A Good Day to Die Hard

[saveus1011]

It's still the best sequel.

[Doomsday]

I saw this for free yesterday and I’m glad I did. I mean, I’m glad I saw it for free because it’s really that bad. To say why it’s bad is wasting keystrokes because it has all been drawn out before, but it’s such a cartoonish caricature of the franchise that Bruce Willis should be made to answer why he signed on for this in the first place. Also, for a movie that’s ‘non-stop action,’ there are only 3 main set pieces to the entire movie (think: Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol); the freeway chase, the hotel shootout, and the ending. That’s it. That’s all there is to the ‘story.’ It’s also hardly even fun to watch just from a mindlessly entertaining standpoint. Action scenes mostly consist of Bruce Willis and Jai Courtney standing in place shooting people as they run at them.

Anyways, why am I even typing the obvious? Die Hard 5 makes Die Hard 4 look like Die Hard 1. Easily and without a doubt the worst of the series and bound to be one of the worst movies of the year.

[JBond]

Hah, that's going into my signature.

[IanTheCool]

A Good Day to Die Hard works fine as a run-of-the-mill action flick. The story is easy to follow, the action is frequent, and there are a lot of cool smash-em up visuals. Though I must admit I felt bad for the innocent civilian drivers who got decimated during the big car chase scene. The action scenes were filmed with some visual flare, such as the shot where the two McLean's are falling from level to level with the helicopter. And on a basic, surface level I enjoyed the film. And watching it in Imax with that incredible surround sound didn't hurt either.

However, when a movie is part of a franchise it also has to be judged on a level of different standards. Does it do the previous films justice? Is it constant is story and tone? And on these levels I hate to admit that Die Hard 5 simply fails.

Why? The biggest reason is that it is far too self-aware. It verges on parody territory. It keeps making obvious references to the first film, like the glass being shot out and "its always about money", etc. And Willis is just coasting on the reputation of John McClean rather than action sinking into the character again.

Tonally, this film just felt off. It was more of a spy film than a Die Hard film, and the two don't sync up as well as you may think. Having Willis' son working for the CIA just seems to lose some footing from the more down-to-earth terrorist stories we have gotten. And yes, I know down-to-earth is a relative term, especially looking at Die Hard 2. But even though Die Hard 2 was ridiculous also, at least it still felt like a Die Hard film.

As a Bruce Willis shoot-em up, this was decent. As a Die Hard film, it was too goofy and too divergent to fit well into the series.
6/10

[Doomsday]

Yes! My work here is done!

[JBond]

Originally Posted by IanTheCool

And Willis is just coasting on the reputation of John McClean rather than action sinking into the character again.

Wouldn't that be awesome if that was his name? Is that a Mr. Clean joke, or a typo?

[MovieBuff801]

On the subject of this movie referencing the first one a lot...how about the shot of the villain about to die pretty much being a recreation of Hans Gruber's "death shot" in the first movie?

[marvelman2006]

I just dont know where to start with this film, I can suspend disbalief with the best of them but this movie really stretched that logic thin. Within 10 minutes John gets into 2 major car accidents and just gets up with no limps, cuts, scraps, blood and keeps running like he just tripped. There was nothing interesting on the screen even during the action scenes that I could get behind to root for. There was no villain in this movie at all nor did I ever fully understand his motivation besides breaking into his own vault for uranium. Bruce the whole time to top it off looked like he kept looking off camera to make sure his paycheck didnt walk off.

[DarthVader 2004]

Originally Posted by Ewok Droppings

Saw this and kept wondering why this wasn't directed by Michael Bay. Was a good action/turn of your brain and watch explosions type movie, but honestly this could have been substituted for anything. Honestly, this didn't feel like a Die Hard movie, but wasn't a bad action movie per se.

6/10

Bruce don't like Bay after they did Armegeddon. They won't work together again.

As for my movie review of it which saw on Sunday. Its not Die Hard 1 or 3 but its better then 4. And definately tons more fun then what Sly and Arnald gave us.
The Whole Willis driving over cars part was better then anything his buddies did. An old John McClane is better then other new characters.
Its not a perfect film and its no Die Hard 1 or 3 but its a heck of allot of fun if have a boring snowed in day and this kinda of an escape is what Vader goes to a pop corn flick for.
7.5/10

[IanTheCool]

Its not better than 4.

[sshuttari]

I would say 4 is better then 2, I like it a lot

[saveus1011]

People really need to re-evaluate 2.

[Mikey-Bizzle]

Originally Posted by sshuttari

I would say 4 is better then 2, I like it a lot

I'd agree with that. Watched 2 recently and didn't really rate it much

[DarthVader 2004]

Die Hard 2 was as good as Predator 2 and in my view. They just did not work where as Irons and Rickman made the other two go well because were great villains.

Die Hard 4 was bad because of Long and just didn't work for me.

[Daniel]

Predator 2 was pretty terrible. I hope you're also making that point.

[SnoBorderZero]

"Die Hard 2" isn't great, but as bad as "Predator 2"? That's a little harsh.

[Doomsday]

Alright lets get down to brass tacks here. It’s obvious that Die Hard 1 is the favorite of the bunch and Die Hard 3 isn’t far behind on the popularity scale. Aside from the obvious elements that help make Die Hard 2 a true Die Hard movie (mainly Bonnie Bedelia, Reginald vel Johnson, a contained setting, obvious references to the original) there’s one thing it had that Die Hard 4 lacked and really separated the 4th one from the bunch; a sense of urgency. Die Hard 1 took place in a little over 2 hours (when Theo says how long it will take to break the locks on the vault, ‘two hours…two and a half hours’ plus the little time it took for the FBI to shut off the power and open the safe), Die Hard 2 took place over roughly the same amount of time (when the airport chief says ‘your wife’s plane is going to run out of fuel in 98 minutes) and Die Hard 3 took place over the course of an afternoon minus the events at night when they relocated to Nova Scotia. Die Hard 4 lacked all of that with Lucy being the only reference to the series as a whole. That one took place over like 2 ½ days and they drove and flew all over the east coast. And Timothy Olyphant was a pretty non-threatening villain. He just didn’t have that edge to him. William Sadler was pretty solid; he was intimidating, he blew up an entire airliner, and kicked the crap out of Bruce Willis at the end. Die Hard 2 also had some really solid action scenes. Sure it’s a little ridiculous but not anymore so than other action movies in its day. Would you rather have Die Hard 2 or the CGI, stale-looking, digital blood fare that we’re dished out today? I don’t think Die Hard 4 is as bad as some people make it out to be but it’s not as good as Die Hard 2, neither as an action movie nor a Die Hard movie.

[saveus1011]

It's the STAR WARS situation of action movies. You have the original three...then these new guys.

[Neverending]

"Die Hard 2" is better than the original. I know that's a VERY unpopular opinion but I believe people just remember "Die Hard" incorrectly. If you ever bother to re-watch "Die Hard" from beginning-to-end you'll notice there's a big chunk of the movie where Bruce Willis/John McClane does nothing. As soon as the LAPD and FBI get involved the movie turns into some Three Stooges-esque comedy about authorities blundering their way through a hostage situation. Johnson & Johnson, in particular, are just ridiculous in a bad way. Even their introduction seems like they're walking in from a terrible `80s cop comedy. "We're Johnson & Johnson. No relation." Like... WTF? "Die Hard 2", by comparison, doesn't suffer from any of these issues. John McClane is at the center of it all from beginning-to-end and there are no out-of-place comedic moments.

"Die Hard 3" has always been my favorite. It has the best story, characters, and villain. Plus, the New York setting perfectly suits John McClane. And, as Doomsday said, there's great urgency in it. "Die Hard 4", I think, gets a bad rap. As I said earlier, the plotline is interesting and very relevant. The overall execution of the movie may not have been great but at least it was effective as an entertaining action film.

As for "Die Hard 5", I'm with Ian, it's a decent action flick but a terrible Die Hard movie. I feel like FOX just wants to see if there's enough interest for a spin-off series with Jack McClane. If Die Hard were a TV series, this would have been the so-called "backdoor pilot." It's a ballsy move by FOX, but it obviously alienates the core fanbase.


MY RANK:
Die Hard with a Vengenace
Die Hard 2: Die Harder
Die Hard
Live Free or Die Hard
A Good Day to Die Hard

[JBond]

Well put, Doomsday. Die Hard ended when the movies weren't set to a clock.

Poorly put, Neverending. You should be ashamed.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by JBond

Poorly put, Neverending. You should be ashamed.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[JBond]

Wouldn't a clip of reporter Richard Thornburg getting punched in Die Hard be more appropriate? Oh that's right, you haven't seen Die Hard.

[Neverending]

I wanted to add to the Predator 2 discussion as well.

[shained]

I haven't rewatched Die Hard in a while but when I was younger I did prefere number 2......

I also haven't seen Predator 2 in a while, although I've recently bought all 3 so will do soon, but I really liked it. Not as good as 1 though.

On too a Good Day to Die Hard. Pretty much echo what's been said but not to such a harsh degree. As a part of this series it is disappointing that the movie is only ok but I'm not going to slate a film for what come before it.

The one liners from Willis were not of the best quality but I felt the final set piece was very good. The film missed having a quality villain, he was just a big standard Russian villain.

Never going to set the world alight but is a decent action movie to pass the time. Sure the IMAX sounds really helped my experience.

5(changed from 6)/10

[DarthVader 2004]

In my view whats suffers in the new die hard movies is no Black Actor are in the movies. Vel Johnson in Die Hard and Jackson in 3 made it work good. Its not too me a bad idea to have McClane helped by a black dude now. The kids thing should have used just one and made her more kick butt. They should have brought Sam back and he went to Moscow with McClane. Or Sam Jackson was in Russia as a Cab Driver or something. And Willis pops in and Sam says Hell No.