Bullets 'n' Babes

If that's true, that works surprisingly well.

Yup its only a few countries that are getting 4.0, the crap ones. Yes its computer orientated, but its still shite like X Men 1.5 etc..

I think Die Hard 1 and 2 are about the same, both superb action films, nothing alike yes, but who cares.

Just remember if you watch Part 3 the dvds are sickningly bad! I am appauled at the picture on the Region 1 dvd, the worst edge enhancement I have seen in my life, the image is shocking, no detail at all and flat as a pancake and thw blown out areas of white are abysmal, peoples eyes look like car headlights at times.

One of the worst transfers I have seen for ages, amazing what you notice on a new better TV. I wanted to turn it off it was so bad, just the begining sequence alone sucked so bad I thought it was stock footage.

"Live Free or Die Hard" is still the title of the film in the USA. They changed for the rest of the world because they rightfully assumed that nobody would get that the title refers to the official motto of New Hampshire state.

I didn't even know it was set in New Hampshire or have a Scooby Doo where that is in The States.

Our title is way better

Also 'Live Free or Die Hard' sounds like patriotic bollocks.

As it happens I am interested in seeing DH4.0 because of the previous films, but if it wasn't a sequel how would I know whether I wanted to see it without reviews offering information? I can't tell if a film is gonna be good from its title or the cast can I? And trailers can be deceptive. When I saw the trailer for Bad Boys in 1995 I thought it looked awesome.... and then I saw the film. Reviews aren't gospel, but the do offer advice you can take or leave. Most often when critics say a film is shite they're right.

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=10852

CGI blood???

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really surprised at how strong the reviews for this flick are. It's in the 80's on RT.

Will be seeing it tomorrow. Gotta admit, I'm kinda excited.

Markgway wrote:I can't tell if a film is gonna be good from its title or the cast can I?

You can't until you have seen it yourself.

I have found myself liking films that have been slaughtered by critics and friends.

CGI blood isnt anything new, you would be suprised how many films are CGI blood now and you dont notice. Many films I didnt knw at all, until I listened to the commentary, if you dont notice without being told, I couldnt care

One of the best films of last year Underworld Evolution got totally slaughtered by critics, so many 1 star reviews, and on the whole most people I know loved it as much as me. Hell who cares we are all gonna see Die Hard 4 anyway in time I can bet on that

Mark, Romero is right. You're reacting over nothing. CGI is used for subtle effects (eg frosty breath) all the time in movies/TV these days and usually unnoticeable (Unless it's a cheap ass Japanese live-action movie, LOL. Zatoichi 2003 comes to mind.). You probably wouldn't have known unless told.

Its mainly Asian film that still dont do CGI blod well, in fact they are pathetic eveen when they have massive budgets. Holywood it seems has got the cash and skill to do it well.


and hey the people I know who have seen Die Hard 4 are all saying the same thing, that its 5 star out of 5, so going by what others say its going to be superb.

thelostdragon wrote:You can't until you have seen it yourself.
I have found myself liking films that have been slaughtered by critics and friends.

Yes, but have you noticed how bad your taste is? 8)

EvaUnit02 wrote:Unless it's a cheap ass Japanese live-action movie, LOL. Zatoichi 2003 comes to mind.

That's actually one I was thinking of and Battle Royale.

The CGI blood sucked. I want real squibs like in the good old days.

But of course if the CGI turns out well I will give it praise.

Many after thought CGI films ussually look lame, no matter how much cash they have. Even Pearl Harbor with its gigantic budget while the standard films fine, the extended cut adds CGI blood! it looks crap, so it can go wrong sometimes if they dont take care.

Squibs are becoming a thing of the past for so many reasons now
Actors dont like wearing them as they are still explosives, if the take goes wrong thats a lot to clean up and change cloths etc.. and you cannot always get the disired splatter, directon and amount etc.. So I can see why Hollywood has started doing CGI more and more.

romerojpg wrote:Squibs are becoming a thing of the past for so many reasons now Actors dont like wearing them as they are still explosives, if the take goes wrong thats a lot to clean up and change cloths etc..

Damn those girly men!

As it happens I am interested in seeing DH4.0 because of the previous films

Me too but because of the director I'll be going in with low expectations. I like both Underworlds but oh boy they should've gone with a better director.

Er OK.


and hey the thing is most so called "CGI Blood effects" are NOT CGI anyway, people are just dumb sods and dont know what they are talking about, most are compsited in a computer, that is all, its not like they are created in a computer.

Many shoot real blood splats and bodies being hit etc.. and layer them into the film, people just dont know the facts so say CGI blood when they rarley are CGI.

Hey, if it ain't spurting out of a stuntman's shirt it's CGI.

Split hairs if you want to.

Best movie of the summer and personally, my favorite film of the series. Had a blast.

Die Hard 4.0 - 3.5/5
It was really good, but you just notice that it was adapted from a novel that originally had nothing to do with "Die Hard" or John McClane.

Awesome action scenes and there were some funny quotes, but unfortunately not enough like you'd expect in a "Die Hard"-film. But still a great ride.

Oh and it's good that McClane's daughter didn't have that much screentime as she was one of those bothersome character that I usually want to die.

thelostdragon wrote:Die Hard 4.0 - 3.5/5
It was really good, but you just notice that it was adapted from a novel that originally had nothing to do with "Die Hard" or John McClane.

Well if thats the way it feels, part 3 is exactly the same as that was a different film to start with as well, they just inserted Die Hard into it. Not that I minded too much, but part 3 was a very different film for me, too different and silly in places.

To me the third part remains the best in the series.

Best part of Die Hard 3... the break in with the classical score (Beethoven I think?)

Classic! Gets stuck in my head for weeks each time I see it... to bad the 5 Star collection DVD is reaaaally crappy compared to todays releases

Er, all Die Hard movies are based on novels or stories which had NOTHING TO DO WITH JOHN MC CLANE, yes even the first, the character is totally changed.

romerojpg wrote:and hey the thing is most so called "CGI Blood effects" are NOT CGI anyway, most are compsited in a computer, that is all, its not like they are created in a computer.

LOL. What does CGI stand for? Computer Graphics Imaging. If they are composited in a computer, then it is still CGI!