Just saw a 70mm print of this classic in cinema and I must say…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Die Hard
gutz1981 — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 10:52 AM)
First off I was happy to finally get the chance to see this Christmas tradition of mine as I watch it every year at this time on the big screen. I was soon to have watched it on the small screen until I saw it advertised in a cinema, then I went and saw the film and a number of things struck me that I had never noticed as much before after nearly 30 years of watching this movie on and off.
The print itself was of great quality and only had two-three audio dialog missing, nothing serious. The grain and the scratches added to the viewing pleasure. But the greatest thing was something about this film I always took for granted, and that was the sound. It was so rich and beyond great to hear it in the cinema. The explosions, the gun fire, the music, the subtle noises of character movements (footsteps and so forth) all were amazing.
One of the most notable things I never noticed before was in John Mctiernan's great direction. After watching this film and its story pace I could see that it no longer fits in modern day cinema, but not due to negative reasons, but because it was/is miles ahead of what comes out today. First I noticed the pace of Bruce Willis as the main hero in the beginning was a lot slower than most action hero's of today and he took his time in what he did, until the action picked up and never stopped. Second, the way each character's history and exposition about them was done very smoothly and with logical sense (John explaining to Argile why he is visiting and Argile asking because he was once a cab driver and it was a habit of his to talk to his passengers) The exposition never felt thrown in and cheesy as it were like it had a logical progression and not something that made no sense as to why two people would talk the way they do in modern movies telling a history about themselves nobody would naturally do.
One of the biggest things I really noticed in John Mctiernan's directing, and something I have not seen widely used anymore was the way the camera panned and moved in about 80% of the shots. No shaky cam was used or needed, and a number of the shots had the characters hidden behind foreground objects or background lighting. The camera would pan and lose site of the character in view and followed them as they walked or moved around a corner of table and allowed odd objects or windows or doors to obstruct the frame. And with that I have now noticed how use to locked off special effects camera work modern cinema has made us use to, and the fear of losing sight of the characters in question is something directors of today don't want to experience and have no confidence in doing. Mctiernan had no fear to add things like lens flares into the shot, or out of focus images in the foreground (Elise's dead body obstructing Hans as he talked to the police for example) This film was and is film school 101 teaching that any student of film needs to go and see, especially on the big screen as it feel much more at home there than on a small home entertainment system. This is a cinema film.
The only negative I had if any was in the cinema itself as the screen should have been bigger since the film was a 70mm print. And the way the seats were arranged made the situation awkward because the front and back seats were on a higher inclination than the center seats where I was sitting. The type of cinema is better suited to be sat at near the front row which is my only regret as I am use to sitting back/center. But overall, a great experience. -
WarrenPeace — 3 months ago(December 07, 2025 01:49 PM)
I have no ****ing idea what that geeky **** of 70mm or what the **** ever that means and I don't give a ****.
How can anyone give a **** anymore when they watch movies on something no bigger than their shoe.
The OP is a film snob asshole.
One of those types.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall