Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
MY flatmate has never seen it, he's weird.
I must have held shift down too long.
"No, the other one."
He hasn't seen speed either, or back to the future.
Every time the oven gets hot enough his other flatmate turns it off.
Seriously, he loves them.
....it's a bit fuckin stupid when he's attacked by that jet fighter! ...yes I know its not supposed to be realistic but ffs.
In Die Hard 5 McClane will jump on top of a nuclear warhead...you watch....
I'm not really clear where everyone got this idea that Die Hard films were hyper realistic. You do realise how much you COULDN'T do that trick with the firehose in the first film?
And the less said about bad guys being sucked into jet engines and surfing dumper trucks down storm drains the better...
Ah, good old stupid ITV.
Bowlderised Simpsons is one of the most pathetic things ever.
The best bit was when McClane took on a jetfighter whilst unarmed and driving a truck, and managed a score-draw.
I mean it's entertaining, but McClane has suddenly become some kind of superman, which rather reduces his every man charm
What's not to like? Honestly, this sort of shit is okay in Crank but not in Die Hard?
Crank sets itself up as a load of surreal nonsense - although Crank doesn't have anything like a car flying into a helicopter
Die Hard sets it up with McClane as the every man, scrabbling around desperately trying to find a solution. When he gets hurt, he gets hurt bad and he stays hurt. Oh and now he's being chased by a fighter plane and driving cars into helicopters
Are you honestly telling me Die Hard 4.0 doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in terms of tone and content to the previous 3? You compliant goon
Wait, I've seen the one in the airport. Which one is that?
I played Die Hard Trilogy on the PS1 to death as well.
It feature Chief O'Brien as a plane pilot
"We've got you.........we've got you"
You've never seen the other Die Hards? What is wrong with you?
Die Hard and Die Hard With a Vengance are both absolutely brilliant. Die Hard is the second best action film ever after Terminator 2
but it drops off somewhat in the second half. Still good though.
You forgot you ever knew two girls called Gemma...
You clearly blanked out large sections of them. Particularly that ridiculous bit in DHWAV where he rides the dumper truck as the water is sent down and that climax.
Die Hard 4.0 is much more enjoyable than it had any right to be
but JFC he drives a car into a helicopter! He gets chased by an f-16! There are silly bits on the others but please tell me anything in the others that compare to that?
I enjoyed Die Hard 4, but it didn't feel like the same series of films. And if you're claiming that it's the same as the other I would actually question if you had seen them, you big ole compliant goon
whereas Die Hard wasn't
but I think I'm gonna have to debate your analysis of Aliens when I get back
but basically I was going to write a lenghty explanation of my thoughts, but then I realised I haven't seen recently enough to really remember it properly, and so I can't can't realy talk about it at great length (probably best for everyone, frankly)
anyway, basically I think you summarised it best in the Die Hard peice - unlike the first one, it is an action movie, not a horror film. It's directed by James Cameron! it's about a bunch of space marines blowing the shit out of a bunch of alien scum! I'm not gonna say it isn't cruder, it is, definitely, but, really it doesn't take away from the film as an effective (and brilliant) action film. I think by viewing it and judging it with the criteria of horror film (which you seem to have), you fundamentally missed the point of the film. the 'bitch' comment might make a lot more sense in this context, since it conforms more to witty action one-liners than trad horror dialogue.
I suppose you might be correct about Ripley though - there is more emphasis on her gender - but, I don't feel it's really as contrived as you do. she still doesn't occupy any traditional female role, I don't think - she doesn't turn into a simpering, submissive, needy woman - sure, she's maternal and has basic human decency (which as far as I remember the most of the marines don't really seem to have), but (I think) she's still smart, tough and basically a badass. there is a balance.
p.s. what do you think of 3 and 4? I think 3 was great (and unfairly maligned) and 4 was pretty good, though Winona Ryder is absolutely awful.
p.p.s. I really liked the 'Looking Through Gary Gilmore's Eyes' post
p.p.p.s. I had something else to say but I can't remember what
1) i do obviously realise that there are different ways of viewing the film – the first post was written pretty soon after i'd seen it and i was a bit upset about what they'd done to ripley so was venting a bit
2) all critical theory i use in any analysis of horror films is mainly gender based, even though i disagree furiously with a lot of the traditional "feminist" criticism of the genre. but reading that has been my way of getting to know the genre and the films properly and the blog is meant to reflect that, so i'll look at these kinds of things before looking at other things (hence the name of the blog, get it?)
3) even though aliens works better as an action flick, i think you'll agree it's pretty reasonable for fans of the first film to judge it by the standards set by that, and compare it to the first film, which while it might seem to be mostly sci-fi to some follows a completely conventional slasher type script – and the role of ripley is, if you think about it, a pretty natural development of the final girl thing that had really been a long time coming
4) i know i've seen the third one but can't remember much of it, and i haven't seen the winona ryder one. yet. i will do some time in the not so distant future and probably be outraged by it
isn't that an argument for Alien being more conservative (gender-wise) than Aliens?
BTW, have you read Linda Badley on horror fiction? It's a bit dated now (1996) and it focuses on writing (in the narrow sense of the term), so perhaps not so relevant to your interests, but I reckon she's got some great stuff to say.
Alien3 and Alien: Resurrection are disappointing, although when I rewatched the third one recently I decided that it is not as terrible as I'd first thought. The fourth is pretty awful, and worse for the fact that you just know there was a great script in there somewhere (written by Jos Whedon, so it can't have been bad) but someone went and fucked it all up.
i mean, if you consider the classical definition of the final girl (as coined by carol clover, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_girl or her book "men, women and chainsaws" – or mainly just the essay 'her body, himself' taken from that book), she's someone more boyish than her friends, ie. the other girls in the film, and that's why she ultimately gets the chance to escape. (that's clover's argument, not mine)
of course that in itself doesn't have to be a very progressive way of looking at things at all. but i still think that ripley is less stereotypically WOMAN in the first film than she is in the sequel. she's made out to be a pretty cold and distant character (she's the one who doesn't want kane and the others let back onto the nostromo), she takes charge in a very rational way which is not how women are normally portrayed in these kinds of films (or most films?).
see where i'm going with this?
I've not read Clover's work (nor indeed a great deal scholarship on horor cinema). I just got the impression (or just assumed?) from the argument about the identification with the killer via the I-camera technique that the Final Girl concept was part and parcel of an old-school feminist critique of the patriarchal nature of the genre. I take it that her argument is a bit more subtle than this?
see, some would say that the evolution/development of the final girl was a positive trend, portraying "strong" women or whatever – clover then spends a lot of time talking about how this isn't the case, because of a lot of things that i won't really go into detail about here because it would take too long (but some keywords include the boyishness mentioned above, the fact she is tortured and have to watch her friends get killed, she gets mentally abused and often seems to completely lose her mind, she has to live up to certain things like being a "good" girl with no known sexual activity etc) – but her main point is to do with shifting audience identification/sympathies anyway (ie. the audience will during the course of one film have identified and cheered for both the killer and the final girl). whereas i just think that the whole genre is in its very nature (and all its glory) thoroughly misanthropic, so it doesn't really matter if one certain aspect is specifically anti-women when other parts are just as much, if not more, anti-men and the rest is just a symptom of a complete lack in humanity in general.
plus, you know, it's a well tested formula, and it works.
I'll be coming back to it
I like the use of JD.
Is this something that you're doing for Honours or something?
and has only seen part 3 and thinks that's better......
I nearly kicked her out the flat! But i changed my mind when she was almost cheering towards the end :)
fucking amazing, doesn't matter what else happens throughout, he shoots a car at a helicopter!
Die Hard 4 contains loads of fist in the air moments it's brilliant.
The original is the best, but the 4 & 2 are closely battling out 2nd place, and Die Hard 3 is the worst by a mile (but still pretty great)
Die Hard 2 is dreadful
"hooooooooollllyyyyyyyyy, it's your landing light!"
Shooting each other with blanks? Genius!!
Die Hard > Die Hard With a Vengeance > Die Hard 4.0 >>>>> Die Hard 2: Die Harder