they should use one of those instead of one of the few that’s actually been done well (even if the film bears not much relation to the actual PKD original story).

  40. Wasn’t the Warrior and The Sorceress just Yojimbo in fantasy setting? David Carradine read the script, and asked “isn’t this Yojimbo?”.

    I just listened to the audio version of We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, and it was only an hour long, but the only thing they have taken from that short story that was not in the film, was that he never went to Mars. He has a wife, but it never says that she worked against him, she just left when he started to loose it after visiting Total Recall. Characters like Cohaagan and Melina are all from the film, and the same with Kuato. Len Wiseman is a really big fan of the original and will put in a lot of nods to the original,with three breasted lady being one of does nods.

    Also they will only use story that has a build in audience. Len Wiseman has tried to get his own original science fiction project going, but it’s almost impossible to get something original going that hasn’t a built in audience if you are not Christopher Nolan or Steven Spielberg.

    I don’t know if there is any PKD story that has such a brand name as the story that has been made to film. There is a reason why 95% of studio films sucks because there is so many cooks wanting there ideas into the film. There is usually between 4 and 20 executives that has to approve a project before the studio president has to give his approval. And usually these executives disagrees about what is a good film, and most of them are stupid (because a lot of them have business degree and something unrelated to film). So if there isn’t a strong producer or director behind the project it usually becomes a compromise of a lot of contradicting ideas. I think the only studio that actually works on a creative level is Pixar as they don’t fire their writers at the first sign of something not working. Also the writers for Pixar doesn’t have big star like Bruce Willis to take notes from, and if they don’t do the notes they get fired.

    How many writers worked on Live Free Or Die Hard? 20? That film had so many writers that got hired, fired, then re-hired that it was ridiculous. It seems one of does writer Skip Woods is going to write the script for the fifth film. I think Skip is the writer that Kevin Smith refers to in his story about working on Die Hard 4, the writer he thought was Bruce Willis bodyguard, but he was Bruce Willis’ own personal writer (who directed the Thursday and wrote Swordfish and Hitman). A lot of the stars have their own writer that they bring into their new films to fix them (even thought there is usually not a problem).

  41. a PG-13 Total Recall? yikes and here I was somewhat excited for it

    man, what’s the deal with bloody violence almost totally disappearing from action movies? even the occasional R rated ones use really looking CGI blood (like The Expendables)

    Quentin Tarantino is the only modern filmmaker that does R rated violence right

    I know this is probably gonna make me seem demented, but damn would I love someone to make a bloody and gory as fucking hell action movie, I’m talking pushing the envelope

    has the MPAA become more conservative?

  42. I could think of a couple scenarios this could go down…

    1) Son gets kidnapped in the beginning of the movie. McClane fights Universal Soldiers and has to save his son before van damme does.

    2) McClane kicks ass in Russia, makes his transformation to Mr. Church for fear of people finding out who he is. Introduces himself to the expendables and drives away in that scene from the gorillaz video.

    3) Son is in the die hard situation where he gets advice from dad who is on his way there to save him. A possible passing of torch to continue on without Bruce Willis (Say it ain’t so I know, but you know FOX). Son will probably get casted by some new hot face that was chris pine two years ago. Quite possibly that battleship dude since i’ve never heard of him and everyone says good things. Might even put Jeremy Renner since hes involved with everything action for the next few years. At the end, Bruce willis gives his son a golden watch for Christmas.

    4) FOX tries to make another Die Hard movie with mediocre directors. McClane finds out and tries to shutdown the operation before the world to see and goes without a loss of credibility. Die Hard or Pull the Plug.

    5) 2012 happens and we never live to see it.

    Possible Badguys

    1) Michael Fassbender – Gruber’s son and or crazy bad guy with accent. Also has magnetism as powers.
    2) Ian Mckellen – Gruber’s dad. Has a few expendables of his own that consist of an archer, a swordsman and some little guys with big feet. Also has magnetism as powers and escapes on a giant eagle
    3) Any actors that might have been in the Harry Potter besides Hans Gruber.
    4) Liam Neeson – It would be nice seeing him as a bad guy once in awhile.
    5) Danny Huston – a little obvious as a main villain, but I wouldn’t argue with it.

    Possible Right hand henchmen (Gotta have one of those. Also you gotta have them fight with a chain somehow at just to be consistent)

    1) Ray Stevenson. He just has it.
    2) Tom Hardy – Seems the go to guy at the moment.
    3) Jason Statham – Quite possibly because I just want to see them in a movie together. Might get confusing with the baldness.
    4) Scott Adkins – can’t go wrong on this one.
    5) The cast of Expendables.

    Possible Right hand guys to McClane besides his son.
    1) Idris Elba
    2) Clint Eastwood as McClane’s father. DIE HARD the LAST CRUSADE.
    3) Simon Pegg (love it or hate it but its probably going to end up there for comedic relief)
    4) Zeus and the avengers
    5) The cast of Expendables

  43. I endorse the idea of the son being a total failure, possibly still living at home. Spend the movie with McClane glowering at him with quiet disappointment.

    On a more serious note, I’d like to see Winstead back. She was the best part about 4. Hell, she acted more McClane than John McClane himself. Or maybe a spin-off. I’d watch that.

    I’m not really feeling the change of scenery to Russia, apart from bringing back the winter vibe. Maybe they should dig up the DIE HARD 24/7 idea they had, and team up McClane with Jack Bauer. Russia seems to be more in Bauer’s wheelhouse than McClane’s.

  44. Die Hard 5: The Legend of Curly’s Electric Boogaloo of Call New Orleans

  45. I actually kinda think there’s a chance Adkins would be a henchman in this. Kinda the Cyril Rafaelli role. He already has at least 3 movies practice on the Russian accent, too.

    I like the idea of Liam Neeson as the bad guy. I guess it can’t be Ed Harris, he already did The Rock. Somebody intense, I don’t know. I really hope they get somebody good. Olyphant is great but that wasn’t one of his better performances.

    They just better not bring back Kevin Smith’s character, unless the role is taken over by another director like Herzog or Harmony Korine.

  46. I wonder if casting Gary Oldman as the bad guy would be a sign of the franchise finally eating its own tail. After all, he played a Russian villain in Die-Hard-on-a-plane AIR FORCE ONE.

  47. Vern, Refn is a very talented guy, but he has never made a film that worked for me 100%. Case in point: Valhalla Raising has an amazing 1st half, then becomes a total mess on the 2nd half. He is never going to get this gig, all of his previous flicks are more or less arthouse movies.

    Moore’s Behind Enemy Lines is actually a lot of fun and has some kickass action sequences. It’s his best film, I think.

  48. If they’re making a new Die Hard movie then they should do it without John McClane. (They practically did in the last two movies anyway.) They’d also better lose the whole plot about “thief fakes a terrorist attack to mask diabolical giant heist plan”.

    Actually, come to think of it, the best “Die Hard” movie I could imagine for this era would be one that has practically nothing in common with the first three movies except a walk-on cameo by Bonnie Bedelia. Not that I’m saying any of them are bad films as such, but that ship has sailed LONG ago. The original movie was easily one of the best movies of the genre of its era, if not THE best, but all efforts to turn that into a franchise have pretty much failed IMO. Again, I don’t think the last three movies are BAD (although long parts of #3 and #4 left me bored stiff.) I just don’t see any reason for them to be.

    Or to put it another way: if you’re going to create an artistically successful franchise (as opposed to just a financially successful one, which unfortunately “Die Hard” has been up until now) you have to expand the universe the main characters live in and come up with new and interesting ways to use them, while keeping in the “essence” of whatever made the original film popular enough to start a franchise in the first place. “Die Hard” has done the exact opposite – it’s rehashed the exact same plot four times now with progressively less-interesting villains and setups, yet none of the sequels seem to “get” why the first movie worked so well.

    Question is, would ANY decent director with an artistic soul want to be attached to this project? It seems like the kind of thing that’s designed for a “hack”.

  49. I haven`t seen DRIVE yet, but Refn is a very weird choice for a Die Hard movie. But, if there is anything he is good at, it`s hard r-rated violence, so who knows… I was very disapointed by Valhalla Rising, it seemed like a poor Stalker rip-off who didn`t earn its spiritual ending. And I later learned that the original script actually had several fights between the natives and one-eye, culminating in a big battle where he sacrifices his life for the boy, but it all got cut out because of a tight budget.

    Anyway, Refn made Pusher 1-3 and for that he`ll always have a big star in my book. Great crime-movies with great scripts and great acting. Also, I was an extra in Pusher 2 and what did I learn from that amazing experience? Mads Mikkelsen is a really nice guy and Refn was more interested in driving the bus than directing the climatic scene of the movie.

  50. When I think about, it seems impossible to recreate the magic of Die Hard. The movie is a classic because the hero was a fish out of water, a normal guy facing and overcoming incredible obstacles. As soon as John Mcclane had proven his worth, he seized to be a normal guy and became some sort of superhero. And the more invinsible he becomes, the less exciting are the movies. (2-4 are pretty good actionmovies, but they never rocked my world like the original.)

  51. dna – that’s the exact reason why none of the Die Hard sequels have really worked, because McClane’s character arc ended

    it’s also the same reason why none of the Matrix sequels worked

    how about a Die Hard in a shopping mall with an average (but hot) suburban mom who has to step up and kick ass when terrorists take over the mall? (and think the Mall of America, not your average one)

  52. DNA and Griff – absolutely agree. Also I LOVE the “suburban Mom in a shopping mall” movie, but I’m sure I’ve seen it somewhere. A movie about a mall flooding after hours with a serial killer disguised as a security guard, anybody?

  53. As many of you have already implicitly pointed out, there have been many, many DIE HARD movies that don’t feature John McClane (or Bruce Willis). Why make another one?

    Like if MAD MAX 4: FURY ROAD does not have Max … well, we’ve seen that.

    … The Seagal story from the AV Club completely explains why GLIMMER MAN is one of his worst. (But at least he did his own voice stunts in it.)

  54. DocZ – to put it another way, why NOT make another one? Couldn’t be any more pointless than the last two.

    The very fact that there’s such a trope as the “Die Hard” movie, though, shows just how little innovation there’s been in these movies since the first one. The standard stuff is all there.

  55. Is there a reason why people don’t like 3?

    I saw it when I was ten and I think it really opened up my mind to action movies at a really young age besides other die hard-ish action movies (SPEED) and the original DIE HARD. Maybe if I had seen Braveheart at the time instead (which I still haven’t seen) things would’ve been different. For me it is the only true sequel to die hard in terms of feel (thanks to Mctiernan) and the only one I can seem to watch apart from the original (also thanks to Mctiernan). I really can’t stand part 2 for some reason and part 4 was slightly better than I expected but not worth watching or good enough to be considered a DIE HARD for me. The whole time I was watching the Dark Knight all I could think of was “WITH A VENGENCE” and I think thats one of the reasons I liked it even more besides me being a fan of batman.

    It also adds to the theory that if any sequel starting with part 2 goes bad, part 3 automatically takes the spot as the better sequel. But if part 2 is already the best, then you can expect 3 to go bad. Which causes my fear for the TDK Rises to go bad, grow even worse.

  56. What baffles me most is that the list of 4 or so directors above is the best they can come up with? Seriously, Bruce knows the value of a good director, and from his many interesting choices in the past seems to enjoy being challenged by one (Gilliam, Tarantino, Shyamala before he turned shit, etc). It just baffles me how he seems to go on autopilot for his most beloved ‘legacy’ films. If they can’t have McTiernan doing the sequels, why can’t Die Hard be more like the Mission Impossible movies, and have an interesting director do each other movie, stamping a different identity on each one, but within the overall framework of ‘badassness’.

    But instead, the options he/they come up with are….Wiseman? Moore? Lin? WHO???? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they can direct, but they are steady-hack-hands, with hardly an ounce of personality to their films….nothing more. At least Ratners’s turds are so bad that, in a sense, that becomes their/his mark.

    These movies are DIE HARD movies for christs sake Bruce?? They don’t have to just be big pay-days for you…..they can be great. I’m not saying you need to get an Aronofsky (although, that would be awesome), but at least someone with some flavour and identity! Paul Verhoeven, Wolfgang Peterson (especially with a claustrophobic building context), Jon Favreau (to a much lesser extent), JJ Abrams….

  57. Jareth Cutestory

    August 3rd, 2011 at 9:59 am

    I wonder if Willis favoring Wiseman over McTiernan is all that different from Robbie Robertson or Eric Clapton hiring some young guy to lay down hip hop beats on a late-career album rather than bringing in Jim Keltner or Steve Jordan for a more familiar, classic feel.

    Aging musicians are notorious for trying to tap into the youthful energy of the day, usually with pretty awful results. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if pitch meetings for movies followed a similar train of thought.

    No offence to anyone who likes Jagger’s “Let’s Work.”

  58. Rewrite – I’ll tell you the exact moment that “Die Hard 3” lost it for me. Up to a point it was doing great. Sam L., Harlem, the opening scenes, the first few bombs, etc… all that was good for me. I think the opening of this film is great; I have zero complaints with it.

    Then Simon Gruber enters the fray, John McClane and the stupidly-named Hey-Zeus (it’s Jesus! Gettit?) cease to have any personality whatsoever and became standard action movie tough guys doing shit that I didn’t care about, the plot takes a turn to the left side of loopy and expects us to be surprised even though the previous two movies had done the EXACT same thing, etc, etc. It even had the exact same finale as Die Hard 2 (John McClane surprises the villains as they make their escape and kills them by blowing up their transport).

    The new Gruber is like the old Gruber but without the personality – Jeremy Irons does his least entertaining work in this film IMO, at least in “Dungeons and Dragons” he manages to entertain by sheer overacting camp. In this one he’s just boring, he’s never a credible physical threat, and he never convinces as a “mastermind”. John McClane ceases to be John McClane and turns into your standard Action Hero On A Vendetta. In fact, that to me describes the second half of the film to a T – it’s the same as Die Hard, but without the personality, charm or wit.

    A pity, because as I said, I really liked the pre-Gruber bits. But it just blows it the second the villain enters the picture.

  59. Oh, and “Dark Knight Rises” is one of the very, very few films that I’ve let myself become optimistic for. Chris Nolan’s never let me down yet, nor has he ever made a film that I haven’t enjoyed. Some day it will probably happen, but not yet…

  60. Jareth, think you’re probably on the money there. Unfortunately. Just surprises me more with Willis, as he’s shown a really good creative streak for working with interesting people, and having a good finger on the zeitgeist. At least, he did in the 90’s…..guess that’s a pretty long time ago now..

  61. I would like to see someone like Spike Lee do Die Hardest. I really liked Inside Man and I think he could do a solid Die Hard movie.

  62. Jareth Cutestory

    August 3rd, 2011 at 10:37 am

    I’ve always wondered how difficult it was to get Willis involved in some of the more unexpected projects that he’s done TWELVE MONKEYS, SIXTH SENSE, BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS, ALLIE MCBEAL). There are enough of these films in his body of work for me to suspect that it’s something that he’s eager to try. But you also get a whole bunch of stuff like MERCURY RISING where he seems content to coast.

    But I agree that Willis’ choices seem much better informed than Harrison Ford’s. I mean, who passes on TRAFFIC?

  63. Rewrite – I completely agree with you. Die Hard 3 is the best of the sequels. I enjoy a lot about 2, despite all the winking at the camera (see, this is just like that other movie you liked, Die Hard 1). But for me McTiernan’s direction absolutely makes 3. A lot of people say that 3 discards the “trapped in a [blank]” premise of the Die Hard films, but the way that McTiernen shoots New York with the stifling heat and perpetual traffic jam, the city feels incredibly claustrophobic. New York serves as a much larger version of Nakatomi plaza. I also liked Irons as a villain much more than the naked karate guy from 2. One of the best scenes is when he takes the gun away from Jackson and then nonchalantly shoots him in the leg, all while casually eating an apple. The way that the film ties in with the first movie makes it a wonderful bookend. I really wish the series had ended there.

  64. McClane should have an eyepatch or a hook hand due to some damage sustained in an unseen adventure between films 4 and 5. Or he should have leprosy and be literally falling apart throughout the movie as it goes on.

  65. What about Viggo Mortensen as the villain? Not necessarily because he has played Russian before, but because he’s an intense and dedicated actor who hasn’t done a big villain role like that. I don’t think he would do it though.

  66. RBatty,

    “see, this is just like that other movie you liked, Die Hard 1”

    Ha, it’s so true. DH2 has really great action and a number of other things I love about it, but its screenplay is just so absurdly lazy. I would be the best of the sequels if it wasn’t for all the stupid “how does the same shit happen to the same guy twice” bullshit. The worst is probably William Atherton being on Bonnie Bedelia’s flight, like it was necessary to the story to have him show up again for no reason.

  67. If it had even a slightly more competent director and screenwriter, I would love for it to be Mortensen. He would make a great hateable bastard. But no matter how much money they throw at this I just can’t imagine it being epic enough to deserve that level of villainy.

  68. If they are going with a Russian as the villain I nominate Scott Adkins. Also, I think Vern has referenced it before so he may have seen it, but have any of you seen the evening with Kevin Smith where he talks about making COP OUT with Bruce. Based on Smith’s recounts I imagine it is going to be the director Bruce feels he can best influence/control that gets the job not necessarily the most deserving .

  69. I think it might be cool if for once the villain was someone McClane could relate to in someway. Same age, blue collar background and a few other things like a family of his own, only this is a guy who’s went in a totally different moral direction than him, rather than an elite smarmy douche that’s his complete opposite. A corrupt cop pulling off a heist or something that McClane blunders into. So a bit like 16 BLOCKS, but more Die Hardy(Die Hardish? Die Hardesque?).

  70. Yeah Stu, but that would require a strange little thing (for Hollywood anyway) called ‘subtlety’. I have a horrible feeling that Die Hard 4 set the trend: the only way they will make Die Hard 5 is bigger…..BIGger……BIGGER. Everything is going to be monumental, end of the world stakes. Surfing on a Jetfighter? In Die Hard 5, ‘you’ll believe a mid-50’s man can fly’. This is gonna stink, no question.

  71. And I’d be personally disappointed if Viggo Mortensen even farted near this movie, as the chances of it being any good are microscopic. That man has class.

  72. Stu, I could see McClane squaring off against a Russian version of himself. That could be good if done well.

    I will see this movie when it is released because it is a DIE HARD film, but I can’t see them coming up with a premise that will justify a 5th installment of the franchise. There has been so many variations on the DIE HARD theme over the years (UNDER SIEGE, SPEED, & SUDDEN DEATH) that I don’t know if there is any uncharted trails or new twists to explore in the DIE HARD rip off sub genre of action films. Actually, come to think of it I have a new twist on the DIE HARD theme. What if McClane dies at the beginning of DIE HARD 5, and his spirit travels to Heaven to rest in peace only to arrive at the pearly gates to find out that Heaven is under siege by evil forces lead by a rouge demon. McClane then has only 48 hours to save Jesus the other hostages and liberate the kingdom of God before Heaven is destroyed. Wrong place, wrong time, the story of McClane’s afterlife!

  73. “his son (not seen or mentioned in the series since he was a little kid)”

    Actually, Jack was mentioned in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, and from what I’ve read, Justin Long’s character was originally written as Jack.

  74. Come to think of it the demon could be working with the souls of all the dead DIE HARD villains McClane has killed off during the course of the franchise.

  75. Charles – didn’t McClane basically DO that in the original “Die Hard”? I mean, I know Karl Cold had a different fighting style and motivation and everything, but in the end, it was all about family for both men…?

  76. Jareth Cutestory

    August 3rd, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Charles: The only thing I would change about your awesome DIE HARD pitch is the part about Jesus. Instead of a hostage I think Jesus should be an escaped hostage who acts as McClane’s sidekick. Played by Luis Guzmán. Still the Son of God, but really pissed off.

  77. Jareth, good idea. Guzman as Jesus could also be the comic relief. Besides both Jesus and McClane are blue color men of the people, they will make a great team.

  78. As long as Godfrey Ho is not making DIE HARD 5, i don´t care as long as it turns out good. If it does not turn out good, then the fuckin´gloves are off!

  79. I DO have one request for the DH5. Bring back William Atherton as that scumbag journalist. He´s more comedy than Chris Tucker can muster in a year

  80. What if McClane inadvertently became the villain?

    Holding a Russion oligarch hostage because he’s brought down a bank/corporation/the world through corrupt business dealings.

    Or something.

    Plus, I must speak in defence of DIE HARD 4 – I find it much more tolerable than 3, despite Boba Fett/Kevin Smith. Come on, it has Raylan Givens / Seth Bullock as the bad guy, Cliff Curtis is always good value and the fight in the SUV was excellent. Plus there was the awesome stunt jum from building to fire escape – that was where I was sold and no fighter jet nonsense was going to totally spoil that.

    3 has giant multicoloured bombs.

  81. Actually, I wonder what McClane’s living conditions are now, since the villain in 5 if you remember wiped out his bank account and 401k. You can just imagine the bank screwing him over by saying they don’t have any records of his previous funds, so they can’t recoup his losses.

  82. What I got from the Tobolowsky article was that Seagal likes to sleep late. I like to sleep late. I must be cool like Seagal.

    I used to like Die Hard WITH A VENGEANCE but over the years it totally lost any excitement for me. The riddles and running around the city are so clunky, the editing is so bad that driving through the park and jumping on a subway aren’t even exciting.

    The Bruce pattern seems to be: Tentpole movie (a Die Hard or Armageddon), then 3-4 generic action movies (Surrogates, Cop Out, Red), maybe an artistic risk (Sixth Sense, Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys) then another tentpole to recharge his box office value. I kinda respect that.

  83. Since I’m resigned to the idea John’s son will be a comic relief character, I figure they might as well try and do something weird with it and cast Ashton Kutcher for that part.

  84. According to The Rock’s twitter, Bruce has joined the cast for GI JOE 2.

  85. why does that dumbass get to keep making movies? the Illuminati?

  86. I honestly cannot remember if I saw MAX PAYNE. Not a good sign.

  87. You know the phrase “Piece of Shit”. Well… Max Payne was a piece of a piece of a piece of shit.

    Having said that, I think Behind Enemy Lines is a solid flick so if Moore brings that level of competence, it may be OK.

  88. OK is not something a film with the words DIE and HARD in the title should ever aspire to being.

  89. I agree. I felt the same way about Terminator Salvation. It was “OK”. but who wants an OK Terminator movie?

  90. We were lucky to get a sequel as wonderful as Live Free or Die Hard. Now it’s time for another Die Hard 2. There’s a rumor that some people didn’t like Live Free or Die Hard. I disagree and feel it was awesome. Thank you for the existence of Live Free or Die Hard.

    Now, Moore seems like a guy who gets to keep making movies (exclusively at Fox) because he finishes them. There is a lot to be said for it. When they’re making a release date, they want to know the movie’s going to be done.

    I think for all Bruce’s talk about protecting the series and wanting to ally himself with hot young directors, he’s probably ready to do it now so they need to lock someone in. He said he watched Underworld with his daughter and thought Len Wiseman would bring something to Die Hard. That sounds like a great story for press conferences, but I really can’t picture Bruce on the couch with Rumer or Tallulah watching Underworld. I do think he knows enough that there are hot young directors and if he wants to stay vital, he should make movies with them. Worked out well with Tarantino and Shyamalan.

    I should be happy there will be another story featuring John McClane and Bruce Willis will run around and shoot terrorists. This would be Moore’s chance to really impress me, in that I have never liked one of his films and do not expect to ever, but I’m on board for Die Hard no matter what so here’s his chance. They could attach Uwe Boll and I’d have to see it, although that’s not a fair comparison because Uwe Boll’s Die Hard would also be awesome.

  91. Vern, somehow I feel you are partially responsible fore this:

    http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured

  92. Fred, I think I heard of that rumor, that some people didn’t like DIE HARD 4 too. It can’t be true, because the movie is so unbelievable damn fucking horrible, it’s very difficult to just “not like” it. It’s one of the few movies that I downright hate with the power of a thousand suns. And the fact that it has actually some very well done action scenes (that are in its conception way too over the top and cartoony for a DIE HARD movie though and would fit better in a xXx movie), make it even worse.

  93. I never can quite get over the fact that we´ve got a PG-13 DIE HARD, but what is even harder to swallow is the fact that it is not THAT terrible. I actually kind of liked it even though I hate it, I truly hate it at the same time. A like/really hate relationship if you will….

  94. Both the PG 13 and the unrated version are rated “16” here in Germany. Just a piece of useless international rating trivia.

  95. rated 15 here in sweden and we don´t have anything beyond that, no 16, 18 or Nc-17.
    If you are 15 years old in Sweden you can go see anything you want.

  96. living in a liberal country must be nice

  97. Yeah, we still got “18” and “JK approved” with either “soft” or “strong liability to corrupt the youth”. And even if your movie gets a “hard” JK approvement, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily uncut.

    (Below 16 we also got “12”, “6” and an equivalent to “G”. And since the 2nd Harry Potter movie was cut to achieve a “6” rating, the “12” has been changed to a “PG 12” [but in its meaning only. They didn’t change the name].)

  98. Just joshin!

    Looking forward to Chris Tucker playing the Russian sidekick though.

  99. CJ, Shoot, so the complaints that always come back are too over the top (since McClane got realistically hurt in DH1) and PG-13. Honestly, those are issues that I never associated with Die Hard and never bothered me. I don’t need McClane to say Fuck, I don’t need to see blood to know people are getting killed and the thrill of Die Hard 1 was never contingent on cutting his feet on glass. I know the action hero is going to live.

    Live Free or Die Hard is exactly what I wanted in a Die Hard movie. It’s fun, energetic, McClane in top hero form, a collection of mini-Die Hard scenarios (tunnel, elevator, freeway) and F-15 fighting a Mack truck. I’m sure there are tons of reasons one can think of to not like it, but none of those every occur to me while I’m watching it or thinking about how awesome it is.

    I’m sorry some people didn’t enjoy it. Maybe Die Hard 5 will be more to your liking. It’s a different tone for a different era. That’s certainly a valid approach to sequels with different directors.

  100. It’s like I always say: the original Die Hard and its first two sequels were never “realistic” (which movie is that anyway?), but “not cartoony”. Yes, each one of them had at least one crazy money shot, that even gets laughed at by the fans (McClane in the fountain in part 3 comes to mind), but part 4 just took things too far, with scenes were McClane takes out a helicopter by driving over hydrants and finally shooting a car at it (which causes one baddy to jump out and crashing on the asphalt face first, without even breaking a fingernail), surviving an explosion in a small apartment by just hiding in the room next door although just a few seconds ago he was able to punch a hole in the walls with his bare fist and finally the ridiculous Man Vs Jet fight, that ends with a bridge collapsing over McClane!

    Two more reasons to hate it:

    – The milktoast villain (oooh, he is sooo evil, because he turns off traffic lights and plays special effect clips on national television) who has exactly the same plan as the Gruber Brothers (“I’m a terrorist! Psych! I just wanna steal some money!”) and is played by a completely miscast Timothy Olyphant;

    – The useless Hacker sidekick, who spends most of the movie with doing nothing important and seems to be only there, so that McClane has a reason to save his life, whenever the kid runs through a dark tunnel or some shit like that. I’m not against giving McClane a sidekick, but getting from Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus Fucking Carver a.k.a. “BlackClane” to a whiny hacker stereotype, is just sad.

    Sorry man. I’m not slamming you for liking this movie. After all I bought just last month HOWARD THE DUCK and SUPER MARIO BROS on DVD, so who am I to judge other people’s taste in movies, but the only positive thing that I can say about DIE HARD 4.0, is that Len Wiseman seems to be a surprisingly capable action director. Who would have guessed that after his UNDERWORLD movies?

  101. For me, the DIE HARD sequels are a progression. If LFODH had been the first sequel, I would have thought it was way too over-the-top (although I probably would have loved it anyway–I’d have been 13 at the time and it had a motorcycle crashing into a helicopter), but the way had already been paved by DIE HARDER and WITH A VENGEANCE, each of which was exponentially more preposterous than the last. In keeping with that progression, I think clinging to McClane’s everyman status is ridiculous at this point. He might have started the series as just your average slob (if you can accept that your average slob happens to be a crack shot and has the nuts to jump off a skyscraper with a firehose wrapped around his waist), but his experiences have made him a full-fledged action hero. Hell, that’s even a theme that gets addressed in LFODH. He says he doesn’t want to be the guy who saves the day, but guess what? He is, and he needs to accept it. So do you, CJ.

  102. I accept it. Really. I just don’t accept that the world around him gets so fucking insane and he apparently became a superhero, whose power it is to dodge a collapsing bridge and shoot cars at helicopters!

  103. CJ Holden – I agree that “Die Hard 4” is by far the worst I’ve ever seen Timothy Olyphant. Although that’s not saying much, since I could barely IMAGINE a bad Olyphant performance before I saw that film. I’m a big big fan of his.

    I don’t hate any of the Die Hard sequels. Hell, if you except the last hour or so of DH3, I don’t think any of them are really that bad. But I do pity them a little. At least #2 had a genuinely surprising (to me) plot twist. But the villains (especially those in DH3 and DH4) were just awful. I don’t see the point of a Die Hard 5, and I don’t agree with the diehard (pun intended) fans who would see any sequel just because it’s got “Die Hard” in the name, then bitch about it for years on the Internet afterwards.

    In other words, save yourselves the pain, and the world your whining; ignore this little cash-in. Don’t spend your money, your time or your energy on it. Help put an end to this series once and for all. It should have been euthenised about twelve years ago, but it’s still not too late.

  104. That last part wasn’t just addressed to CJ, by the way. You can all benefit from my wisdom.

    Except Vern. I’m just about mean-spirited enough that I want to see Vern trash this worthless little cash-in with all the full force of his withering unflappability. But everyone else, let’s please ignore this shit. At least until it comes out on cable, then we can all bitch about it without having felt dirty because we spent money on the damn thing.

  105. I think Die Hard 2 and 3 tried approaches that just didn’t work. Put it in another building, no it’s not the same. Make him more of a drunk loser like the first time but no, that’s not quite right either. I think what Mr. Majestyk explains is exactly the right approach. Look, crazy shit happens and there’s nobody on earth who can deal with it except reluctant hero John McClane.

    My interest in franchises is, whether good or bad, they are a continuing story/phenomenon. So a bad Die Hard is still more interesting to me than something else. I happen to be quite pleased with John Rambo, Crystal Skull and Saw V. FWIW: I won’t be contributing to Die Hard 5’s box office, and if it sucks I will be publishing cautionary reviews to the public.

    I’m crazy Fred Topel! I like Lost World and Alien Resurrection and Memoirs of an Invisible Man!

  106. I sort a liked DIE HARD 4 as well, but I realised recently what would have made it better. If the hackers had included or been led by Theo, Hans tech guy from the first movie! I think he was only terrorist to survive the original and it would have made the lengths the hackers went to to try take McClane out a bit more believable if it was partly vengeance inspired.
    Or we could get a DIE HARD spinoff about Argyle being terrorised by Theo just when his own limo business is starting to take off.
    Or a US MARSHALLS type spinoff for the other cops from McClane’s precinct, dealing with a crisis because he’s off sick with chickenpox.
    Or a heartwarming drama about Zeus ensuring his nephews stay on the right path(and away from white people, because they never really addressed his racism in WITH A VENGEANCE).
    Or a chick flick about Bonnie going on vacation overseas to find herself and come to terms with the end of her marriage, without the hassle of terrorists fucking things up.
    Or POWELL, about one man stepping back on the streets to clean them up, and find a good twinkie.
    Or GRUBER TO GRUBER, the tragic tale of how a young Hans and Simon went bad.
    Or SHE’S OUT OF MY LEAGUE 2, about Justin Long’s character and Lucy McClane.
    Time to expand the DIE HARD UNIVERSE.

  107. ^Holly, not Bonnie. And on the subject of Powell, anyone else here watch CHUCK? Because they did a DIE HARD homage episode and he was in it. So DIE HARD exists in the same fictional universe as CHUCK, which can be very cartoony.

  108. CJ and Shoot, a question to you: If they had changed the name to HUDSON HAWK RETURNS and referred to Bruce as Eddie Hawkins, would that make it the best movie of all time? I think it would.

  109. You zinged them good, Fred. Nicely done. But what would Eddie say instead of “Yippee ki-yay, motherfucker”?

  110. Not even meant to be a zing, though now that I reflect on it, I’ll take credit for it. That was pretty clever.

    But if I have an actual point, it is the issue of tone. We all agree we love Hudson Hawk, right? And America didn’t get it but we did. So Die Hard is supposed to have a certain tone, but a Die Hard sequel comes out that’s more the tone of a different beloved movie. Why not just love it as if it were the second movie?

    I’m probably thinking about it too much. Fact is I just responded to Live Free and no issues ever crossed my mind. But hey, if HUDSON HAWK RETURNS makes it okay, let’s start enacting this policy on other franchises. And Eddie says it because he saw it in a movie once, of course. The same movie Jimmy Monroe never saw. Ooh, I’m so meta.

  111. Y’know, you are up to something. While 4.0 would be as disappointing as a HUDSON HAWK sequel as it is as DIE HARD one, there ARE moments that would totally work in it. (With minor re-writes) Like the punching through the wall, the helicopter Vs the flying car, the Kevin Smith cameo (Although every time Smith ends a sentence, Hawk should punch him and say: “Oh, I’m sorry, what did you say? I wasn’t listening.”) or when the Parkour guy falls into a shredder, that is just there for no apparent reason.
    I think it would be much easier to turn that script into a HH sequel than to make it work as a DH one.

  112. Stu – the sad thing is that most of those movies you’ve come up with would probably be more interesting than the actual Die Hard 5 is going to be.

    To re-enact DH4 as a “Hudson Hawk” sequel is to miss the point completely, which is to make oodles of money from very silly people who think that being a “fan” of the original means buying, watching, renting or eating** anything and everything that is released with the “Die Hard” name and logo on it, no matter how tenuous the connection is to the original “Die Hard”. (And let’s face it folks, “Die Hard 4″‘s connection was pretty damn tenuous.)

    **I am referring, of course, to the famous movie tie-in: “Die Hard” packed lunches for your kids. Marketed with the tagline: “Now I have a burrito! Ho ho ho!”

  113. Wow, Paul. Fantastic marketing pun. I only just realized that “burrito” has exactly the same number of syllables as “machine gun.” Well done, sir.

  114. Just a trailer, but actually looks promising.

    Ah hell, I’m just happy that despite a shitty economy and that awful debate last night and crazy assholes blowing shit up against our will, we’re getting a new DIE HARD movie. Thank you Jesus.

  115. Man it looks like they’re going to continue with this John McClane as a Superman shit from part 4

    I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand that the appeal is that the odds are always against him and he has to put his ass through hell to overcome these threats at least in the first 3. It’s why it’s called Die Hard in the first place and not Kill Easily.

    Granted I enjoyed part 4 more than I expected to since I had no expectations for it but I haven’t seen it since the cinema and it’s definitely the most forgettable movie in the series. To continue building up from it’s blueprint is not really the direction I hoped to see further entries take. It’s going to be weird to not see a DH movie in the summer too.

    I hope it at least has decent villains and surprises by being a pretty solid movie like the other odd numbered entries in this franchise but that trailer did nothing to get me excited. Bruce just looks like he really doesn’t care about the character anymore. It doesn’t even feel like McClane just feels like another generic Bruce Willis character from one of his lesser movies.

  116. “Man it looks like they’re going to continue with this John McClane as a Superman shit from part 4 ”
    Ehhh, the trailer was a bit choppy in that format for me, but I didn’t see enough to assume that. Just that he gets into a lot of crazy situations, which he always does.

    “007 of Plainfield New Jersey”? They’re just ripping off Vern’s “James Bond for OUR people” into to the DIE HARD 2 review!
    http://outlawvern.com/1999/12/21/die-hard-2/

  117. Stu – The scale of the action certainly seems to be similar to LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. It’s pretty obvious that this is it’s follow up if you know what I mean as oppose to a DIE HARD movie. I mean DIE HARD has been changing it’s stripes since part 3 so that’s all good.

    I’m gonna go see it anyway but it definitely looks more Jack Bauer than John McClane. We’ll see. I think that line they used may be referring to his son & not McClane himself since the son is supposed to be some badass that gets himself into the shit in Russia.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <img src=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <b> <i> <strike> <em> <strong>