Come on, who watched this year 🙂
Not seen it for decades. Just watched it again, great fun.
Perfect Xmas film :-). Die Hard 2 next.
Thoughts go out to Bruce Willis and all those suffering with memory issues :-(.
Love the original and the second one was good fun as well. Then they had to go and ruin it
Never seen it. Why is it considered a Christmas movie?
I thought this was a Harry Enfield / Badfellas reference at first.
Then they had to go and ruin it
Simon says no they didn't.
The 2nd one is a copy of the 1st and the 3rd one is very good. Then it goes tits up.
The 2nd one is a copy of the 1st and the 3rd one is very good. Then it goes tits up.
I like Live Free or Die Hard - the cyber crime one. Sure it's got its silly moments but the play offs between McClane and Farrell are a cut above the average mismatched buddy movie.
The final one is rubbish.
Never seen it. Why is it considered a Christmas movie?
Its the film the started the tradition of novelty christmas jumpers
I've watched 1-4 during the Christmas break. 1 and 2 with my eldest, other 2 on my own. You know what you're getting with them, but all a decent enough watch.
Never seen it. Why is it considered a Christmas movie?
It's set at Christmas
Exactly! The action takes place during the company Christmas party, I’ve never been able to understand how people can’t grasp this fundamental part of the story!
Come on, who watched this year
TBH, I would have watched it, but somehow it didn’t seem to show up in my tv listings. I’ll have a look to see if it’s still showing and watch it, it’s been a while and I’ve always enjoyed it.
Never seen it. Why is it considered a Christmas movie?
It's set at Christmas
Exactly! The action takes place during the company Christmas party, I’ve never been able to understand how people can’t grasp this fundamental part of the story!
1. Christmas movies are generally about the spirit of Christmas. Violent action movies seem a bit lacking in that department.
2. Bruce Willis is a lousy actor. With the exception of Pulp Fiction (where his role didn't demand much in way of acting), he's been really annoying in everything I've seen him in.
1. Christmas movies are generally about the spirit of Christmas. Violent action movies seem a bit lacking in that department.
2. Bruce Willis is a lousy actor. With the exception of Pulp Fiction (where his role didn't demand much in way of acting), he's been really annoying in everything I've seen him in.
It's a far better watch than some saccharine pseudo-christian bull crap.
That's my theory, anyway!
Fun fact, When Alan Rickman falls off the skyscraper, the look of shock on his face was real, they dropped him without warning him first.
Green screen onto a crash mat or whatever, not actualy off a skyscraper, but it was still a fair drop 🤣
It's a far better watch than some saccharine pseudo-christian bull crap.
So watch Bad Santa. It's a Christmas movie and has a great cast.
It's a far better watch than some saccharine pseudo-christian bull crap.
So watch Bad Santa. It's a Christmas movie and has a great cast.
I haven't watched it, but i'll bet you a million quid Die Hard is a far superior film, although I do like billy bob thornton... I'm torn, lol
1. Christmas movies are generally about the spirit of Christmas. Violent action movies seem a bit lacking in that department.
Lots of movies take place at christmas without being trading on any sort of christian messaging or being about Santa and elves. A three act movie plot needs a crisis in the middle and then focuses on the efforts everyone takes to get things right again by the end of the movie. Getting everything right again in time for Christmas (or Thanks Giving) just gives a handy extra time pressure. Getting moved in by Christmas is even a time pressure/jeopardy device in Grand Designs
Lethal Weapon is a Christmas Movie
The Long Kiss Good Night is a Christmas Movie
Gremlins is a Christmas Movie
Iron Man 3 is a Christmas Movie
Rocky IV is a Christmas Movie
Batman Returns is a Christmas Movie
Trading Places is a Christmas Movie
But its just a handy plot devise (it also gives the Production Designer and the DOP some nice practical lighting to play with) -the story could be set at any time of the year and you could watch them at any time of the year.
Watched it at the cinema afew weeks ago, even though I've seen it a gazillion times it was great on the big screen! Watched 2/3/4 over the Xmas period too. I don't think 4's too bad either, jumps the shark with the truck vs fighter jet scene though 😆
Die Hard 2 is the worst of the lot.
I especially liked the bit where Alan Rickman said he'd cut Bruce's heart out. With a spoon.
Or something like that.
It's been a while since I watched it
I forgot about Bad Santa. I used to think it was hilarious.
I might rewatch it next year to see how it's holding up.
I especially liked the bit where Alan Rickman said he'd cut Bruce's heart out. With a spoon.
Or something like that.
It's been a while since I watched it
That's Alan Rickman as the sheriff of nottingham, in Robin Hood prince of thieves. (the kevin costner film).
Jessus.. why do I even know that...? Font of useless info, I am.
Airbourne seem pretty sure Die Hard is a Christmas film.
(In fact that video would make no sense if you hadn't seen Die Hard).
Lots of movies take place at christmas without being trading on any sort of christian messaging or being about Santa and elves.
Which means they aren't a Christmas movie, they are a movie that takes place during Christmas.
i'll bet you a million quid Die Hard is a far superior film
This is pretty simple. Any movie with Bruce Willis as lead is automatically worse than any movie with Billy Bob as lead. It's just the laws of physics - Willis is dead weight who drags movies down, Thornton is buoyant and can lift any movie to great heights.
Thornton is buoyant and can lift any movie to great heights.
It's a bit of a B movie, but this is hillarious.. bit of vintage Billy Bob, lol!
This is pretty simple. Any movie with Bruce Willis as lead is automatically worse than any movie with Billy Bob as lead. It's just the laws of physics - Willis is dead weight who drags movies down, Thornton is buoyant and can lift any movie to great heights.
How does this work when you're watching Bandits?
(2001 heist film starring Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton plus Cate Blanchett)
Actually weren't they in Armageddon together as well?
Any movie with Bruce Willis as lead is automatically worse than any movie with Billy Bob as lead. It's just the laws of physics - Willis is dead weight who drags movies down,
I think Die Hard is an important outlier though. I don't think Bruce Willis works well amongst other actors - in that he's a different kind of actor. He's a sort of 4th Wall Breaker and he's more about a direct connection with the viewer rather than playing the reality within the film. Most actors ignore the audience whereas Willis' performance is addressed to them. So he sort of sticks out oddly when he's in scenes with other actors. Die Hard is almost a one person film though - you'd just be watching some action movie actor creeping round an empty building and wouldn't work in the same way, you accompany Bruce Willis.
Any movie with Bruce Willis as lead is automatically worse than any movie with Billy Bob as lead. It's just the laws of physics - Willis is dead weight who drags movies down,
I think Die Hard is an important outlier though. I don't think Bruce Willis works well amongst other actors - in that he's a different kind of actor. He's a sort of 4th Wall Breaker and he's more about a direct connection with the viewer rather than playing the reality within the film. Most actors ignore the audience whereas Willis' performance is addressed to them. So he sort of sticks out oddly when he's in scenes with other actors. Die Hard is almost a one person film though - you'd just be watching some action movie actor creeping round an empty building and wouldn't work in the same way, you accompany Bruce Willis.
Hmm, I don't think the film would have worked without rickman... replace him with a generic villain and the film would be equally as flat.
"Asian Dawn?"
"I read about them in Time Magazine"
How does this work when you're watching Bandits?
(2001 heist film starring Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton plus Cate Blanchett)
Actually weren't they in Armageddon together as well?
I don't know, I avoid movies with Bruce Willis or Tom Hanks in them. Don't start me on Bonfire of the Vanities.
Yep we sat down together and happily watch it. It the christmas movie, I'm not arguing, as we are simply right.
It's set at Christmas
Wasn't it set at Christmas by accident? Like, it wasn't meant to be, but then it was snowing on set, so they rescripted it? Or something. I may have made this up.
Lethal Weapon is a Christmas Movie
The Long Kiss Good Night is a Christmas Movie
Gremlins is a Christmas Movie
Iron Man 3 is a Christmas Movie
Rocky IV is a Christmas Movie
Batman Returns is a Christmas Movie
Trading Places is a Christmas Movie
You missed Home Alone.
1. Christmas movies are generally about the spirit of Christmas. Violent action movies seem a bit lacking in that department.
Haaaans boooobie!
Die Hard is an amazing film and the BEST Christmas film.
1-3 are all good. After that are not for me.
How does this work when you're watching Bandits?
(2001 heist film starring Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton plus Cate Blanchett)
Actually weren't they in Armageddon together as well?
I don't know, I avoid movies with Bruce Willis or Tom Hanks in them. Don't start me on Bonfire of the Vanities.
What's wrong with Bonfire of the Vanities as a film or Christmas film?
There are two types of people; those who think Die Hard is a Christmas movie and those who are wrong.
What's wrong with Bonfire of the Vanities
Tom Wolfe was a decent journalist, some of his books were ok. I think The Right Stuff was easily the best. Problem with his other books were that he was a very conservative guy documenting stuff he didn't understand, so he came off as a square narking to the parents about all the crazy stuff the cool kids were doing. Ken Kesey compared Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson with something along the lines of, "Cream rises, shit floats. Thompson is cream."
Anyway, the novel Bonfire of the Vanities came off as a crusty old square writing a tell-all about how depraved everything was in Gotham (except for the police, who were heroically doing an impossible job). Not a great book, but readable.
The movie, however, took a mediocre book, rewrote it, and then comically miscast the parts. Tom Hank's character, the "Master of the Universe," was originally written for John Lithgow, who would have been perfect as an arrogant, entitled arsehole. Tom Hanks wasn't, he didn't ooze the arrogance of the character in the book. I think Tom Cruise would have worked well if they wanted a younger actor.
Bruce Willis' role in the movie was British in the book. I've always though Rik Mayall would have been perfect, or maybe Hugh Laurie (or maybe just a plank of wood with a face drawn in lipstick would have been an improvement over Willis). Whatever the case, Bruce Willis was utterly out of his depth and the rest of the cast hated working with him (just like Cybill Shepard on Moonlighting - he was such an arsehole to work with that she wouldn't appear together in any scene with him and the writers had to write everything so the two never actually met). Tom Hanks used to mock Willis on the Bonfires set for the "shiteating grin," which is basically one of two expressions that Willis had as an actor. It was an absolutely, spectacularly bad movie with a terrible cast. At least Willis made Tom Hanks look less crap than usual.
Bruce Willis, expression #1
Bruce Willis, expression #2
