it was repetitive, made no sense and it was unclear what the threat was or what the bad guy was all about. The action scenes were clumbsey and unrealistic and the gymnastic villain was the most interesting thing in the film though we just saw that kind of gymnastic villain in the opening scene of "Casino Royal" that 007 chases through the construction site - it was equally rediculous but still way better!
and Bruce Willis was flat and looked like he was doing it for the $
agree or disagree?
2007-07-02 04:16:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
also can you please state your age in your answer? I am wondering if younger people are less discriminiating than someone older who has seen a million movies to compare to. I am 42
2007-07-02 04:26:35 · update #1
oops Friday was my birthday - I am 43!
2007-07-02 04:26:58 · update #2
i understood what the villian was doing but why id they have to have a computer geek/hacker as a suave, cool handsome, killer with a smoking hot asian honey - it felt way fake and contrived to me!
2007-07-02 04:29:16 · update #3
if a film creates a sufficient sense of world any unrealistic action sequences are divine - like the Pierce Brosnan 007 running and getting into the plane in the opening sequence of that 007 flick - it is not a matter of being "realistic" - but the action has to be sold to us in such a way that we go along with it !!!!!! no??
2007-07-02 04:32:44 · update #4
I completely agree! It was a way too bad action movie made! A man that age at least should have some broken legs when he falls down from walls! And some scenes were very unrealistic. How can a war jet cannot hit a truck? And how can a human man survive from a crash like that?
2007-07-02 05:27:01 · answer #1 · answered by Arwen 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Disagree, the movie was over the top however and somethings were unrealistic however I enjoyed the movie. Also this is the 4th movie in the Series, it's about terrorists just like the last three and it involved money, what do you want them to do with John McLain have him read books all day. In Die Hard things get blown up and the bad guys do it for the money.
One more thing Die Hard was not meant to be overly complicated so if you are looking for something thought provoking try a different movie genre.
Edit: If you can't have fun watching a Die Hard movie then stick with the sappy drama's.
Edit: Movies are to entertain and be fun to watch. Tab1 is right, when was the last time you say Aliens attack in real life, that isn't realistic but it can be entertaining. That is what a movie is supposed to do. If you want something realistic go watch a documentary about the blue whale.
2007-07-02 04:29:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
DISAGREE!
It was an action movie: EXPECT THE ACTION TO BE UNREALISTIC!!!! The plot was a clear as most action movies. The point was nobody new what the fire sale was all about until the end.
It was a great movie. The action sequenses were outstanding. It kept me wondering how he was going to get out of each situation.
You've got to realize it's probably the last of the Die Hard series. They wanted to go out BIG. So they did.
It really bugs me when people come out of any movie saying "the action sequences could never happen!" Well, duh!
When is the last time you've seen alien robots come from space to do battle on our planet?
Edit: Thank you sidewalksu!
2007-07-02 04:29:01 · answer #3 · answered by tab1 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
DISAGREE!!! This movie was great! I loved it! Though i admit some scenes were a bit over the top, it looked great and was very exciting. You cant even remember how old you are so i can understand why you may have had trouble following the plot or understanding the concept of the film... I had a blast watching this movie and id love to see it again!
2007-07-02 05:31:31 · answer #4 · answered by Aubrey 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Disagree, yes it was pretty bad, but it wasn't as bad as a movie can be. there have been so much worse. The fight scenes were amazing though. I really didn't care about the plot as long as i got to see something being blown up. No Bruce actually liked playing McClain. He was the one who encouraged the Fourth movie.
2007-07-02 04:21:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I disagree. I thought it was great. Bruce was at his action best, and proved he could still play that character, despite his age.
Also, I loved how tragic his character was. He went through all this stuff in the first film, and it destroyed his marriage. Overall, I thought it was a great film. Sorry you didn't like it.
2007-07-02 04:23:21 · answer #6 · answered by vtothef 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
strongly disagree!! bruce willis did another great job of it. and the threat was obvious. that guy was wiping out parts of the country because they would not take his security programmes. it was not hard to understand. and although some of the scenes were ridiculous like the car taking out the helicopter, it didnt matter. was stil another great film to add to the classic set of die hard
2007-07-02 04:26:29 · answer #7 · answered by UK all day! 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Sorry I disagree I liked it. I was not confuessed at all as to what the threat was or what the bad guy was all about. Did you nap and miss that part?
2007-07-02 04:25:46 · answer #8 · answered by kitkat 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
its the best action movie so far this year....It was so good i can see it again
2007-07-02 07:07:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
At least it wasn't GLITTER...
2007-07-02 04:20:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋