MOVIES: Live Free or Die Hard

[P-Ray]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=8289

Short Bruce Willis interview!

[Justin]

I'll be interested. The Die Hard movies (with the exception of part 2) rock.

[Javen]

I would. If the story is good.

[RollaFett]

The first one is in my top 20 movies of all time. The sequels, however, never did much for me and I can't say I'm excited about this news, either.

[Virus]

I love the first and 3rd one and the second is just alright. But please don't do a 4th.

This is another prime example as to why Hollywood is fresh out of ideas. They are in big trouble with originality

[DarthAnakin]

I'd definitely watch it, probably won't be the best one, but still good.

[Cassus Fett]

@Virus, after this its another Rocky film and a new Indianne Jones film. It just proves your point once again!

[Master Zeary]

Another Rocky and indianna jones movie in the works won't that be fun. Same with James bond. But Die Hard...well if they do a forth one it will die hard. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohwell.gif

[Virus]

^not with James Bond. That is completely different anyway. Plus every James Bond movie that stars a new Bond character is always A+ material. But thats another thread...

As for unorginal ideas, this one goes right to the top. All it is is a paycheck for Willis and the producers of the movie. Lets not forget that McTerien (sp) directing is desperate for a hit movie since he hasn't had one in over a decade.

[Soontir Solo]

I really have no interest in another Die Hard. The first one is a classic but after that they weren't all that good.

[bluemilk]

hell yeah I would still be interested! After Star Wars OT and PT, LOTR and Indy, Die Hard is my favourite trilogy style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wub.gif

[Krail]

Hello, everybody!

I seriously doubt it, as Bruce Willis is kinda too old now........

[Justin]

How so?

[RollaFett]

There's no way he's too old. Hell, you do realize that Indy 4 is in the works, right? Harrison Ford is over 60, for crissake!

[Master Zeary]

gollaFett makes a good point. Word for another Rocky is out and how old is Stallon? Besides how long ago was it that Bruce did "the whole ten yards"? Its not like He can't do another movie. Another Die Hard is no exception.

[Soontir Solo]

I agree, Bruce isn't that old. He did Tears of the Sun like 2 years ago and that had alot of action in it.

[RollaFett]

Hell, Clint Eastwood did 'In the LIne of Fire" in '94 and he was what? 70?

[RollaFett]

Ok, I just checked, he was 65.

[Master Zeary]

See there we have it. He can do another one.... the question is should he? And that is what this thread is all about. Am I wrong?

[P-Ray]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=8482

[Justin]

Die Hard 4.0? That's pretty lame.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Justin@Feb 24 2005, 07:00 AM
Die Hard 4.0? That's pretty lame.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Nothing gets lamer than Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

[TuskenRaider1]

Eh, id see it. Willis says it has nothing much to do with the previous 3 other than that McClain is retired, and it has something to do with computers. Of couse, even with lame titles, #s 2 and 3 were fun to watch for what they were...

[smudger9]

They should leave it at three films otherwise its gonna be another alien resurrection..... absolute garbage.

[empire21]

lost interest a long time ago.

[Cassus Fett]

Originally posted by Virus@Feb 14 2005, 01:36 AM
^not with James Bond. That is completely different anyway. Plus every James Bond movie that stars a new Bond character is always A+ material. But thats another thread...

As for unorginal ideas, this one goes right to the top. All it is is a paycheck for Willis and the producers of the movie. Lets not forget that McTerien (sp) directing is desperate for a hit movie since he hasn't had one in over a decade.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I think the new James Bond films are getting really crap now

Originally posted by Mann+Feb 24 2005, 04:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Feb 24 2005, 04:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Justin@Feb 24 2005, 07:00 AM
Die Hard 4.0?* That's pretty lame.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Nothing gets lamer than Die Hard 2: Die Harder.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Well what about the next three Terminator films that they are talking about, its going to be staring the rock and maybe a little bit from Arnie.

[smudger9]

I thought Arnie had opted out of acting now that he has gone into politics. Id actually quite like to see another terminator... I thought 3 was actually quite good.... but it wouldnt be the same without Arnie as the main dude.

[RollaFett]

The first "Die Hard" was a classic, period. The sequels were watchable, but not much more. I've never seen either of them more than once, while I own the original on DVD. Just a truly terrific action film.

[P-Ray]

Even though the first Die Hard movie was the best, I thought the next two were valient tries.

Most sequels rarely live up to the original.

[P-Ray]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=9176

4.0 gets a director!

[Virus]

I agree with some earlier posts, this has to be the lamest title ever

[bluemilk]

Die Hard 4.0..

I like it style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ok.gif

[RollaFett]

Yeah, I really don't mind the title at all. It seems as though it's going to have computers involved in the plot, so why not?

[Mann]

Originally posted by Virus@Apr 17 2005, 01:58 AM
I agree with some earlier posts, this has to be the lamest title ever
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


You don't get much lamer as "Die Hard 2: Die HARDER"

Edit: lol I knew I felt like i was repeating myself!

[Virus]

i think its a tie

[P-Ray]

Looks like this is still a go!



http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?a...38&obj_id=51309 (http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=51309)

[P-Ray]

Len Wiseman wants to direct.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14775

[Virus]

I have faith that this will be a decent movie but it is coming out 10 years too late

[DblDwn]

McClane coming out of retirement to stop Internet Terrorists.

I can already see the beginning of the movie. John's online chatting with Holly via IM, trying desperately to get her to take him back, when all of a sudden Kaiser Wilhelm Gruber, Han's long lost separated siamese twin, emails John that he's very upset that John has now killed two of his brothers and he is going to take it out on the Information Super Highway.

I'll still go see it though.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by DblDwn@Jun 1 2006, 07:45 AM
McClane coming out of retirement to stop Internet Terrorists.

I can already see the beginning of the movie. John's online chatting with Holly via IM, trying desperately to get her to take him back, when all of a sudden Kaiser Wilhelm Gruber, Han's long lost separated siamese twin, emails John that he's very upset that John has now killed two of his brothers and he is going to take it out on the Information Super Highway.

I'll still go see it though.
Quoted post

:rofl:

[P-Ray]

Possible spoilers and script info!

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=23479

[empire21]

^Thats pretty long, I think i'll save it for work tomorrow :)

[BomarrPunk]

I will give anyone who can make this not happen $1000

[DblDwn]

So now at the prospect of $1000 we can all live out our Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back fantasies and go to Hollywood to stop a movie from being made.

Snoogins!!!!!

[Virus]

funny how people want to bash this but Indy 4 is gonna be great and is alright to do.

[DblDwn]

I'm not bashing. I'm simply making jokes about the possible horrendous storyline of the film.

Indy 4 is different because with George, Steven and Harrison you still have the same 3 that started it all so you know they have a sense of quality in their product. Evident by the fact that they have put it off for so long until they can all agree on a script (and they are all available of course). Whereas the Die Hard franchise may still have Bruce but that is about it that ties it to the original. And don't get me wrong, I think the original is one of the greatest action movies of all time. As a matter of fact I watched an hour of it this morning on Showtime or whatever channel it was on. I even tried to pass it off as a Christmas film to my girl last December so we could watch it. And while Die Harder and .....With A Vengence were no where near as well done as the original they were both entertaining action films in their own right and I am stressing the word entertaining here. I'm just afraid that they're going to overdo it and we're going to end up with Jaws:Revenge.

[P-Ray]

Scott Speedman may be villian in Die Haed 4.0!

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?a...38&obj_id=51406 (http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=51406)

[BomarrPunk]

Originally posted by P-Ray@Jun 2 2006, 05:27 PM
Scott Speedman may be villian in Die Haed 4.0!

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?a...38&obj_id=51406 (http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=51406)
Quoted post



OK make it $2000

[RollaFett]

Originally posted by DblDwn@Jun 1 2006, 08:45 AM
McClane coming out of retirement to stop Internet Terrorists.

I can already see the beginning of the movie. John's online chatting with Holly via IM, trying desperately to get her to take him back, when all of a sudden Kaiser Wilhelm Gruber, Han's long lost separated siamese twin, emails John that he's very upset that John has now killed two of his brothers and he is going to take it out on the Information Super Highway.

I'll still go see it though.
Quoted post


Well that's because you're money and you do know it, baby!

[Virus]

I'm surprised I havent seen this question asked but will Bruce Willis be bald in this movie or have a toupee on?

[Cassus Fett]

So which Disastor Movie will Die Hard 4 be based on...


Die Hard was Towering Inferno
Die Hard: Die Harder was an Airplane Disastor Movie
Die Hard: With a Vengeance was Cityscape Style Disastor Movie (cant think of an example)

[BomarrPunk]

^ I'll guess Box Office disaster.

[Cassus Fett]

^ nice.. lol

[P-Ray]

Casting news!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=15755

[DblDwn]

So which Disastor Movie will Die Hard 4 be based on...


Die Hard was Towering Inferno
Die Hard: Die Harder was an Airplane Disastor Movie
Die Hard: With a Vengeance was Cityscape Style Disastor Movie (cant think of an example)

If it is in fact internet terrorists then I'm guessing the disaster movie is The Net. :)

[mattypo]

yeah that film was a complete disastor:D

[JackBauer24]

Exclusive scoop: Die Hard 5 will be based on "Dude, where's my car?" and will cement that freaky relationship that Bruce Willis has with Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore in a long threesome scene without Demi present...

[P-Ray]

LIVE FREE or DIE HARD will open June 29, 2007

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=15824

[Virus]

is that really the title? oh boy

[P-Ray]

is that really the title? oh boy
At this point!

[empire21]

Another bad title.

[P-Ray]

Another bad title.

Yeah, that's a little diffrerent. I understand what they are trying to do but...

[P-Ray]

some casting news!
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16621

[kopernikuz]

Another bad title.

It could be called "Die Hard Eat Sh*%" and I'd still be first in line to see it... lol

[RollaFett]

That's the 3rd title at this point, right?

[P-Ray]

First images!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30241

[empire21]

Cool thanks P-Ray

Now I feel like watching Die Hard today, I just still can't believe there going with that title :p

[P-Ray]

Cool thanks P-Ray

Now I feel like watching Die Hard today, I just still can't believe there going with that title :p
No prob!

Yeah, that may change b4 the release;) but I doubt it:)

[kopernikuz]

You'd prefer... "Die Hard: With Motherf&*ng Snakes on a Plane"? :P

[empire21]

You'd prefer... "Die Hard: With Motherf&*ng Snakes on a Plane"? :P

LOL!!!

[P-Ray]

Jeffrey Wright to Die Hard!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16785

[empire21]

Jeffrey Wright to Die Hard!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16785

Cool.

I actually ended up watching the first Die Hard on the weekend and I forgot how good that movies was, now it's got me more than ready for the new one. I think i'll watch the other 2 this weekend.

[RollaFett]

Dammit, now they cast the always excellent Jefferey Wright?! I'm gonna have to see this, aren't I?

[JackBauer24]

Dammit, now they cast the always excellent Jefferey Wright?! I'm gonna have to see this, aren't I?

It's drawing you in...

[RollaFett]

Well, I didn't see the 3rd one until it was on video, so I am capable of resistance.

[JackBauer24]

Resistance is useless!

[P-Ray]

Resistance is useless!
Isn't it futile?:D

[JackBauer24]

Futile is from Star Trek
Useless is from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[P-Ray]

Futile is from Star Trek
Useless is from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Thanx for clearing that up!;)

[P-Ray]

Baddie casting!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30461

[empire21]

Arghhh, how can you go from Jeremy freaking Irons to this guy.

[RollaFett]

To be fair, it has been over a decade since Irons. And that dude being cast is the least of my worries at this point.

[TAGLINE]

Jeffery Wright is a terrific actor, a true cameleon. Take a look at his villian role in SHAFT, and then his innocent role in Broken Flowers...nothing alike.

Can we change the thread title to Live Free and Die Hard?

[RollaFett]

^ I don't think he was referring to Wright. And you're right, he's a damn fine actor.
As far as the title of the thread goes, isn't it bad enough that we know what the title is? Why do we have to actually see it displayed here?! Ugh.

[P-Ray]

trailer!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=18003

[empire21]

Cool, wasn't expecting to see that today. :bigsmile:

Thanks for the link, P-Ray.

[JackBauer24]

I dunno...I've got a bad feeling about this one.

[P-Ray]

Cool, wasn't expecting to see that today. :bigsmile:

Thanks for the link, P-Ray.
My pleasure!:wink: :bigsmile:

[Virus]

Yawn but im still somewhat interested.....too bad this film is 6 years too late

[Darth Octavious]

Well at least it has the Mac kid

[Master Cephus]

I just didn't see that John McClain grit...

[JackBauer24]

Well at least it has the Mac kid

You mean the kid from those annoying, arrogant Mac commercials?

[kopernikuz]

Well at least it has the Mac kid
Yeah, if they did commercials like that with McClaine as PC, I'd be buying a PC dude... wimpy Mac, lol.

[Talcy]

I love Die Hard.

This looks rubbish.

[P-Ray]

I love Die Hard.

This looks rubbish.
How can U tell?

[Talcy]

Just a feeling in my bones. I have a bad feeling about this movie and I dislike Len Wiseman as a filmmaker. The title is awful. The trailer told me nothing except lots of action shots that look like more of the Matrix-esque crap Wiseman tried to pull off in the Underworld films.

As I said, I think it looks rubbish.

[TAGLINE]

How can U tell?

I guess based on the trailer.

[Virus]

Well at least it has the Mac kid

That is one of the things that I hate the most about this movie.

[Miasmo]

The trailer told me nothing except lots of action shots that look like more of the Matrix-esque crap Wiseman tried to pull off in the Underworld films.

As I said, I think it looks rubbish.
I can understand why you might feel that way. I got the same feeling at a few points during the trailer, particularly where the two ducking for cover between the two cars that miraculously protect them from the other car hurling through the air at them. I know it's Die Hard, but it looks like it's going to be over the top at times, even for Die Hard. Action movies don't always have to surpass their predecessors. In fact, they never have to.

Here's hoping that it won't ruin the movie ... or that it won't saturate it.

[P-Ray]

New trailer!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32145

[JackBauer24]

It's Silent Bob! Uh...not being silent!

[Tovor]

Looks way over the top for me. Die Hard has always been over the top, but this seems to go too far. That AICN reviewer said it best, that a guy jumping off a roof attached to a firehose is hardly realistic, but the stunts in this film make it look like nothing at all. What is John McClain now, a superhero?

[Talcy]

Looks a bit like Die Hard for kids.

[JackBauer24]

That said, are you guys gonna go see it?

[Tovor]

At this time I have absolutely no interest or desire to see what seems to me a lame addition to a tired saga. But then, that was exactly what I said about Batman Begins, Rocky Balboa, and Casino Royale.

[Talcy]

That said, are you guys gonna go see it?
More than likely (sighs).

[kopernikuz]

I dunno, I kind of like it... but then I'm a big BW fan... so I'm biased. Don't like the Mac kid sidekick thing... not one bit... he is there to make stupid comments, like he did in the trailer... though I did like McClaine's response to one of them... "I ran out of bullets..." It follows the sequel format... it SHOULD be more out there than previous installments... dude with hose jumping off building... no he's not a superhero... but it should be bigger than the previous or else, why do it? You can't recreate perfection, like the original... so you just have to outdo it... lol. Let's be frank... these movies have never been character studies... they've been fuel-injected actioners with cool characters. This may not be as cool as the original... but it is no different in the format, the action in films has just gotten bigger since the first one, and the franchise has adapted.

Anyway... bigger explosions and more action... as long as it's still McClaine, with some cool wisecracks and BW wiseass smarmy coolness, and I feel we get that... then I'm fine with it. It'll just be popcorn munching thrill a minute good times... bring it on.

The only way to make a perfect DH sequel in my opinion is to find a way to bring Hans Gruber back to life, lol. He was villianous perfection. In absense of that... blow sh&% up and make wisecracks... I can live with it, :P

[empire21]

That said, are you guys gonna go see it?


I'll wait for the DVD.

[kopernikuz]

Looks way over the top for me. Die Hard has always been over the top, but this seems to go too far. That AICN reviewer said it best, that a guy jumping off a roof attached to a firehose is hardly realistic, but the stunts in this film make it look like nothing at all. What is John McClain now, a superhero?
So you'd prefer the stunts should get "less" exciting with subsequent films? LOL Maybe McClaine should become less smarmy and sarcastic as well... more diplomatic in his bad guy busting? :P

Bad Guy: You WILL die McClaine...

McClaine: Yippy-Kay-Ay Mother... oh hell, you know what... let's hug, sorry about all this...

Bad Guy: You bet, pal!

Just messin ;)

[Virus]

New trailer!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32145

Meh. This looks great at one moment and then looks horrible at another. Its good to see Bruce Willis with some emotion since he has looked dead on film since 1998.

[Tovor]

So you'd prefer the stunts should get "less" exciting with subsequent films? LOL Maybe McClaine should become less smarmy and sarcastic as well... more diplomatic in his bad guy busting? :P

Bad Guy: You WILL die McClaine...

McClaine: Yippy-Kay-Ay Mother... oh hell, you know what... let's hug, sorry about all this...

Bad Guy: You bet, pal!

Just messin ;)
:lol:
Point taken.

[Virus]

wow so I finally read that this film is definitely going to be PG-13. How pathetic is that?

[empire21]

Very pathetic! :ohwell:

[DblDwn]

Why am I suddenly having flashes of the abyssmal catastrophe formerly known as Beverly Hills Cop 3?

[Virus]

Why am I suddenly having flashes of the abyssmal catastrophe formerly known as Beverly Hills Cop 3?

Alien vs Predator
Police Academy 2

[DblDwn]

Don't forget Alien 3 and 4 and Police Academy 3 through 67.

[Javen]

Maybe McClaine became a Christian, or something.

[DblDwn]

Now he says, "Yippy-Kay-Ay-I'm A Christ Lover."

[Kapit]

by all accounts, though, Willis is HAPPY with this! He says it's just as good if not BETTER than the original Die Hard

So, who's to say it'll necessarily be a bad thing? Yeah, I'd love to see it have an R-rating, but by today's standards the original Die Hard wasn't all that bad...

[P-Ray]

Now he says, "Yippy-Kay-Ay-I'm A Christ Lover."
Which is not a bad thing, BTW!:wink:

[DblDwn]

by all accounts, though, Willis is HAPPY with this! He says it's just as good if not BETTER than the original Die Hard

Of course he's going to say that. He wants to sell tickets. He's not going to say it's crap. Eddie was so unfazed by the pain Beverly Hills Cop 3 caused the world that there's a rumor of a 4th installment.

I'm just saying.

[DblDwn]

Which is not a bad thing, BTW!:wink:

If you're into that kind of thing it's great. But we are talking about a film in which we are expecting the inclusion of plenty of violence and lots of profanity. :)

[Virus]

Don't forget Alien 3 and 4 and Police Academy 3 through 67.

Alien 3 and 4 were rated R. I was naming movies that jump the shark by lowering the ratings just to get more money.

And of course Willis is happy with this cause its gonna be the first big movie he's made in years. I'm sure the amount of zeros in his paycheck for this was enough to make it G

[DblDwn]

Alien 3 and 4 were rated R. I was naming movies that jump the shark by lowering the ratings just to get more money.

Oh. My bad. I was just naming sequels that sucked.

[Kapit]

Alien 3 and 4 were rated R. I was naming movies that jump the shark by lowering the ratings just to get more money.

And of course Willis is happy with this cause its gonna be the first big movie he's made in years. I'm sure the amount of zeros in his paycheck for this was enough to make it G

bruce willis seems like the kind of guy who wouldn't just say something to make more money. he's a badass, always has been, always will be

[P-Ray]

If you're into that kind of thing it's great. But we are talking about a film in which we are expecting the inclusion of plenty of violence and lots of profanity. :)
I am into that kinda thing! I wasn't completely sure where you were headed with that.

But that's a topic in another thread.

[kopernikuz]

I dunno... it is weird, and Die Hard is my all-time favorite movie... but Casino Royale was PG-13, and it was pretty brutal. I think it'll be fine. The ratings are kind of broken anyway... you can get away with a lot more than you used to with a PG-13 and some R movies have been pretty tame in my estimation... so it seems really arbitrary. It's just politics.

Obviously the producers are looking for a larger audience... who can blame them? Truth be told, at R... I'd be seeing this just with my adult friends... at PG-13 I may actually take my son... there's a potential to double the audience... unless you think people will NOT go because it's PG-13... which could be true for some, but not as widespread as those who would now choose to go instead.

[Tovor]

by all accounts, though, Willis is HAPPY with this! He says it's just as good if not BETTER than the original Die Hard


Not saying that it isn't going to be as good, but that's what every actor says about a sequel that he's done, to promote the film. They're certainly not going to say, until much later in some candid interview long after the film is out, that their sequel isn't as good as the original so maybe you shouldn't bother seeing it.

[DblDwn]

I am into that kinda thing! I wasn't completely sure where you were headed with that.

But that's a topic in another thread.

I was headed where you thought I was but, as you stated, that is for another thread and is a topic I have no interest in discussing.

[RollaFett]

Yeah, I'd love to see it have an R-rating, but by today's standards the original Die Hard wasn't all that bad...

'Bad' meaning what? If you're talking about profanity, then it definately earned it's 'R' rating, and would easily get it nowadays as well. As far as gore goes, well, you're right, it wasn't overly gorey and bloody. It had it's moments, and they probably contributed to the 'R', but the language clinched it.

[Kapit]

I don't even remember the language being that bad...Still, it's not a "hard" R rating, but hell, everything's going to be soft R with that stupid cigarette rule happening now

[RollaFett]

Oh, well I've seen it a couple of times recently, and trust me, there were more than enough f-bombs in it easily deserve an 'R'.

[empire21]

I don't even remember the language being that bad

Same here!

I think another viewing is in order. :yes:

[kopernikuz]

Oh, well I've seen it a couple of times recently, and trust me, there were more than enough f-bombs in it easily deserve an 'R'.
Exactly... there were actually enough F-bombs in the first tumble down the stairs with the badguy to earn the R, lol. I didn't even know the F-word could be used in so many ways. :P

[empire21]

^ :lol:

I think i'll throw it in sometime this week, cause I can't remember that much swearing.

[P-Ray]

I was headed where you thought I was but, as you stated, that is for another thread and is a topic I have no interest in discussing.
That's cool! But you are the one who made the comment

[Javen]

Actually it was my fault.

[P-Ray]

Die Hard 5
Geek Squad Bruce Willis says he'll do yet another sequel if only — get this — Justin Long, returns, too. And in a strange twist, Justin says he'll only do more of those Mac ads if Bruce takes over the role of PC.

movies.com

[DblDwn]

I didn't realize, until I saw the full trailer before Pirates yesterday, that Timothy Olyphant is playing the villain. I'm down with that guy. This movie just got a lot more promising for me.

[Justin]

I saw the preview on TV and it looks good. That "not today" line was great.

[DblDwn]

Watching the full lengthed trailer in the theater actually gave me goosebumps. I don't know if it was the A/C or if it was the fact that I love the Die Hard movies. Probably a bit of both.

[kopernikuz]

I like the "I ran out of bullets..." bit. I'm with you DD... I love Die Hard and this looks like a real summer movie action fest. I'm not going to go through the whole "will it be better than 1, 2, 3, etc..." because who cares, really? The original Die Hard is my all time favorite movie... I never tire of it and it is watchable multiple sittings and doesn't get old. It has one of the greatest movie villian performances of all time. And it has some of the best one-liners and dialogue of any action movie... it literally set the stage for action movies to come. How many times have reviewers called a movie "Die Hard on a..." or "Die Hard in a..." etc... because it was the best of its kind.

So I do not go into this expecting to have my feelings about the first DH overwhelmed... I expect it to be fun but inferior to the first. If it's better... well then I'll be blown away, no? If it isn't... I'll still get to see John McClaine blow stuff up and crack wise for two more hours... works for me... because it's about John McClaine... and its about action. Not about Oscars or Cannes acceptance :P :)

And I like Olyphant too... can't wait to see how he is as the villian. I love him on Deadwood, brilliant...

[P-Ray]

Some reviews!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33117

[DblDwn]

Kevin Smith is in it? WTF? When did this become Jay & Silent Bob Die Hard?

[Virus]

I watched the first 8 minutes that they were showing on Yahoo and I must admit that it was really good. But I really hate Justin Long and I really hate the fact that this is a studio movie since it is PG-13

[T-bone]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/livefreeordiehard/willisinterview/

[RollaFett]

Kevin Smith is in it? WTF? When did this become Jay & Silent Bob Die Hard?

Yeah, he's in it. What's the problem? I'm a huge Smith fan and don't mind at all that he's in it.

[Kapit]

He almost fits teh part he plays too. Sure, Smith isn't exactly a computer nerd, but he's got the look and the sentiment. And he also got to write all his dialogue, so you know it'll be a good part of the movie :D

[DblDwn]

Yeah, he's in it. What's the problem? I'm a huge Smith fan and don't mind at all that he's in it.

I love Kevin Smith as much as someone not from Jeresy can. I just didn't know he was in this film. Initially I saw it as a cheap ploy but I'm willing to sign off on it as acceptable.

[RollaFett]

Yeah, to be honest, I hope it doesn't come off as a cheap ploy either. When i first learned they were making the film, I had a bad feeling, but who knows? Maybe it'll have a little bit of that "Rocky Balboa" magic and be decent.

[P-Ray]

Reviews!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33161

[P-Ray]

And more!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33161

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33162

[kopernikuz]

Well, lets start off with the obvious caveat. There simply is no way they will ever top the original Die Hard. It is my favorite action movie of all time and I am so biased I would never give another film the chance to knock it off that pedestal. So that being said, expectations that this is as good or better than the first are already off the table.

Okay, now we can objectively review this one.

I didn't feel the movie suffered at PG-13... it was so gritty I barely noticed, really, but I also don't feel I need a hundred f-words and lots of extra blood to be titillated... I like to think I have outgrown and matured past that kind of movie appreication. Though there is one scene (no spoiler, but think FARGO) where there simply should have been a lot of blood, it becomes apparent the rating is different... otherwise, I think it works fine at PG-13. The only other part where it feels odd is when Kevin Smith is onscreen... I've never seen the guy not be crude... didn't know he had it in him.

The action is a blast though the biggest problem is that we see it all in the trailers. I see comedies all the time where the funniest lines are all in the trailers... it sucks. Never thought I'd see the same thing with an action movie, but there it is. It does kind of suck the life out of some of the sequences since we know how they turn out from the trailer. Then again, we already know McClane is indestructible, so its not like there is ever any peril anyway, lol. He takes a licking but keeps on ticking... more than ever in this movie. The action is great fun though.

The plot is muddy and there are quite a few logical questionables that leave you scratching your head a bit (ie: "how'd they get there so quick?" "how'd they figure that out so easily?") It has the classic governmental stooges make predictable bad decisions that villain counts on (ie FBI shuts down the grid in #1) and/or despite their limitless governmental resources are helpless to do anything or discover anything while plucky action hero or smarter than average punk find are able to do so. What I liked about With a Vengeance was the fact that the cops find the bomb in the school and are generally as smart and helpful as McClane. In this one, the FBI just stands around and goes "huh?" while McClane and his sidekick travel around several states in pursuit of the badguys. You're telling me the FBI couldn't have figured out some of these things and been on the trail too? But this is all expected in these kinds of movies... but you really aren't given a reason for the FBI's incompetence, as we were given in #1 with the two agent Johnsons are cocky and by-the-book guys you want to see be wrong. In this one, Agent Bowman is actually a nice guy you want to see succeed a little bit, but he ends up just standing around with his thumb up his backside making distraught faces at the things that are happening. No character there at all. There are two guys that are almost your "Johnsons" but become little more than expository delivering stooges as I mentioned before... not brilliant devices like Agents Johnson.

Olyphant, while a brilliant actor in Deadwood... is pretty much just dead wood in this one. Though you do appreciate seeing him get flustered and upset as McClane continually rises from the dead to foil yet another part of his plan. I don't need to say "he's no Hans Gruber", because, well duh... who is?.. but he is hands-down the weakest villain of the series and they could've done so much more with him.


Justin Long is actually not annoying at all and has a few good lines even. All I have to say about that really.

But lets be frank... McClane is back and dispatching baddies in fun and clever and extraordinary ways as usual and being a smartass to the villain at all the right times. He is thrust into a less than exemplary storyline but still manages to stick it to the badguy like he always does. The badguys are as indestructible as McClane in this one, making some of the battles last a little longer and not be over too quick, which I kind of liked. I've said before... you could put BW in a room reading the phonebook and cracking wise about it, and I'd find enjoyment there... and I did find enjoyment in the movie. It was the kind of over-the-top explosive mania that makes for a fun evening at the cinema... it just had more of a swiss-chees plot than any of the other three, which was kind of a bummer.

Overall, I did have a good time and enjoyed seeing McClane shove justice up the badguys' butts again and cheered it... but it doesn't live up to the other three. It's hardly a Alien: Resurrection kind of fourth installment debacle... It's good enough that I'll still watch it and enjoy it in a DVD marathon someday... it didn't fail... it's just kind of there.

I did spend the whole movie wondering when he'd say the line. You know the line... "Yippe-kay-ay"... I kept expecting it to come up, trying to predict its use. When it finally did, I liked it. Again, it's all about McClane sticking it to the badguy... and he does it nicely.

Not the greatest, not a complete loss... enjoyable enough and I'll probably see it one more time with my son.

***+1/2 of five.

[Kapit]

That's about how I felt, Kope. Great review!

[TAGLINE]

I'm still debating whether this was a true Die Hard movie...but I wasn't disappointed. This was alot of fun.

Maggie Q died too early though. She's eye candy!

Olyphant was a non entity as the villian. He glares, with intent, but he doesn't bring a whole lot to this guy. Also, I felt this was a set up for the Hitman movie he is in (which they showed the teaser to...it looks horrible).

Still Willis is never not cool as McClane, and I liked how Die Hard gets bigger with each movie (first its one building, then an airport, then New York, now the whole Eastern US).

That pilot of the jet is a moron though.

[Kapit]

Maggie Q died too early though. She's eye candy!


The group I was with that saw it last night loved when McClane just got up, ran at her, and tackled her in full. That was too awesome!

[kopernikuz]

Maggie Q died too early though
I hope you mean too early in the film? Because I like that that battle wasn't too easy.

[TAGLINE]

I hope you mean too early in the film? Because I like that that battle wasn't too easy.

I mean in the film. Die Hard hasn't really killed a major antagonist that quick.

[kopernikuz]

76% so far at RottenTomatoes. It's the second highest rated one after the first one. I watched it again last night with my son and I have to say, I enjoyed it even more this time. RT has it rated higher than the third, and I might disagree there... for me they go:

Die Hard
Die Hard: With a Vengeance
Live Free or Die Hard
Die Harder

Vengeance just had better supporting characters and Jeremy Irons at least tried to be as compelling as Gruber was... but now the more that I think about it... I liked the supporting cast of Die Harder too... I don't know, now I'm questioning my own list, LOL. Maybe it's easier to just rank them this way:

Die Hard
LiveFreeorDieHarderWithaVengeance

Nothing will top the first but the other three all revel in the good fun that is McClane's life.

What I think I liked best about this one was that real stuff blew up. Other than compositing Willis and Long into the secene where the car crashes into the two cars they're between, barely missing them... most of the stunts were real. In a movie where an old school cop battles computer geeks bent on world domination, they've created a film where old school action stunts battle a summer of CGI domination. It's a brilliant commentary when you think about it.

In the end, no matter how awesome CGI has become... there's something to be said about blowing real crap up, lol.

[Javen]

I'm not gonna review this but watched it last night. It wasn't too bad, it wasn't too great. I'd give it a B for Bruce.

Now if theres a 5th one theey should call it"Die Hard 5: The Return of Carl Winslow"

[Kapit]

This has to be one of the single greatest songs/music videos ever created. It's all about Die Hard!

Warning for kids: There's bad language in the song

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OTyw6cq86kY

[P-Ray]

I ended up seeing Live Free or Die Hard Thursday night with a group of friends.

We all loved it!

It had a couple of moments where you really have to suspend belief but I really liked the storyline. Justin Long wasn't annoying and actually contributed to the storyline.

For me, this is my favorite one besides the original.

[Darth Octavious]

I agree with P-Ray and Rolla, Kevin Smith was pretty cool in the movie.

[Blizzard]

This movie was freakin awesome! I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my favorite parts were the three times John reached for his gun and it was too far away and I kept waiting for him to use the Force!

Kevin = a Jedi! :happydance:

[Count Dookie]

This movie was freakin awesome! I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my favorite parts were the three times John reached for his gun and it was too far away and I kept waiting for him to use the Force!

Kevin = a Jedi! :happydance:

Reach and use the force!?!? Are you kidding me?

Ok, the movie was for me the best Die Hard of the four. I too had to suspend belief for a few scenes but all in all the story line, the actors, Mclain kickin' ass was awesome.

I love the command center too. :)

[Kapit]

Ok, the movie was for me the best Die Hard of the four.


Really? Wow. I personally don't believe that any action movie can compare to the original Die Hard, with all the awesome one-liners, the explosions, Argyle, and Alan Rickman as the coolest villain ever with a voice that is always changing accents.

[TAGLINE]

as the coolest villain ever with a voice that is always changing accents.

Which was the brilliance of the performance...it was intentional.

[kopernikuz]

I agree... you can't top the original Die Hard in my book... but this film certainly tried and provided a great time doing so...

[TAGLINE]

what annoyed me a bit was that you could tell this movie wasn't written as a PG-13 film...and that they obviously edited the soundtrack so that certain words could not be heard...but it got on my nerves.

I will see the R-rated version though. That will be fun.

[Count Dookie]

Really? Wow. I personally don't believe that any action movie can compare to the original Die Hard, with all the awesome one-liners, the explosions, Argyle, and Alan Rickman as the coolest villain ever with a voice that is always changing accents.

Really? Wow. I personally thought the story line and action was better....who the heck cares!!!!!!

Die Hard was a great movie and Live Free or Die Hard was a great movie. They both had their moments. I personally liked Live Free or Die Hard a little more than the ORIGINAL.

[Javen]

It had a couple of moments where you really have to suspend belief

Even the original Die Hard things you had to suspend belief. In fact alot of things. But Live free or die hard is second to the original to me.

[P-Ray]

Even the original Die Hard things you had to suspend belief. In fact alot of things. But Live free or die hard is second to the original to me.
True! Actually all of the Die Hard movies we had to suspend belief. But really...isn't that pretty much true of all movies.

And I agree with you. Live Free and Die Hard was only second to the original:wink:

[Blizzard]

I see Dookie hasn't changed at all. And just when everyone is getting along fine. :bop:

[P-Ray]

I don't see what Dookie has said wrong:giveup:

He wasn't being rude.

[TAGLINE]

I rank them like this:

1) Die Hard
2) Die Hard with a Vengeance
3) Live Free or Die Hard
4) Die Hard 2: Die Harder

[kopernikuz]

I second that ordering :)

[RollaFett]

Well, I saw it with Mrs. Rollafett this past Sunday and I must say it was pretty damned good.
I agree that some of the action got a little far-fetched the further the movie went along, but oh well, I could live with it. On a whole, though, I was really impressed with how non-stop the action was throughout. Very few scenes didn't have action involved.
Willis was terrific as McClane, firing off smartass retorts left and right. Justin Long was just fine as the sidekick, but Olyphant wasn't very sinister at all. Again, oh well.
Another thing that really surprised me was how much I didn't notice the PG-13. I really feared that too much of an edge would be lost without McClane's f-bombs, but it still worked. Not bad.
Overall, I'd probably rank this right behind the original, but I also haven't seen the other two in a very long time, so that could change.

[Darth Octavious]

What about your opinion on Smith?

[kopernikuz]

I know for me, while I found it to be hilarious... it felt like obvious stunt-casting. I mean, I came out of the movie for a bit... you're like "Oh, the scene with Kevin Smith!" instead of really just flowing into the scene. Again, not because the scene was bad, and it doesn't hurt the film... but it did feel a bit "obvious" or something, I dunno. If it had been someone else, it might have been just as funny and less stunt-casted... though I did think he handled the sarcasm hilariously...

"Oh... Thomas Gabriel, right, okay, I didn't know... GET OUT!"

"Dude, why'd you bring your DAD down here..." lol

[cj790]

This film was absoute nonsense - it was about as believable as LOTR...

...and I loved it!
Pure adrenaline all the way through; a cocksure Willis on top form; and some incredible set pieces (cars, helicopters, you know the score).
Ok, so the bad guy was bland, it was predictable, offered nothing new, and as mentioned was as fantastical as any SW film - but nevertheless it was a well-crafted action flick with some awesome scenes that was gripping from start to finish.
If only more films were like this...

[P-Ray]

Favorite Die Hard moments!

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/die-hard-top-20-moments.html

[Javen]

Pretty cool. But people keep making the mistake just like people in Die Hard of calling them terrorists when they weren't. They were robbers. It said it spawned all these terrorists movies and that's cool. But again Hans was a thief not a terrorist.

[TAGLINE]

You take hostages...you are a terrorist.

[kopernikuz]

He made the point in the film...

"Who said we were terrorists..."

And it was revealed all was a ruse to break into the vault. The needed the hostages so the FBI follow protocol in that situation and therefore would shut down the grid, opening the one lock they couldn't on their own.

Bank robbers often take hostages... but no one calls them terrorists. Sure you might, but technically they aren't treated that way. For example, we don't negotiate with terrorists, but we do with hostage takers... hence the profession "hostage negotiator"... ;)

[TAGLINE]

Bank robbers usually DON'T take hostages. I mean in films they do, for drama, but they usually do not hang around long enough.

But the minutes they started "putting on a show" for the cops, making demands, killing hostages...they became terrorists.

Even if it was in pursuit of robbing someone, you can't really call what everyone in a Die Hard movie does not terrorism. Every villian essentially is after the same thing.

[kopernikuz]

Bank robbers usually DON'T take hostages. I mean in films they do, for drama, but they usually do not hang around long enough.

But the minutes they started "putting on a show" for the cops, making demands, killing hostages...they became terrorists.

Even if it was in pursuit of robbing someone, you can't really call what everyone in a Die Hard movie does not terrorism. Every villian essentially is after the same thing.
Well, that's your opinion, I guess... but cops do employ hostage negotiators for a reason, and that reason is not incase they stumble upon a dramatic film set by accident, lol :P It's also not for negotiating with terrorists... because our government has a strict policy against it.

Besides, I wasn't wasn't really commenting on your opinion of Die Hard villians. I was referring to your simple statement that "You take hostages... you're a terrorist" and I'm just pointing out that law enforcement simply doesn't classify it that way. Hostages don't equal terrorism. In fact, terrorism doesn't equal hostages for that matter. Generally they just blow things up causing mass homicide... partly because we don't negotiate for hostages, though they sometimes take them anyway, fruitlessly.

Terrorism is usually classified by actions or series of actions that cause mass terror... that make large populaces afraid... often afraid to "do something" (ride a plane, go outside, enter a subway, etc...). I would not classify Gruber's group as terrorists, as their actions would not have made anyone else in LA afraid to go out or something. They did not cause a mass panic. Let's not forget, the FBI caused the blackout, lol. On the other hand, in every subsequent film they were clearly terrorists. In two, mass transit air travel. Even in 3, their purpose was robbery, but they caused the entire city of New York panic, so I'd agree there. In this last one, the entire eastern seaboard, and there was no monetary gain even... not even a demand... just striking terror.

Just saying, technically law enforcement would not classify Gruber's group as anything more than a bunch of thugs... not terrorists once all was said and done. Gruber specifically counted on the FBI assuming they were terrorists though, which was the brilliance of his plan. When he had no demands and no intention of causing mass panic... just running off with the dough, it would be clear he was nothing more than a high-stakes high-bodycount bank robber.

[TAGLINE]

Dude, terrorism does include kidnapping/hostage taking. How else do you think they fund their operations? Or when they hijack planes? Al Queda takes hostages during the Iraq war in the form of America Aid workers, soldiers, and Iraq officials.

In the the case of negotiating...America DOES negotiate all the time, but in a way that doesn't give into the demands of terrorists. Every crisis negotiator is trained in preventing harm and talking the person down.

"They did not cause a mass panic."

Yes they do. The plan was the murder EVERY hostage by blowing up the roof, remember? Mass murder

What they counted on was that the FBI thought they were freedom fighters of some kind. But given that these guys probably would rob again, and use the same tactics...they are pretty much terrorists, given their tactics.

[kopernikuz]

Just for the record... I never said terrorists don't kidnap (in fact I said they did, usually to fruitless avail since we don't negotiate with them)... I simply said kidnapping doesn't make someone a terrorist by law enforcement classifications.

You can call Gruber a terrorist all you want... who cares? As I indicated, I was really just responding to your reasoning:

You take hostages...you are a terrorist.Not the case. You want to imply that intending on mass murdering everyone at the party makes them terrorists. Fine... no one is arguing with your assesment, as that's your opinion, just your reasoning. The guy who mass murdered all those people at Virginia Tech wasn't called a terrorist... but a mass murderer. This is a moot argument... it's a movie and that's your opinion, I don't have issue with it, I was only commenting that the statement about hostages was wrong.

[TAGLINE]

I simply said kidnapping doesn't make someone a terrorist by law enforcement classifications.

Law enforcement clarifications?

From the FBI:
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Then the document goes on to explain DOMESTIC TERRORISM

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

These guys intended to not only blow up a large portion of a building, but kill all the living witnesses. I call that terrorism, and I think the FBI would to, regardless if the thing they were after is money.

[kopernikuz]

intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government
the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Thanks for providing the precise "clarification" I am referring to. From your own definition... again... semantics here, but truth nonetheless... YES kidnapping can be part of terrorism... OBVIOUSLY, this was never in question, not sure why you keep bringing it up. You just boldfaced the wrong part... look at what you said:
You take hostages...you are a terrorist.By your own provided definitions clearly its the INTENT behind the actions, not the actions themselves which constitute, technically, terrorism. In the same way a mass murderer can be different from a terrorist. They perform the same actions but with different intents. Even a prosecutor must prove "intent" in order to get certain types of convictions, including... yes... terrorism. Both may murder 100s of people... but WHY? That's how law enforcement defines terrorism and therefore what to convict the suspect of. From your own sources. How is this not clear? I'm not even sure why this is a debate. :giveup:

[Javen]

In the movie they weren't terrorist though. Hans even said it himself. They were there to steal 640 mil dollars. They had to hold hostages until the vault was open. Then they were going to blow the roof to make it seem like they;being Hans and crew died.

That was the only thing I was saying. I won't get into the debate if someone takes a hostage that means their terrorists. But in this movie they weren't terrorists.

[TAGLINE]

Thanks for providing the precise "clarification" I am referring to. From your own definition... again... semantics here, but truth nonetheless... YES kidnapping can be part of terrorism... OBVIOUSLY, this was never in question, not sure why you keep bringing it up. You just boldfaced the wrong part... look at what you said:
By your own provided definitions clearly its the INTENT behind the actions, not the actions themselves which constitute, technically, terrorism. In the same way a mass murderer can be different from a terrorist. They perform the same actions but with different intents. Even a prosecutor must prove "intent" in order to get certain types of convictions, including... yes... terrorism. Both may murder 100s of people... but WHY? That's how law enforcement defines terrorism and therefore what to convict the suspect of. From your own sources. How is this not clear? I'm not even sure why this is a debate. :giveup:

The first line of the FBI documents states this:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.

Which contends what you said about the law enforcement defining terrorism.

Not to mention their intent could be labeled as a SOCIAL means for gain (monetary gain) in which they attempt to coerce the police and government officials to do what they want. I mean they were crafty bank robbers, but they were using acts of terrorism to achieve to achieve this.

So I did ask my friend who was in the LAPD and is now a corrections officer (He loves Die Hard) and he said that yeah those guys might be bank robbers, but they would be labeled as domestic terrorists because of their tactics. Banks robbers usually do not blow up the building they are going to rob, nor bring in rocket launchers to take out the swat team vehicles. He's not like an expert, but those guys would be dealt with like terrorists. He also said hostage taking is treated as terrorism as well, as it does disrupt the activity of day to day life, and can create mass panic.

[kopernikuz]

ROTFL...

The first line says that... then it goes on to provide a generally accepted idea. There is no universal definition... but there are guidelines! I mean, otherwise... EVERYTHING IS TERRORISM, no?

Again, I am not arguing whether Gruber and crew are terrorists. You clearly don't read entire posts before responding. I simply contend that your statement "hostage=terrorist" is flawed... and it is, by your own inadvertent admission. It simply isn't true.

Wow, this is a really big waste of posting time... since we're starting to play "drop the 'informed' friend'" game, I could ask my friend who works in the federal prosecutor's office what convictions they would seek once they'd been apprehended (instead of all killed, hail McClaine ;) )... but you know what?

Why? :rolleyes:

as it does disrupt the activity of day to day lifeSo does a traffic jam :P

and can create mass panicBut it didn't... again... convictions can only be brought on things that HAPPEN... not things that didn't happen. And mass panic alone is not terrorism... intent is still at the heart of conviction. A kid calling in a prank bomb threat isn't terrorism... but it does create mass panic (of course, since 911 they do handle these differently, but there are no prank bomb threateners in Gitmo, wonder why? Besides, Die Hard is pre-911) But remember the old saying about freedom of speech? We all have it, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded building. Why? Mass panic. But the culprit is NOT a terrorist. You keep bringing up individual charges and try to make them stick as a terrorist claim. But it doesn't work that way. All the actions combined with the culprit's "intent" determine their crime. Columbine certainly created mass panic... Virginia Tech created mass panic... The shooting spree that occurred just 15 minutes from me at Case Western Reserve in recent years definitely caused some mass panic... In fact, anytime there is a murder and the suspect isn't immediately apprehended or killed, there is also mass panic, "if he's still on the loose will I be next?" etc... none of those situations or suspects were ever called terrorists after the fact. Of course going in... like the LAPD... until you know what is happening, you have to take those kinds of assumptions into account and deal with them (as the Agents Johnson did)... but when the dust settles, it's the actions AND their intent that decide what they will be convicted of. Period. The Oklahoma city bombing was domestic terrorism because of the political motivations of the culprit. Not because there was a bomb. If he'd been blowing up the building because they'd fired him the week prior... he'd not be convicted as a terrorist. He'd be a homicide bomber. Common sense. Even your LAPD friend would probably admit, despite how the on scene officers decide to approach the situation... the prosecutor ultimately decides what charge to go to the jury with. ;) Gruber was blowing the roof to hide his tracks... not to convince the president to challenge policy. Intent.

Besides, I already agreed with your friend... the FBI did treat them as terrorists as well they should and the situation as a terrorist one as well they should and went through the playbook... which was precisely what Gruber was counting on. In the end, they were discovered to be not a terrorist threat. But you know what's missing in this argument?

It's a movie. LOL.

[empire21]

Wow, almost a whole page on this terrorism discussion. :sleeping: :lol:

[kopernikuz]

Agreed... equivalent to :banghead:

I'm through anyway, no sense beating a dead horse. As O'Reilly would say, just before cutting away for commercial because he's through discussing it...

You have the last word.

*wanders off into commercial ignoring the response* lol

[P-Ray]

Wow, almost a whole page on this terrorism discussion. :sleeping: :lol:
That's what I've been thinking!:rofl:

[P-Ray]

Agreed... equivalent to :banghead:

I'm through anyway, no sense beating a dead horse. As O'Reilly would say, just before cutting away for commercial because he's through discussing it...

You have the last word.

*wanders off into commercial ignoring the response* lol
:happydance::rofl:

This is good too!

[Javen]

And to think it all started after my post.:blink:

[Jedi Master Harrison]

And to think it all started after my post.:blink:

Well at least you didn't kill the thread! :nahnah:

[Javen]

Well at least you didn't kill the thread! :nahnah:
So my curse has lifted?

[Javen]

^apparently not...

Anyway. Who has read the book"Nothing Lasts Forever" what the movie was based on? I haven't yet but want to.

[TAGLINE]

ROTFL...

The first line says that... then it goes on to provide a generally accepted idea. There is no universal definition... but there are guidelines! I mean, otherwise... EVERYTHING IS TERRORISM, no?

Guidelines that say taking hostages is an act of terrorism. Its been accepted by the UN as one as well.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4150072

I simply contend that your statement "hostage=terrorist" is flawed... and it is, by your own inadvertent admission. It simply isn't true.

Which if you showed me a doceumnt that differed Hostage-taking as not na act of terrorism, I will back down. As far as I can tell, the US and world wide authority treats all hostage taking scenarios as an act of terrorism.

Wow, this is a really big waste of posting time... since we're starting to play "drop the 'informed' friend'" game, I could ask my friend who works in the federal prosecutor's office what convictions they would seek once they'd been apprehended (instead of all killed, hail McClaine ;) )... but you know what?

As they are terrorist suspects...they don't NEED to charge them with anything. If they were caught it would be a groundbreaking case in general since I don't believe terrorism has been tried since Timothy McVeigh. The rest are indictments from the US.

So does a traffic jam :P

Which can result from hostage taking...

But it didn't... again... convictions can only be brought on things that HAPPEN... not things that didn't happen. And mass panic alone is not terrorism... intent is still at the heart of conviction.

YEah...they INTENDED on killing 50 people and blowing up a building and getting away with it for monetary gain.

there are no prank bomb threateners in Gitmo, wonder why? Besides, Die Hard is pre-911

I wouldn't start selling Gitmo as the "we got em" detention center the US makes it out to be. They can and have messed up detaining people. They don't have to CONVICT anyone to hold you there. So in fact, you COULD be a prank caller and be held in Gitmo. People who haven't done ANYTHING are in Gitmo, because they are held on suspicion (Patriot Act).

Columbine certainly created mass panic...

Let's be resonable...that was domestic terrorism in the same way one would see it. Mass murder for sure, but tt was an act to get attention, and it was terrorism. Messed up kids were the culprits, but they were terrorists nonetheless.

but when the dust settles, it's the actions AND their intent that decide what they will be convicted of. Period.

Yes...blowing up a building and killing 50 hostages would fall under the act of terrorism. Whether they were trying to rob a bank is one thing, but they committed acts of terrorism to achieve monetary gain.

The Oklahoma city bombing was domestic terrorism because of the political motivations of the culprit. Not because there was a bomb. If he'd been blowing up the building because they'd fired him the week prior... he'd not be convicted as a terrorist. He'd be a homicide bomber. Common sense.

But it does. Look at the pos 9-11 charges that fall under terrorism:

http://nyjtimes.com/cover/06-27-06/TerrorConvictionsSince9-11.htm


Terrorist acts abroad against U.S. nationals, terrorism transcending national boundaries
Hostage taking
Aircraft piracy
Conspiracy within the United States to murder, kidnap or main persons or damage property overseas
Providing material support to terrorists, providing material support to designated terrorist organizations
Prohibitions against financing of terrorism, violations of the International Emergency Economic Protection Act (IEEPA) harboring terrorists
Terrorist attacks against mass transportation systems use, possession and conspiracy involving biological, nuclear, chemical or other weapons of mass destruction
Conspiracy to conduct bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transport systems and infrastructure
Participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States
Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization immigration, visa or document fraud
False statements in connection with a terrorism investigation
So yes they could very well be convicted.
:giveup:

[empire21]

Give it a rest already.

[Kapit]

^apparently not...

Anyway. Who has read the book"Nothing Lasts Forever" what the movie was based on? I haven't yet but want to.

I want to. Next chance I get to the library, I'll be sure to pick it up and give it a good read

[kopernikuz]

Tag... I at least read your post, to be respectful. But I'm through with the argument. You seem to use the "Quote" button well enough, but I'm not sure you actually read anything in my post. I never said hostage taking is NOT something terrorists do. Ever. Not once. You seem to believe I did and your arguments are almost solely centered around proving that hostage taking can be a terrorist act. Um, of course? I already agreed to that, but disagree that ANY hostage taking automatically equals terrorism.. you can't obviously see that even though it's perfectly obvious, fine. You win. Have a cigar. :rolleyes:

I do have the need to point out that your point about the OKCity bombing at the end was correct... but more proof of what I was saying, I just didn't word mine properly. I had meant if McVeigh had blown up just some office building he worked in. As your bullet-point list explains and the OKCity bombing was... a government building. Again... attacks on government or based on political motivations. Thanks for the bullet-points, it is what I was getting at. I appreciate it :)

You seem to have the intent to win an argument by obsessing over things that aren't said and exhausting the other party to quit with circular logic. I applaud you, it worked, lol. I've moved on, obviously you haven't. Can we just talk about the movies now?

And just like an All-American Reject I... move along move along...
Javen, I saw that in the opening credits and was like "huh"? I didn't even know it was based on a story... but was it a book or an article I thought it said? I'm interested in finding it as well, let me know if you have any success.

[empire21]

Can we just talk about the movies now?

Yes, this argument is over, if you wanna continue it feel free to do so in PM's or the appropriate thread, but it's finished in here.

[kopernikuz]

Actually Javen, can you let me know where you heard about that book? Because I just checked and it was an article called "A Farewell to Arms" that I saw in the credits... I saw your book reference and thought it was something I missed... or maybe the book is based on the article to or the article on the book? LOL... I'm confused.

Anyway... I'm trying to find a link to the article somewhere.

EDIT: Found it, here's the article from WIRED, that the screenwriter got the idea for the story from:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.05/netizen.html


FURTHER EDIT:

I'm a dope... I just realized you were referring to the original DIE HARD based on "Nothing Lasts Forever", ROTFL. I'm gonna order that book I think, if I can find it still in print somewhere, looks interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Lasts-Forever-Roderick-Thorp/dp/0393012492/ref=sr_1_1/002-2257709-0797654?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184003640&sr=1-1


The article basis for LFODH is pretty interesting too. :)

[Javen]

I saw it in someone's post at IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/

Scroll down to the first post or User comments and it says this:

Quite possibly the best modern action movie since the classic "Dirty Harry", "Die Hard" simply rocks. Based on the interesting novel "Nothing Lasts Forever" by Roderick Thorp

And then here is teh book at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Lasts-Forever-Roderick-Thorp/dp/0393012492/ref=sr_1_1/105-0105799-8634013?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184023744&sr=8-1

[kopernikuz]

Yeah, that's what I was noting towards the bottom of my post... I originally thought you were referring to LFODH... not the original, lol.

[empire21]

Live Free or Die Hard on DVD November 20th.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/live-free-or-die-hard.html

[P-Ray]

Live Free or Die Hard on DVD November 20th.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/live-free-or-die-hard.html
Cool! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie!

[empire21]

Another I haven't seen so I'm really looking forward to it. I'm just surprised that a 2 disc isn't going to be available.

[P-Ray]

Another I haven't seen so I'm really looking forward to it. I'm just surprised that a 2 disc isn't going to be available.
Oh, I'm sure it will eventually!:wink:

[empire21]

I wonder if I can wait for it:scratchchin:

[P-Ray]

I wonder if I can wait for it:scratchchin:
Probably not!:wink::w00t:

[borgmatrix]

I wonder if I can wait for it:scratchchin:
It's fun. The action is a bit preposterous and over-the-top, and the movie doesn't come close to capturing the excellence of the first two. But it was one of the more enjoyable movies of the summer.

I'd put it slightly ahead of Transformers, but several notches below Order of the Phoenix and Ultimatum.

[P-Ray]

It's fun. The action is a bit preposterous and over-the-top, and the movie doesn't come close to capturing the excellence of the first two. But it was one of the more enjoyable movies of the summer.

I'd put it slightly ahead of Transformers, but several notches below Order of the Phoenix and Ultimatum.
Agreed!:)

[RollaFett]

Hmmm...I really dug this latest installment, and would consider buying it, but only if I see a better edition released.

Oh, and as far as books being adapted into Die Hard films go, I had and read "58 Minutes" back in the day, which was turned into Die Hard 2.
Amazon.com: 58 Minutes: Books: Walter H. Wager

[empire21]

DVD specs and artwork.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/live-free-or-die-hard.html

[borgmatrix]

Hmmm...I really dug this latest installment, and would consider buying it, but only if I see a better edition released.
It was a fun movie. If there was any one aspect I particularly liked, it was Maggie Q. Damn. She had my eyes glued to the screen. For me, it was the movie of the summer until I saw Bourne.

[P-Ray]

DVD specs and artwork.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/live-free-or-die-hard.html
Is the unrated the only version going to be released?

[RollaFett]

It was a fun movie. If there was any one aspect I particularly liked, it was Maggie Q. Damn. She had my eyes glued to the screen. For me, it was the movie of the summer until I saw Bourne.

Yeah, she was pretty cool. I had never seen her in anything prior, and will definately keep an eye out for her in the future. Also, I agree about "Bourne". The best movie of the summer, by far. Although "Knocked Up" wasn't too shabby.

[P-Ray]

Yeah, she was pretty cool. I had never seen her in anything prior, and will definately keep an eye out for her in the future. Also, I agree about "Bourne". The best movie of the summer, by far. Although "Knocked Up" wasn't too shabby.
Just for the record, she's in M:I III as well. Not bad in it either:wink:

[RollaFett]

Ahhh...not sure if I'll ever see that flick, but thanks for the head's up.

[P-Ray]

Ahhh...not sure if I'll ever see that flick, but thanks for the head's up.
That's too bad!

It's excellent, IMO!

[empire21]

Is the unrated the only version going to be released?

The rated version is available but is only being released in Full Screen for some strange reason. :scratchchin:

[P-Ray]

The rated version is available but is only being released in Full Screen for some strange reason. :scratchchin:
Man I hate when they do that!

[empire21]

Man I hate when they do that!

No kiddin!

Even though I would have gotten the two disc anyway, it's crap like that, that makes me not want to get any. :glare:

[P-Ray]

No kiddin!

Even though I would have gotten the two disc anyway, it's crap like that, that makes me not want to get any. :glare:
I'm also sick of the all or nothing DVD's.:mad:

[RollaFett]

Yeah, that's a load of bull. But that's why I generally wait until I'm sure I'm getting the best edition that's available, or most likely to be available when I make any purchase.

[Justin]

Is the unrated the only version going to be released?
I actually chose to wait for the unrated DVD because it will be more like a real Die Hard movie, with more cussing and stuff ha ha. I wouldn't even bother with the PG-13 version.

I'm also sick of the all or nothing DVD's.:mad:
What do you mean?

[P-Ray]

What do you mean?
They either release a DVD with nothing but the movie or a version with the movie and ton of extras.

That's okay except for the fact that now, the prices have increased. There was a time when one version of the DVD came out with extras for the price of the version out now with no extras. Now the version with extras is more $.

I hope that makes sense. It's hard to explain it in writing.:wink:

[JackBauer24]

What I don't like is when they release a 1-disc set with the movie and a few extras, then a 2-disc set with only a couple more extras. You're suckered into buying the 2-disc because you're meant to believe that it's got more content, but in reality the content isn't enough to justify the extra purchase. Case in point: 300.

[P-Ray]

What I don't like is when they release a 1-disc set with the movie and a few extras, then a 2-disc set with only a couple more extras. You're suckered into buying the 2-disc because you're meant to believe that it's got more content, but in reality the content isn't enough to justify the extra purchase. Case in point: 300.
I agree completely!

Or they'll add scenes to the movie that are pointless and don't change a thing.

[empire21]

Two disc DVD artwork.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/live-free-or-die-hard.html

[JackBauer24]

On the 2-disc dvd-


a Yippee-Ki-Yay Mother F*****! one-on-one conversation with Bruce Willis & Kevin Smith (23 minutes)


Okay, I'm gonna have to get that.

[RollaFett]

That's right! I completely forgot about that. Yeah, a must buy for me too.