77 Responses to “A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD teaser”

1. 

   Broddie

   October 4th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

   I was not familiar with the works of Skip Woods till now. I regret even reading his resume.

2. 

   caruso_stalker217

   October 4th, 2012 at 2:00 pm

   This looks like DIE HARD 4 PART 2 to me, but I think it’s an effective teaser and while I should just not be giving a fuck at this point, it has me intrigued.

3. 

   Broddie

   October 4th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

   caruso_stalker – That’s exactly what it seems like.

4. 

   onthewall2983

   October 4th, 2012 at 3:06 pm

   Two things about this have me curious. One is the Valentine’s Day release date, and the other is that this appears to be the first in the franchise to be shot in 1.85.

5. 

   Windows

   October 4th, 2012 at 3:55 pm

   Vern- I saw the teaser this morning at my co-workers desk. All I could think
   of was your assertion in the Die Harder review. John Mclane is the working class James Bond and I’m glad at this point in the series Bruce knows it too,
   Officially stoked on a movie I thought was going to be fucking terrible.

6. 

   Shawn Gordon

   October 4th, 2012 at 4:36 pm

   This looks sadly routine, DIE HARD should be anything, but routine. I was bored before the one minute ten second trailer was over.

7. 

   BR Baraka

   October 4th, 2012 at 4:38 pm

   I’m watching the trailer, and I’m thinking, “this looks like Bond, not Die Hard.”

   And then he says the line. LOL!

8. 

   BR Baraka

   October 4th, 2012 at 4:40 pm

   Shit Vern, you deserve some sort Prescience Award, what with the Bain-Bane prediction this summer and now the Bond-McClane connection. Either that or political demagogues and screenwriters troll your twitter account/ site.

   Credit for Vern!

9. 

   HT

   October 4th, 2012 at 6:13 pm

   After the atrocious MAX PAYNE, I have zero confidence in John Moore to deliver a good DIE HARD film.

   And that trailer just looks so ugly. Drenching everything in teal and orange – the laziest color palette in modern cinematography – is an immediate sign no one in charge is really giving a shit enough to bring a film of any artistic aspirations. Just bank on nostalgia, wheel out Bruce to smirk and say his signature lines (without any cussing of course, can’t have that in a PG-13 film), add some noise and explosions, and cash the checks.

   This just reeks so calculated and corporate.

10. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 4th, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Sad thing is we’re all gonna watch it anyway. These motherfuckers had our asses booked for those theatre seats before we even knew it.

    That’s what happens when a franchise reaches monstrous dimensions. It has the same gravitational pull as a horror remake: You’re gonna watch it whether it looks good to you or not, because you just have to know if maybe, just maybe, it’s any good.

    They’ve essentially turned morbid curiosity into a marketing tool.

11. 

    Tuukka

    October 4th, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    The action scenes look pretty great. Lot’s of top level practical work there. And Moore did an excellent job in Behind Enemy Lines.

    I’m looking forward to this.

12. 

    Griff

    October 4th, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Come out to the coast, we’ll get together, have a few laughs…

13. 

    jeremy

    October 4th, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    John Moore hasn’t made a single non-shitty movie in his life. And Die Hard sequels seem less and less necessary with every new iteration. The only thing this series has going for it at this point is Bruce Willis. There’s a high chance this won’t be any good at all.

    But I’ll probably see it anyway. I can’t say no to that Bruno smile.

14. 

    Blitzkrieg

    October 4th, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    No LOOPER review, Vern?

15. 

    Franchise Fred

    October 4th, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    As Franchise Fred I have to weigh in. I am of course on board with DIE HARD 5, 7, 12 and on. Nothing in this trailer struck me at all. It does not look like LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD TOO, but more like DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. Practical work is good, but I didn’t get a sense of it having any energy.

    The Feb release date is the most troubling because it’s no longer a summer movie. Each DIE HARD has been different (even the one that stands out for trying to be the most the same) so this will be its own thing and I’m always up for more Big Bald Bruce.

    I’m most interested in Bruce’s career path though. He basically swore off DIE HARD for a while, then after 12 years he came back and it did really well. It led to a care resurgence with some forgettable generic action movies, some DTVs oddly, but some mild hits like RED and now the critical triumph LOOPER. Why is now the time for another DIE HARD? Does he need to keep the franchise alive every once in a while? Is it to leverage something else?

16. 

    pegsman

    October 5th, 2012 at 12:36 am

    I guess Willis has learned from the world of Bond. Moore and Craig has embraced the fact that they will always be 007, and has made several action movies on the side where they pretty much act in the same way. Connery, Lazenby, Brosnan and Dalton on the other hand has tried to distance themselves from the suave agent and gotten punished for it.

17. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 5th, 2012 at 2:07 am

    I don’t agree with that statement about Craig. He was an established actor long before becoming Bond (Munich, Layer Cake, Road To Perdition), and he’s had a career separate from Bond since (Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Cowboys and Aliens, The Adventures of Tintin).

    In fact, I think he’s done better than almost any other Bond actor in the past (with maybe the exception of Connery).

    But back to Die Hard, I think Jeremy is right. The only reason anyone wants to see this is Bruce. There’s only one guy a Die Hard movie can’t be made without. He is the franchise. At least until they reboot it ten years down the line with that kid from Modern Family or something.

18. 

    Captain Aktion

    October 5th, 2012 at 2:12 am

    Can I be the first one to get in this little sound-byte?

    Any Day is a Good Day to Shut the Fuck Up and Make a Good Movie.

19. 

    Griff

    October 5th, 2012 at 3:06 am

    not to bring this off topic, but yeah, I agree Craig is a great Bond, he manages to look really rugged while being suave at the same time, it’s a neat trick

20. 

    Griff

    October 5th, 2012 at 3:06 am

    oh, and he feels more believable as a guy that could break your neck

21. 

    pegsman

    October 5th, 2012 at 3:12 am

    Knox, they were all established actors when they became Bond. I was referring to the fact that Moore and Craig stayed within the action genre while the rest tried to do things that didn’t go down too well with their fans. Much like Bruce.

22. 

    RRA

    October 5th, 2012 at 6:26 am

    pegsman – what action movies did Moore do after 007? Last I checked his post-Bond career amounted to TV movies, that Cuban Gooding Jr. gay cruise movie, and the Spice Girls movie.

    And I wouldn’t classify GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO as an action movie. At least I wouldn’t. If we’re being loose as a slasher movie camp counselor, then that Brett Ratner-directed Brosnan heist picture is action too. The same with that (forgettable) THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR remake and TAILOR OF PANAMA too. (Which it isn’t.)

    (For the record, Connery has had the better post-007 career by far. For one, he won an Oscar. Two, was in several notable productions in the 70s/80s (Outland, Highlander, Murder on the Orient Express, Anderson Tapes, etc.) before his “comeback” and well, he made good money blowing stuff up in THE ROCK as grandpa. Too bad his last movie will unfortunately be LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. Its like Gene Hackman is determined to end his career on WELCOME TO MOOSEPORT.)

23. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 5th, 2012 at 6:42 am

    Yeha, I’m probably swimming against the tide here, but I’m not sure any movie can coast on Willis’ charisma any more, at lease if were’re going to use LOOPER as a gauge of his present level of performance. I think his performance in LOOPER was nonexistant; he was more a crash test dummy than an actor. If he made a better impression on me in that film than Gordon Whatshisname, it’s because he didn’t outright irritate me the way his co-star did.

24. 

    RRA

    October 5th, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Bruce is Bruce, he’s fine. I do admire that aside from his meat and potatoes action movies that he’s consistently done since the late 80s, he’s been willing to experiment, put himself out there and take chances. And that filmmakers are willing to cast him in spite of his action movie reputation.

    The weird thing is, both sides forget this very easily. And I mean “both sides” as in for one the action fans who forget (or don’t care) that he just did MOONRISE KINGDOM. And two, the…I guess you would call them the cinemaphiles who roll their eyes at his name’s mention, yet are surprised (regularly at another board I visit it seems) when you bring up that he did 12 MONKEYS and PULP FICTION and MK and yada yada.

    He doesn’t get enough credit. I like that Rian Johnson had no problem with casting Willis, and I like that Willis was willing to do something like LOOPER which potentially could’ve backfired.

25. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 5th, 2012 at 7:31 am

    RRA: I’ll give Willis credit for lending more charm to a clunker like RED than the script deserved, and I’m sure he’s fine in MOONRISE KINGDOM. But I was constantly taken aback by the empty Bruce-shaped space that kept popping up in LOOPER.

26. 

    Ghost

    October 5th, 2012 at 8:40 am

    RRA – Don’t forget that Roger Moore was in The Quest with Van Damme. He says it’s his worst film, and I don’t think he likes Van Damme very much. I also don’t think Van Damme is the best director.

27. 

    pegsman

    October 5th, 2012 at 9:08 am

    This was harder than I imagined. In my first post I tried, and obviously failed miserabely, to say that I can understand why Willis returns to the McClain role every now and then, if just to boost his status as a bankable action star. Much like Roger Moore did, and Daniel Craig does now, WHILE they where/are James Bond. It’s obviously very good for business. I didn’t mention before or after (I checked). Connery and the others went the other way and did movies WHILE they were James Bond that the audience didn’t want, and therefor didn’t have a leg to stand on afterwards.

    Sorry for being unclear.

28. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 5th, 2012 at 10:44 am

    I can’t believe you don’t like Daniel Craig, pegsman. What did he ever do to you? It’s not like he stole your wife like he did with poor Aronofsky. Wait, next you’re gonna tell me you don’t like Aronofsky either.

29. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 5th, 2012 at 10:45 am

    I’m just fuckin’ with you, obviously.

30. 

    pegsman

    October 5th, 2012 at 10:47 am

    What can I say, she was mine first!

31. 

    patiomensch

    October 5th, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    It seems I’m alone in thinking this looks pretty great. I also loved John Moore’s “Flight of the Phoenix.”

32. 

    The Original... Paul

    October 5th, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    So I remember expressing some incredulity at A Certain Recent Blockbuster Movie Villain’s assertion that a little bit of hope is the greatest form of torture there is. So thank you, Die Hard series, for making that particular blockbuster, which shall remain nameless in this thread for obvious reasons, a little less dumb than it previously looked; because if anything seems to justify that assertion, it’s the “Die Hard” franchise.

    What I’m saying is there’s a reason why my idea of “movie hell” is endless Die Hard sequels. None of them are quite bad enough to kill the franchise for me, but neither are they good enough to make me look forward to the next instalment with any kind of anticipation. “Little bit of hope” is right.

    So let’s break this one down, shall we:

    1) The entire trailer is full of standard blue-grey colour palate (HT is on-the-nose on that one), fast-shot action scenes, and generic bad guys in military clothing.
    2) Leaving zero room for any kind of character work whatsoever being shown, apart from…
    3) Bruce Willis, doing generic Bruce Willis-y things, before delivering the only line of dialogue in the whole trailer. Which is a James Bond joke. A BAD James Bond joke. And John McClane is making bad meta-jokes about James Bond because…?

    On the plus side, the music is good. And also unexpected. So there’s one part of the original “Die Hard”‘s myriad of great parts that the makers of this latest film seem to have “got”. They NEED to be trying to outdo the genius idea to run “Let it snow” over the closing credits. There’s a helluva lot more they need to be doing that I can’t see from this trailer, but hopefully it isn’t representative of the film as a whole.

    Having said that… music aside, it’s a generic trailer for a generic action movie that just happens to have the name “Die Hard” in the title. Yuuuuuugh.

    Here’s a thought: I hate the dialogue, love the music. So what’s the chances that the dialogue from the trailer ends up in the actual movie, but the music does not?

33. 

    Griff

    October 5th, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    your punishment must be more severe

34. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 5th, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Paul: I think the colour palate looks fine. Maybe a bit too reminiscent of a Besson flick, but not as drab as UNDERWORLD, and certainly less plastic and garish than RESIDENT EVIL WHATEVER. It seems like it was shot in a real place, unlike so many of the films I’ve seen over the last few years. To my eyes it looks outright vibrant compared to the DARK KNIGHT RETURNS trailer (though I didn’t bother seeing the whole movie, so I might be wrong about the film itself).

    The brief shots of soldiers and stuff certainly looks overly familiar, but, to my eyes, not incompetently shot. Some nice, basic composition happening in some of the shots. I’m not skilled enough to determine whether or not a teaser is reflective of the editing style of the whole film.

    I agree with you that Willis’ smirky line reading isn’t character-based, but rather is some kind of dopey fan service. It does nothing to allay my suspicion that Willis is still half asleep.

35. 

    Franchise Fred Topel

    October 5th, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Knox, all of Craig’s non Bond films have been failures, commercially and arguably artistically. Even the sure thing DRAGON TATTOO. And he is a great actor and PHENOMENAL James Bond.

    I think LOOPER is the most layered Bruce has been outside of McClane, even counting 12 MONKEYS, UNBREAKABLE and PULP.

36. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 6th, 2012 at 3:54 am

    I don’t know, Fred. That’s a pretty strong statement to make. I have no idea how they did financially, but if Layer Cake, Road To Perdition and Tintin were artistic failures, nobody told me.

    Am I the only one who remembers Willis being an awesome drunk in Death Becomes Her? I think it’s time for a Lesser-Seen-Bruce-Movies marathon.

37. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 6th, 2012 at 4:45 am

    Hey fellas, guess who’s going to see the new Brian De Palma movie this morning, with De Palma himself in the house? I’m betting it’s the one guy on here who’s not wicked fuckin’ jealous.

    Here’s another hint: He’s a handsome sumbitch, too.

38. 

    Chopper Sullivan

    October 6th, 2012 at 5:42 am

    So…the new Rob Zombie movie looks fucking terrible.

39. 

    The Limey

    October 6th, 2012 at 7:17 am

    Looks a bit generic but Bruce is awesome and I have bought into all the Die Hard movies so far, so I see no reason to not give it a chance.

40. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 6th, 2012 at 7:26 am

    Fred: I just didn’t get “layers” at all from Willis in LOOPER. Maybe you could give me an idea of some of the moments you enjoyed, because I’m just not seeing it. I like UNBREAKABLE Bruce a lot, but I didn’t see anything resembling that in the film. In fact, I didn’t see anything at all in LOOPER, just another example of an empty-headed, overwrought concept like IN TIME, without any of the wit of TIMECRIME. And Joseph Gordon Whatsisdick pretending to be a version of Willis that never existed.

    Knox: I watched a sequence from TIN TIN in a store that sells fancy television sets. It’s this endless thing where a bunch of people were chasing a bird that had a piece of paper. I found the sequence so obnoxious and pandering that it made me reconsider my dislike for Pixar stuff. But maybe the child inside me was taking the day off.

    Chopper: Zombie’s film received a lukewarm review here at the Toronto Film Festival last month. If I remember correctly, the critic said something about Zombie’s slightly improved technique and his commitment to his “vision” going some way toward salvaging a pretty silly script. Apparently it has a lot in common with that heavy metal horror movie from the 1980s, which, if I’m remembering correctly, starred Gene Simmons and the kid who played Skippy on Family Ties.

    Majestyk: Remember that awful Iraq film de Palma made a few years ago? I promise I won’t laugh at your bragging if the new one turns out to be worse (the film festival review was also lukewarm). You’ve got to report back to us some of his answers if there’s a Q&A session, especially if someone has the balls to ask him what happened to the audacious motherfucker who made BODY DOUBLE.

41. 

    The Original... Paul

    October 6th, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Jareth – I don’t think the colour palate is bad, I think it’s generic. And that’s arguably worse, although it’s definitely not as bad as, say, “Pulse” (the American version – to this day I hate that I saw this one before “Kairo”), “The Collector” or “P4”. At least the whole grainy blue colour horror palate thing seems to have fallen out of use in recent years.

    The problem with a trailer, ANY trailer, is that it’s not charged with the task of making the film look good, it’s charged with making the film look familiar. Anything that’s original or uncompromising about the film automatically fails to make the cut. And since I like original, uncompromising movies, it’s safe to say that most trailers don’t “do anything” for me. I’m not by any means dismissing the film out of hand, I’m just saying that the trailer gives me absolutely nothing to latch onto and say “wow, this film is gonna be superb.”

42. 

    Raknill

    October 6th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I’m probably one of the few whom really enjoyed ‘Live Free or Die Hard.’ It seems like there were either two possibilities; maintain the integrity of the original ‘Die Hard’ by not not having (more than two) sequels wherein the ‘normal dude’ is thrown into crazy circumstances, or just go a little wild and have this great character/siphon-for-Bruce-Willis-to-be-Bruce-Willis thrown into action movie scenarios. There were some legitimately great moments in ‘Live Free’ (the SUV elevator sequence being one), and I had a blast.

43. 

    Ace Mac Ashbrook

    October 6th, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    I sat through 4.0 when it was on TV a few weeks back. Other than not giving Olyphant anything to do, I have to say I enjoyed it thoroughly. This trailer has me sold too. Lets have him smoking and drinking again.

44. 

    karlos

    October 6th, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    LOOPER is OK until it turns into SCANNER BABIES, and then it goes down downhill.

    And Bruce calling it the best film he’s ever done suggests he’s taken some nasty blows to the head over the years.

45. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 6th, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Jareth: I liked it. It was a De Palma movie. Predatory lesbians, phantom twin sisters, splitscreen murders. He could make this kind of movie in his sleep. And I wish he would, because then he’d have time to make more of them.

46. 

    Franchise Fred Topel

    October 6th, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Knox, Perdition and Layer were before Bond.

    Jarreth, wait for the LOOPER review thread. And you’re in Toronto? Why didn’t we hang out at TIFF?

    Oh and Moore did action films like SHOUT AT THE DEVIL and THE SEA WOLVES in between Bond films.

    I would LOVE for this to be a sequel to LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD but I don’t imagine it will have that energy. Hope John Moore surprises us.

47. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 6th, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Majestyk: What did you think of THE BLACK DAHLIA? For some reason I have an unreasonable, morbid desire to see that film.

    Paul: Be glad if you’ve never seen any of the sequels to the American PULSE. They’re even worse than the remake.

    Fred: I couldn’t get past your entourage of burly dudes and exotic dancers. I was able to admire your bling from a distance, though.

48. 

    Jimbolo

    October 7th, 2012 at 12:26 am

    I have to admit, I don’t get the one-liner. “Double-oh-seven-of-…what?-New-Jersey.” Sounds like he says ‘playing field’, so it’s the “Double-oh-seven-of-playing-field-New-Jersey.”. Huh?

    Not bothered about him bringing up Bond though, in Die Hard he brought up the explosives being enough to blast Arnold Schwarzenegger into orbit, so he’s always been up for a pop-culture reference.

49. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 7th, 2012 at 1:59 am

    To be fair, Fred, you did say that “all of Craig’s non Bond films have been failures”. Should have just said that all his post-Bond films were failures. Would have made more sense. Anyway, I get what you were trying to say. Once you’re Bond it’s tough to be anyone other than Bond. For some reason being Batman isn’t as much of a problem. Must be the mask.

    Have to be honest, the only Die Hards I like are the first one (obviously) and Die hard With A Vengeance. Die Harder was pretty forgettable (haven’t seen it in years, though) and 4.0 was pretty laughable, in my opinion.

    They really are trying to turn McClane into the American James Bond, but instead of being suave and all stiff upper lip, he’s an average Joe with a wicked sense of humour. Now, that may be great for the character, but it affects the scale of the films in a way that simply isn’t Die Hard to me. Jumping on jets is the kinda shit Bond does. Having McClane do it just seems silly to me. This is a guy who gets by on his wits, not his superhuman ability to walk out of explosions in slo-mo.

    I really don’t like where this franchise is going, and the international feel and scale of this new one just puts me off. Also, the director of Max Payne and the writer of Hitman. Sounds like the stuff of nightmares.

50. 

    Chitown

    October 7th, 2012 at 2:35 am

    Rarely do I disagree with Vern, but I have to disagree in spades here. This doesn’t look too slick or fakey? I call bullshit there. Everything in that trailer looked fake. The big gun battle in the empty apartment looked like something out of a dtv and not something from a movie that probably cost more than $100 million just to pay for Bruce Willis catering. As far as slick, it doesn’t look slick at all, it looks dull and doesn’t have anywhere near the slickness of the original trilogy. The original trilogy is extremely slick, just not Michael Bay slick. It just happened to look slick and now how to do it right. Also, after watching Bruce in Looper it looks like he is coming with his I love a big paycheck D game again. In Looper he came with the A+ game again and it’s pretty obvious that he could care less about the Die Hard franchise. Oh well, I guess I’ll just watch Dredd again for a real action movie with balls.

51. 

    CEPE

    October 7th, 2012 at 4:05 am

    That “007 of New Jersey” Line’s probably directed at his son, who’s apparently grown up to become this secret agent type of guy. They’re just making it look like he’s referring to himself.

    I don’t know why they’ve gone with the “Freude Schoener Goetter Funken/Ode to Joy” music though – wasn’t that exclusively tied to the Gruber boys?

52. 

    JackDaniels

    October 7th, 2012 at 4:37 am

    No, it actually was used in the trailer for the fourth one as well.

53. 

    onthewall2983

    October 7th, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Jimbolo: I heard it as Plainfield, which is an actual city in New Jersey.

54. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 7th, 2012 at 7:47 am

    Union County NJ representing, yo.

    Apparently Plainfield’s population has increased enough for census people to consider it noteworthy. Possibly due to McLane.

    I don’t follow Daniel Craig very closely, but, man, I saw that ghost film he did with Rachel Weisz and Naomi Watts. What utter crap (and I have a high tolerance for crappy horror movies). Craig in particular just did not bring a suitable set of skills to that film. You gotta move your facial features just a little if you’re the one being tormented in a ghost story, but Craig seemed incapable. He was more expressive in those wristwatch advertisements (which, strangely, use a phrase like “the watch James Bond prefers,” making no mention of Craig).

55. 

    Jimbolo

    October 7th, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Ah, that makes a bit more sense than 007-on-a-playing-field-in-New-Jersey. Nice one, Onthewall2983. Still, not the big line I’d have used in a teaser trailer. I probably wouldn’t have used that weird smile either. Quite liked the Ode To Joy use.

56. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 7th, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Jareth: I haven’t actually seen BLACK DAHLIA. Or REDACTED. REDACTED just didn’t seem to be the kind of movie I need from De Palma, and I got some bad vibes off BLACK DAHLIA that keeps making me put it off. I’ll get around to them eventually, though. Maybe after I finally watch his 1968 black-and-white film MURDER A LA MOD that came with the Criterion edition of BLOWOUT.

    As for this new DIE HARD, I’m with Franchise Fred on this one. Keep ’em comin’, I say. LFODH proved that it will never not be fun to watch McClane running around and blowing shit up, no matter who’s behind the camera, so even if this particular franchise entry isn’t quite up to code, there’s always the next one. I’m in this bitch until DIE HARD IN A RETIREMENT HOME, which everyone will make fun of even though it will finally the more intimate, claustrophobic DH1-style outing everybody’s been crying about for decades. I, for one, do not mind at all that the adventures keep getting bigger and crazier. You can only do the “normal guy trapped in an extreme situation” thing once. As soon as it happens again, you have already opened the door to absurdity, so why not embrace it? I like the idea that he’s just doomed to be “that guy,” the one who saves the day because there’s no one else around to do it. And if you do that shit often enough, you better get good at it. Pretending you’re just Joe Everyman after defeating roughly 700 people in small arms combat is even more ridiculous than being able to defeat roughly 700 people in small arms combat in the first place. McClane might have been a normal guy once, but he’s been forged in the fires of sequelization into a badass New Jersey superhero. And I like him that way.

    Fucking love the title, by the way.

57. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 7th, 2012 at 9:07 am

    REDACTED was pretty heavy-handed, and not in the usual batshit way we’ve come to appreciate from De Palma. More like an overly earnest student film. Definitely not something you need to see unless you’re a completist.

    I know a guy who was convinced that BUBBA HO TEP was going to inspire a whole genre of retirement home action movies. He feels vindicated any time the Red Letter Media guys put Plinkett into an action sequence.

58. 

    CEPE

    October 7th, 2012 at 10:04 am

    BLACK DAHLIA isn’t very good. Kinda comes across like a cut-price LA Confidential knock-off, including Scarlett Johansson trying to be a shorter version of Kim Basinger in that movie. She’s going for seductive minx; she fails. Most of the time she looks like a platinum haired dwarf schlepping about in pseudo-sinuous fashion. Ridiculous. I like her, normally, but this just didn’t cut it for me. The rest of the movie didn’t exactly imprint itself on my mind, either, except for a vague memory of yet another sorta wooden Hartnett performance.

59. 

    Knox Harrington

    October 7th, 2012 at 10:08 am

    “McClane might have been a normal guy once, but he’s been forged in the fires of sequelization into a badass New Jersey superhero.”

    That’s a nice way of looking at (and explaining) the new McClane. Your logic makes sense. It just really doesn’t do anything for me in terms of enjoying the character. It has to be possible to make a good action movie about a smartass cop in a tough spot, but without all the jets and tanks and battleships and Transformers and other such Bayhem.

    Something like Taken, while being rather over the top at times, still manages to at least keep the scale down to a more human, the-world-isn’t-at-stake-but-lives-are level. That’s also what I liked about With A Vengeance; it seemed natural for him to be in that situation, because it was a direct consequence for what happened in the first movie. Anyway, that’s been done, I guess.

    Bring on IN SPACE, NO ONE CAN DIE HARD.

    Actually, no. Don’t.

60. 

    RRA

    October 7th, 2012 at 11:41 am

    “More like an overly earnest student film. ”

    Jareth – I completely agree with your assessment on REDACTED.

61. 

    Michael Mayket

    October 7th, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    When I got to the bottom of the comments I was going to post approximately the same thing Majestyk did… after going through the kind of shit that McClane has over and over it is completely ridiculous to still expect him to be a fish out of water everyman. It only makes sense that he has become who he was in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, and in the middle of all of the over the top stunts I think John McClane’s cynicism, problems with authority, and sense of humor still shown trough. He was recognizably the same man even if every single person who works for AICN would claim otherwise.

    I’m with Fred and Majestyk… Keep making them. I’ll keep seeing them.

    The move to Russia for this film is an obvious attempt to make him a fish out of water again.

62. 

    onthewall2983

    October 7th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    I haven’t really bothered with 4.0, but will give this a shot if it gets an R rating. I would imagine after PROMETHEUS, Fox would be more open to putting out big-budget R films again.

    What I really hope for is that whoever scores it makes good use of Michael Kamen’s themes and keeps the music in that tone. For me, a DIE HARD film is not the same without McTiernan or Kamen.

63. 

    Patrick

    October 7th, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    I just noticed on the IMDB that the aspect ratio for this is listed as 2.35, despite the trailer.

64. 

    karlos

    October 7th, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Y’know, that looks OK but I’m not falling for it this time.

    I was well and truly had with LFODH. A slick trailer for that got my hopes up and then the finished film just reaked of PG-13 balls removal.

65. 

    Franchise Fred Topel

    October 7th, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Knox, you’re right, I should have specified post-Bond movies, but still Perdition and Layer Cake were not successes because of Daniel Craig. That was a Tom Hanks movie, and an indie crime thriller from the producers of Snatch and Lock Stock. Craig was never a bankable star, and Bond hasn’t made him one outside of Bond. He happens to be a great actor and phenomenal Bond. Maybe he’s picking bad stuff. Even Connery picked bad stuff and stumbled into some Hunts for Red Octobers and The Rocks by accident. At least Daniel Craig met his wife on that house movie.

    But, this Die Hard 007 issue. What Bond movie has ever had James Bond do something like jumping on a jet plane? That’s not the kind of stunt James Bond pulls. He uses a gadget to make something happen and says a funny line, but he doesn’t perform superhuman feats, not even in Moonraker. Jumping on a plane is something JOHN MCCLANE does. It’s like jumping off a roof tied to a firehose. James Bond would never do something that reckless and dangerous. I think you guys are really misreading this one. There’s this impasse where jumping off the roof was plausible and gritty, but everything in the sequels was just ridiculous.

    It is an amazing testament to the power of DIE HARD that everyone sees something different in it, that none of the sequels could capture entirely, thus segments of fans are left out. I’m happy to see any of DIE HARD recreated or extended. I like the situation, the character, the action, the humor and lots more. I’m not turned off that the character isn’t the same underdog he originally was. I also don’t care if they can say fuck or not. Just write a good story. The R-rating was the last of my passion for DIE HARD.

66. 

    JeffWode

    October 9th, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Let’s not miss the point here – the guys who are making this movie listen to/steal from Vern. I’m back interested.

67. 

    clubside

    October 10th, 2012 at 9:13 am

    One of the many things that suck about YouTube, the account for this copy of the trailer has been removed. Of course there are dozens more so take your pick and let’s see how long that one stays active. Oh, and there appear to be two different ones of various lengths as well. Thanks for an official one that would never go away there, Fox!

68. 

    karlos

    October 10th, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Trailer can be found here (one of the few I could find that didn’t have some kind of commercial preceding it):

    http://screenrant.com/a-good-day-to-die-hard-trailer/

69. 

    Chitown

    October 10th, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    I gotta post this because this is the movie I’m really excited for and this trailer just sealed the deal for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpy8619PWO0&feature=player_embedded

70. 

    Darth Brooks

    October 11th, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Does anyone else notice that Willis’s line reading in this trailer sounds exactly like Mitch fucking Hedberg?

71. 

    Franchise Fred Topel

    October 11th, 2012 at 10:50 am

    I thought it sounded like he stuttered on the 007 line.

72. 

    CJ Holden

    October 11th, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Fred, that’s what I thought the first time too, but I re-watched it again yesterday and it’s gone. Maybe the first version had a corrupted video file or something like that, because the stuttering was very audible.

73. 

    neal2zod

    October 13th, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Is it weird to anyone else that Live Free or Die Hard is from 2007? It’s not one of my favorites (I didn’t even particularly like it), but it really feels like it just came out. It certainly doesn’t feel pre-Iron Man 1(!) or pre-Heath Ledger’s death. By the time Die Hard 5 comes out, there’ll be 6 years between installments, roughly the same time between the first and the third ones(!)

    But yeah, I didn’t mind the trailer at all – Bruce does seem to be enjoying himself, as opposed to most of his recent output (like Red) where he just seems really bored.

74. 

    Franchise Fred Topel

    October 14th, 2012 at 12:45 am

    Well, not quite six years since it won’t be summer yet, but yeah, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD does still feel new.

    As Franchise Fred I also want to give the series props for having real fun with the titles. I mean, who would have dreamed they’d actually call the sequel DIE HARDER??? And they’re still creative. The only other series that comes close may be the FAST AND THE FURIOUS which are rather conservative by comparison. 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS was fun but just dropping the THEs and shortening the last one to FAST FIVE isn’t nearly as ambitious as dropping the title into Aericana catch phrases.

75. 

    Dtroyt

    October 24th, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Vern,

    I just found out about this and obviously had to share it with you. It’s an amazing Die Hard song. If you’ve never seen/heard it, you should check it out.

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=OTyw6cq86kY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOTyw6cq86kY

76. 

    onthewall2983

    October 25th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/agooddaytodiehard/ New teaser.

77. 

    onthewall2983

    January 12th, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    It’s official, Rated R. I might have to see this then.