Die Hard 4

[Robo_1]

With Willis saying he's on-board for Die Hard 4, are you happy that another installment of a great franchise is coming, or sad that Hollywood is milking yet another franchise beyind it's "best before" date.

I'm in two minds about it, on the one hand I've seen the Robocop franchise dragged through the shit, just so the studio can knock out another sequel, but on the other hand, I've enjoyed all the Rocky, Terminator, Lethal Weapon and Die Hard sequels. I'm usually torn between wanting to see the characters I know return, and the worry that anything extra on what has gone before will muddy the brilliance of the original.

Personally, I think a lot depends on if the original cast and crew return. Having said that, the Bond films continue to do well regardless.

[Beertiger]

It depends. While i'd love to see a sequel to Ghostbusters i'm sure it would turn out to be more a dissapointment than T3.

If it hasn't been too long a gap then i'm fine but once something get's too old the new product has far too much to live up to.

[Keyboard Koala]

As long as it's got Willis in it, and it's not set in the jungle, it'll be fine. I think the DH series is one of the few trilogies that got better every time. Every part is still very enjoyable -top class action movies.

[NumberSix]

With Willis saying he's on-board for Die Hard 4, are you happy that another installment of a great franchise is coming, or sad that Hollywood is milking yet another franchise beyind it's "best before" date.

Rubbish idea. Die Hard was ace, 2 was ok, and three was just plain pap.

Alien? Same thing.

Terminator? Same thing.

Lethal Weapon? Ditto.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Quite sad, really.

[emjay2kay]

Die Hard 3 was brilliant, way better than Die Hard 2. Of course, the original is the best, but that's true of so many trilogies.

That you can think anything of Die Hard 3 other than that of it's brilliance is truly astounding.

[NumberSix]

That you can think anything of Die Hard 3 other than that of it's brilliance is truly astounding.

It's fucking shit. Hackneyed old pile of pants.

[Beertiger]

Die Hard 3 was ace. It was less actiony than the first two and more how much water to fill this juggy.

[Robo_1]

I thought Die Hard 3 was better than 2. The story was much fresher. The same of which cannot be said for Under Siege three, where our chubby hero is sent on a mission to take out Muslim terrorists who have taken over a flight from Israel to America. God alone knows how that script got approved. I'm still desperately trying to forget the last Seagal film I saw: "Out for a Kill". Far and away the worst film I have ever seen.

[DarhkFox]

Die Hard 3 is a fantastic film. I think Die Hard 2 was my least liked (but it was still great!). Die Hard 1 was great, maybe I like DH1 and DH3 the same amount.

fact. did you know Die Hard 3 was original Lethal Weapon 4 (well the script was).

Also DH4 should be cool as long as they dont mess it up.

[emjay2kay]

I thought Die Hard 3 was better than 2. The story was much fresher. The same of which cannot be said for Under Siege three, where our chubby hero is sent on a mission to take out Muslim terrorists who have taken over a flight from Israel to America. God alone knows how that script got approved. I'm still desperately trying to forget the last Seagal film I saw: "Out for a Kill". Far and away the worst film I have ever seen.

That is surely not post-11th September is it? It can't be

Good lord, it is.

[Vemsie]

Put me in the Die Hard 3 is great camp as well. It has the best script out of the three, filled with great dialogue (mosty between Wilis and Jackson). Special mentions must go to the Summer in the City opening explosion and the superb action scene where the lady cuts up a guy with a very mean looking blade. Some great music as well. Irons is pretty good but he's no Rickman in the end. Sill, great stuff.

I also love Alien and think Lethal Weapon 2 and Terminator 2 are great sequels. And X2 is better than the first imo. I also prefer Blade II to the first, but I know I'm a minority in this.

[Vemsie]

I'm still desperately trying to forget the last Seagal film I saw: "Out for a Kill". Far and away the worst film I have ever seen.

Have you seen Belly of the Beast? As far as direct-to-video action movies go, it's enjoyable stuff. Apparently, cause I haven't seen it myself.

[Judas]

Rambo 4

[Salsa Party Animal]

I would like to see another Die Hard film, but where is the question.

How about Die Hard on holiday in Dubai or something.

[Vemsie]

How about Die Hard on holiday in Dubai or something.

Bruce fighting Omizzay?

[Robo_1]

Have you seen Belly of the Beast? As far as direct-to-video action movies go, it's enjoyable stuff. Apparently, cause I haven't seen it myself.

No, I've not seen that one yet. I'm toying with the idea of renting "Half Past Dead", but common sense thus far has prevailed, and I've yet to do so.

Oh, and you're not alone in thinking Blade 2 is better than the first. Much more OTT and comic booky, as IMO, it should be. Blade: Trinity also sounds good fun, looking forward to that one muchly B)

[DarhkFox]

Blade 2 was tripe. Just another generic action film. Blade was a decent enough film, nothing amazing but it had something the sequel didnt have.

[Lazychu]

Blade 2 was decent dumb fun.

Awful CGI at times and it made little sense (those UV grenades ), but still enjoyable.

Plus it had Danny John Jules in it.

And Die Hard 3 was ace.

[DJ Sack]

The only problem is that willis is getting on a bit now, which sadly shows in films, look at arnie in T1 and in T3, terrible.

I loved all 3 of them, the first one for being very very gory, the second one for being clever and the 3rd one for just having everything in it. And its easy to see how it could have become LW4.

Im looking forward to it, its not a franchise they can really mess up on.

[Space Renegade Ulala]

Words are inadaquate for describing the depths of my dislike of Blade II, especially when some dare say it's better than the excellent first. As for Die Hard, while I too enjoyed ...with a Vengeance, I really don't see the point in milking it for another. I'm sick of lacklustre sequels with 50+ actors trying to be action heroes, it just doesn't work.

[Robo_1]

Words are inadaquate for describing the depths of my dislike of Blade II, especially when some dare say it's better than the excellent first. As for Die Hard, while I too enjoyed ...with a Vengeance, I really don't see the point in milking it for another. I'm sick of lacklustre sequels with 50+ actors trying to be action heroes, it just doesn't work.

Just wondering, what did you find so bad about Blade 2? Too OTT maybe? Personally I thought Blade 2 plugged all the holes in Blade, which sometimes saw the film wandering a bit. The action was much more comic book like, and the plot was far from just another "aint Vampires evil" styled affair. Whilst it may not be everyones cup of tea, I'm suprised you liked the first but hated the second so much. So, as the lamp said to the bulb, "enlighten me"

[DoctorK]

I thought Blade 2 was excellent, maybe not as good as the first one for story but the action sequences were great.

Die Hard 3 was great, but the first is still my favourite. I'd like to see a fourth, as long as Brucie doesn't look too ancient. John McTiernan must direct again though, and no jungle!

[Space Renegade Ulala]

Just wondering, what did you find so bad about Blade 2? Too OTT maybe? Personally I thought Blade 2 plugged all the holes in Blade, which sometimes saw the film wandering a bit. The action was much more comic book like, and the plot was far from just another "aint Vampires evil" styled affair. Whilst it may not be everyones cup of tea, I'm suprised you liked the first but hated the second so much. So, as the lamp said to the bulb, "enlighten me"

Bringing back Whistler, the 'enemy of my enemy' story, the lacklustre action scenes, the horrible CGI stuntmen, the annoying tech guy replacement, the over-emphasis on Blade's aceness (sometimes, less really is more) and, overall, a curious sense of detachment, del Toro's inability to make care about any of the characters and the fact it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi that the first had in spades.

Perhaps you have hit on it though - if the first had been so OTT then maybe it would've been easier to accept the second. Hard to say for sure but I found it so very uninvolving. Hope he gets Hellboy right!

[Vemsie]

To counter it, my reasons why I prefer the second. CGI stuntmen are not as bad as CGI blood, Tippet's reapers are awesome, the action is way better (imo, love Donnie Yen's choreography), some cool dialogue ('you're one cunthair away from Hillbilly heaven), a simple yet nowehere near as stupid plot as the Blood God of the original, Ron 'I'm a badass motherfucker' Perlman is in it, it has better gore, Nomak is a great villain, I found the bit where the vampire chick dies in his hands quite touching and the end bit in the UK is fun as well. Shame they digitally erased the cumstains. All in all, much more of a comic book and imo much more fun. But each to his own and all that.

Hellboy will carve the earth up with it's coolness.

[Reynard]

Die Hard 3 was shit - first film I fell asleep watching in the cinema.

[Caleb Newcastle]

Well here's how I see it.

You send Bruce to Hong Kong.

You have him team up with Chow Yun Fat.

You get John Woo to direct.

BANG BANG BANG!!! KABOOOM!!!