The Best Die Hard Movie?

[NFS4]

Alan Rickman > *.*

 

[tfinch2]

3 FTW

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: OSx86
1>3>4>2

Winnar :thumbsup:

 

[BW86]

The first

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: loup garou
1>3>2=4

:thumbsup:

Remove Justin Long from 4 and make it worthy of an R rating and it would easily be 1 > 4 = 3 > 2

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: QueBert
Haven't seen 4 yet, but it was rated PG-13, I understand wanting to release a movie that the kids can see. But PG-13? no way, Die Hard is cussing and explosions and violence not PG-13 shit.

DVD is R if you get unrated version though still not as good as the first movie.

But I doubt it changes adding plenty of language and John being caked in blood that probably isn't his. Probably just an extra scene or two that was taken out to get the PG-13 rating.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: crystal
Never watch 4, but just read the synopsis. What is in computer that blow up and kill you? Caused by a virus no less.

the virus causes the computer to lock up, causing the user to hit "delete" (I think that's what it was, presumably b/c of clt+alt+delete). When they hit that key it triggered C4 in the case.

In another word, they hack the hackers.
With the way some people consider their computers like their first child, someone able to gain access & planted C4 into it are impressive. They also plant virus on these people computers without their knowledge, I wonder why they need the hackers help in the first place.

Well... the guys would eventually go out to find some lady friends and that would be a perfect opportunity.



...



Shit, wait.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: QueBert
Haven't seen 4 yet, but it was rated PG-13, I understand wanting to release a movie that the kids can see. But PG-13? no way, Die Hard is cussing and explosions and violence not PG-13 shit.

DVD is R if you get unrated version though still not as good as the first movie.

But I doubt it changes adding plenty of language and John being caked in blood that probably isn't his. Probably just an extra scene or two that was taken out to get the PG-13 rating.

Exactly, when they release PG-13 movies in an "unrated" version it's typically like 2 F bombs and 19 seconds of footage. Die Hard 1 needs like 100 bleeps and countless scene edits to make it TV friendly.

Die Hard's should all be a movie that are R rated to the max, not a movie that squeaks by with a PG-13.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I'm going to bet that anyone who is ranking #4 near the top is much younger than the rest of the crowd. 4 blew in comparison to the others. Way too much cgi and crap.

Uh.... It was almost all live stunts.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...06/22/DDGJTQI10A48.DTL

"While there are a few CGI moments in the film, because you can't really fly a jet in and around overpasses, 90 percent of the stunts are real stunts," Willis says. "That car you see flipping in the tunnel is a real car, hooked up to cables and a hydraulic winch. They had to do that stunt something like seven times."

Flying the jet around the overpasses, when the car flips in the air and two other cars come from out of the frame and the flying car lands on them instead of crushing Bruce and the Mac dude along flying the car into the helicopter are the biggest stunts in the movie and required an utter and complete suspension of disbelief. In the other movies they were at least somewhat grounded in reality and there wasn't much need for green screen/cgi. They took it to a whole new level with this movie and that makes it feel less like a Die Hard movie imho.

because jumping off the side of a building with a fire hose and swinging down and crashing through plate glass (shot first of course) doesn't require a suspension of belief, or disbelief.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I'm going to bet that anyone who is ranking #4 near the top is much younger than the rest of the crowd. 4 blew in comparison to the others. Way too much cgi and crap.

Uh.... It was almost all live stunts.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...06/22/DDGJTQI10A48.DTL

"While there are a few CGI moments in the film, because you can't really fly a jet in and around overpasses, 90 percent of the stunts are real stunts," Willis says. "That car you see flipping in the tunnel is a real car, hooked up to cables and a hydraulic winch. They had to do that stunt something like seven times."

Flying the jet around the overpasses, when the car flips in the air and two other cars come from out of the frame and the flying car lands on them instead of crushing Bruce and the Mac dude along flying the car into the helicopter are the biggest stunts in the movie and required an utter and complete suspension of disbelief. In the other movies they were at least somewhat grounded in reality and there wasn't much need for green screen/cgi. They took it to a whole new level with this movie and that makes it feel less like a Die Hard movie imho.

because jumping off the side of a building with a fire hose and swinging down and crashing through plate glass (shot first of course) doesn't require a suspension of belief, or disbelief.

Some people should seriously just keep the fack out of the action genre if they can't handle that a suspension of disbelief. Yes it's somewhat cheesy and that's what we freaking love. Why does everything have to be realistic in a freaking movie?

 

[thraashman]

I'm against the grain as I didn't really love 3 all that much, but 2 was mostly crap.
So mine is 1,4,3,,,,,2

 

[Marinski]

I'd say 1, 2 or 3, 4.
1 is the best.
2 and 3 are almost equal, giving a slight edge to 3 just because of samuel L.
4 was lame.

 

[Jadow]

1
2
3
4