Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Bruce Willis may save Russia, but there's no saving the 'Die Hard' series after this

A huge misstep in a franchise that was already wearing thin is the last straw

  • Critic's Rating C-
  • Readers' Rating C
<p>Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, and Sebastian Koch co-star in the limp 'A Good Day To Die Hard'</p>

Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, and Sebastian Koch co-star in the limp 'A Good Day To Die Hard'

Credit: 20th Century Fox

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

I'll keep this brief.

Even taken at face value as a stand-alone film, unconnected to a franchise, "A Good Day To Die Hard" just plain doesn't work.  Reverse-engineered to try to duplicate some of the key pleasures of the original film, now 25 years old, the film breaks the cardinal rule of action movies: it's boring. Worse than boring. It's one of those films where every time they explain more exposition, I found myself more and more disconnected. The basic idea here is that John McClane has to get closer to his estranged son, and he flies to Russia to help him when he learns that John Jr. (Jai Courtney) is in prison.  Mayhem happens, and male bonding follows in its wake.  Those bare bones could work, but first, I'd have to care about John Jr. as a character, and since the script never seems to figure out who this guy is, there's nothing to him onscreen. Courtney seems to carry himself well enough, but there's almost nothing here for him to actually play.

Bruce Willis isn't on autopilot here.  I think he's genuinely still interested in playing McClane and making him human-scale and playing the ridiculousness of the situation with a wry observational wit, and all of that is fine.  But what made the first "Die Hard" great, and what's been missing in almost all of the sequels, was the sense that there was a game being played here that McClane doesn't fully grasp at first.  The really wonderful thing about the first film wasn't just the "trapped in an office building" conceit, but the way the film slowly unpacked its surprises.  Every supporting character had a purpose, played some part, fit into the larger overall picture.

And when the entire thing finally stood revealed, it was a clever, interesting plan that made Hans Gruber seem like an actual threat, a truly competent bad guy who just plain crossed the wrong path when he ran into McClane.  I'm sure many of you weren't old enough for "Die Hard" in the theater, but there are two places in that film where a twist is revealed or some surprise is sprung, and both times, audiences would go ballistic.  They were totally engaged by the entire story, not just by Bruce blowin' shit up.

That will not be the case here.  I knew I was in trouble when the opening titles finally kicked in, about four minutes into the film, and I realized I hadn't absorbed anything the two characters speaking Russian onscreen were talking about.  I don't mind subtitles, but if the first four minutes of your big silly action movie are two people we don't recognize shot in shaky-cam with subtitled Russian being spoken, you're going to lose some people.  Even after I started to recognize the players and make sense of what was going on, the plot feels like a big bag of "so what?"  Late in the film, there are some cursory attempts to game the audience the way the first film did so successfully, but none of it lands because we're not invested at all by that point.  John Moore remains totally tone-deaf as a director.  He can capture some pretty images sometimes, but I don't think he has any idea how to actually make a scene live and breathe.  Even worse, there are a number of moments in the film where he fumbles the basic geography of staging an action sequence, and in one case, I'm still not sure who the hell opened the handcuffs or who had the knife or how things happened.

Skip Woods has made a career out of writing movies that feel like they were made in 1993, and I'm not sure that's a compliment.  There is a particular version of the big Hollywood action aesthetic that he's fond of that I just plain don't like, and throwing all the hot Eurotrash in the world at an inert script isn't going to suddenly make it more interesting.  Yuliya Snigir may be the hottest woman in film right now whose name I can't spell without peeking, but I have no idea if she can act or not based on the role she plays here.  Same with Courtney, who also appeared in "Jack Reacher" at Christmas.  I don't know if he's any good with real material.  Sebastian Koch has been very good in other films, but he's playing such a tired archetype here, and when he's got to try to do the Hans Gruber trick of playing a part to lull McClane into a sense of false security, it's not fun the way it was when Gruber did it.  There's no friction, no urgency.

Ultimately, the biggest complaint I have is the one that you can't get around if you're making this into a film franchise:  I don't buy it. I think the excuses for John McClane to find himself in these huge dangerous only-guy-who-can-stop-them scenarios have been increasingly lame, and it frustrates me that they took what could have been a juicy bit of character to hang a movie on, this estrangement between father and son that manifests in choices that put them on opposite sides of the law, and squanders it on a "let's steal some nuclear stuff" storyline that no one seems committed to or excited by.  Most unforgivably, there is a scene about 2/3 of the way into the brisk 97 minute film where John and his son both realize that they could just walk away.  There's no reason for them to charge into the situation at the end of the film, other than stubborn personal pride, and it makes them less heroic.  They are not pushed into the situation... they dive in, head-first.  That's a complete refutation of the first film's premise, and shows just how far they've gotten away from the original idea of who McClane is. 

There are a few images here and there that I liked, and Jonathan Sela's cinematography certainly helps give the film a huge-budget sheen, but it feels to me like they've cut as much meat off of these bones as they possibly can.  They're stripped clean.  There's nothing left.  I never thought I'd be the one saying this, but it looks like one of the oldest cliches in the book is actually true:  John McClane is officially too old for this shit.

"A Good Day To Die Hard" opens in theaters everywhere tomorrow.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 78 Comments
  • Default-avatar

    DefRef

    Ouch. Bummer. Thanks for saving us the money.

    February 13, 2013 at 8:05PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    favoritecamel

    i understand the original was iconic but if you actually went to see the fifth movie in the Die Hard franchise to try and see superb plot development more than to see John McClane blow up everything on the mother russian screen...then i think all you did was disappoint yourself.

    February 13, 2013 at 9:14PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Phlogo_talkback_profile

      Playhouse So the producers and studio shouldn't even try any more? Just keep trotting out Bruce and explosions?

      February 13, 2013 at 9:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Trevor The second sentence of the review very clearly establishes that regardless of any expectations based on previous films in the series, in and of itself the film isn't very good.

      "Even taken at face value as a stand-alone film, unconnected to a franchise, 'A Good Day To Die Hard' just plain doesn't work."

      Plot development vs. blowing things up was never the issue.

      February 13, 2013 at 10:04PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Remember... if you want anything from your films but witless stupidity and loud noises, there's something wrong with you, not the film.

      February 14, 2013 at 12:47AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho What Camel doesn't understand is, the plot is part of what MADE Die Hard such an iconic film. There had never been an action film like that before. That's why so many action films copied it afterwards. Die Hard on a plane, Die Hard on a submarine, Die Hard on an elevator, etc. So it's not unreasonable to expect a Die Hard sequel to contain similar elements. Just like a James Bond movie should have certain elements, an Indiana Jones movie should have certain elements. Not just shit blowing up. Any old movie can do THAT.

      I suspected something was up with this one when they scheduled it in February rather than summer. Since when is Valentine's Day the right time for a Die Hard movie? They obviously don't think this can compete in the summer with all the rest of the blockbusters. And they're probably right.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:25AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      favoritecamel ok, maybe i didn't make myself clear. in no way am i signing off on Michael Bay philosophy for making action films. all i'm saying is that sequels tend to have a lot to live up to (especially Die Hard) and if the first few didn't really inspire the same greatness, i will no longer expect the rest to measure up either. as long as there is John McClane causing explosions, cracking wise, and mowing down the bad guys...i'm sold. films as a product are mainly targeted for consumers. sometimes you want to see a work of art by Rian Johnson or get punched in the brain by Shane Carruth and other times you just want to see John McClane blow crap up...

      February 14, 2013 at 7:39AM EST
  • Phlogo_talkback_profile

    Playhouse

    I consider 'Die Hard' to be the best action movie made because of the inventive way it pieces together and distinct and memorable characterization for all of the cast in the film. It's also a story that never needed follow-up. As such, the sequels have always fallen into an "alternate universe" for me, though I've enjoyed them in varying degrees on their own merits.

    Everything we've seen about this one has held this feeling that they've gotten so out of touch with what makes McClane work that it would've had to have been a miracle if the film worked. And, as expected, it doesn't. I was pleasantly surprised with the fourth film, even as outlandish as it got (and my decreasing tolerance of Len Wiseman). Sounds like they burned that good will by trying to go even bigger.

    February 13, 2013 at 9:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • 3043359090_065080dc5e_talkback_profile

    dyikini

    As expected. Didn't have any plans to see this, it's announcement alone was disappointing.

    I wish we had old John McClane back, just so the legacy of Die Hard finishes where it should. What if...

    They release a Die Hard film where all the sequels we had so far were actually just films made in the world of Die Hard, based on the events that transpired in Nakatomi Plaza.

    Essentially negating them from real life. We catch up with the McClane we know and love who hates these junk films as much we do in RL, effectively erasing them from RL.

    No? :p

    That or maybe Spock can fail to save a planet, get's sent back in time and starts a new timeline where the sequels didn't happen.

    Anything but this tripe we're getting now!

    February 13, 2013 at 10:20PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Brendan Noel

    Damn. I liked "Live Free or Die Hard" and was looking forward to this. I'll probably still see it, but this is disappointing to hear.

    February 13, 2013 at 10:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    But is it worse than Sucks With A Vengeance?

    February 13, 2013 at 10:43PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Yes! I never wanted to walk out of a movie in years. to bad it had to be a Die Hard. It could just as easily star Dolph Lundgren. After the first 20 minutes of the carchase I just said" OK, that's enough. This is boring. Continue with the story please" They filmed a synopsis, not a script.

      February 13, 2013 at 10:56PM EST
    • A_monty_talkback_profile

      Monty Jack Yes, it IS worse than Sucks With A Vengeance. :(

      February 15, 2013 at 7:00PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Purplepixie1886

    Despite this thumbs down review I still plan on seeing the movie. I don't watch the die hard movies for plot or to think. I watch them to watch shit blow up. Plus I can't take a review seriously from a guy with the last name McWeeny. I just can't.

    February 13, 2013 at 10:44PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Then, this movie is just for you. Because not much else is happening.

      February 13, 2013 at 10:59PM EST
    • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

      Mulderism Then please go worship at the altar of Michael Bay and stop annoying us with your inane comments.

      February 13, 2013 at 11:26PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Then congratulations, you're exactly the thin-skulled mouth-breather they're counting on to keep making these. Your low standards are to be celebrated, good sir.

      February 14, 2013 at 12:47AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho You don't understand these movies at all. You should just watch explosions, not movies. Maybe you can find something on the Internet like that. But you shouldn't watch movies. You understand nothing about movies.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:30AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      favoritecamel i find nothing wrong with Pixie's comment. people go to see different movies for different films for different reasons to have different experiences. films are art pieces, but the film industry is like any other service industry...they target consumers. what i don't understand is the rest of you commentators. don't you ever want a different experience out of films rather than the strict book-format structure for a plot? don't you ever just want to unwind after a hard day at work by watching a beloved action hero just blow crap up? maybe Pixie and I can make a weak-scripted movie about blowing up a basement full of narrow-minded film snobs...

      February 14, 2013 at 8:03AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      ushaped @Camel, Yes, a film is a product and any consumer is allowed to like it for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean consumers shouldn't want more quality from a product. The fact that some are OK with low quality shouldn't mean others ought to be. Given your take on why you like these films, I'm not sure why you are visiting a film review site.

      As others have commented, the original Die Hard presented a novel template: the reluctant but capable hero who uses the environment, ingenuity and a sense of humour to annoy and foil the bad guys. While aspects of these elements appear in each of the sequels, McClane's reluctance level has been going down to the point where it's a single line. I often wonder why he is so good with automatic weapons when he should be by now a retired NYC cop. In terms of storytelling, if it isn't plausible there just isn't any tension and therefore, empty spectacle.

      If a viewer is OK with that, go see the movie twice. I'd rather be more engaged in my entertainment.

      February 14, 2013 at 9:10AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      favoritecamel though i may have roughly conveyed this in my first comment last night, i'm not debating that those viewers that had higher expectations for this film should should succumb to so-called "lower standards." i am trying to be a voice for those individuals that are occasionally satisfied with films that have little plot development supplemented with intense action. i thoroughly enjoy action films with a good story and a well-developed plot but they are not always essential for my enjoyment. i am proposing that other viewers should not be treated as "thin-skulled mouth-breathers" just for enjoying so-called "terrible movies."

      February 14, 2013 at 11:57AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    The Spo

    I'm not shocked that the man who made Max Payne directed a crappy Die Hard movie. Jai Courtney reminds me of Sam Worthington--big, handsome Aussies with no charisma.

    Instead of using McClane's son as his partner, I would have much rather seen the son be the villain. It would be really interesting to see those McClane qualities used for nefarious purposes.

    February 13, 2013 at 10:48PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lucas

    What an idiot wrote that interview?

    February 13, 2013 at 10:58PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew There is so much funny about this comment that it's hard to know where to start.

      February 14, 2013 at 12:46AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Blair

    Firstly John Moore is just an overall waste of a director. If, unfortunately, you saw max payne you know in advance. Do not spend your money. I agree entirely with this critics review. I will not be seeing this Die Hard. Hell, the last one was fun but quite ridiculous and the boring trailer for this one has left me deadpanned.

    February 13, 2013 at 11:15PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

    Mulderism

    Die Hard 1 said it all in the tag line: "He's tired. He's on his own. And he's the only chance we got". Unless I'm misremembering it. I'm too lazy to look it up.

    McClane is alone in the tower with no backup and no plan and he has to improvise with what he's got. Great idea and a great movie.

    That was what made the movie interesting and fun. McClane isn't a superhero. He's just a cop who got caught in someone else's plans.

    Trying to take that character and make him into some kind of James Bond is just stupid and bound to fail.

    February 13, 2013 at 11:34PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Fastbak Even Michael Scott on "The Office" knew what made the first DIE HARD great was Bruce Willis a regular guy. One of the best moments when McClane is on the roof calling for help and the operator tells him this line "is for emergency use only." and McClane yells back "NO FUCKING SHIT LADY! DOES IT SOUND LIKE I'M ORDERING A PIZZA?!" The sequels whether well made or not don't have that.

      February 14, 2013 at 2:23AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Phil

    I was mixed on Live Free or Die Hard, but as a longtime fan of the series I'll still see this. Almost every franchise has its bumps. I was glad to hear when Rothman left Fox, but it seems despite his departure the studio has grown increasingly greedy & completely ignorant of the quality of its franchise blockbusters (X:men, Alien & Predator to name a few). I really don't want Die Hard to go down the same road (I actually enjoyed LFODH despite its shortcomings). Their supply of above average writers & directors seems to be dwindling & they really need to rectify this soon if they truly care at all whether or not fans will fork out good money to see the continuation of their beloved series.

    February 13, 2013 at 11:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Getnuts_talkback_profile

    mridge1

    If they do a 5th, they obviously need to bring the scale way down. My vote for a writer / director who could inject some life into the franchise while doing the original concept justice: Gareth Evans of 'The Raid'.

    Think about it.

    February 14, 2013 at 12:08AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho This is the 5th.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:33AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    atomo

    I've given up on this shit. I didn't see the Spidey from last year, I didnt see The Think premakeuel. I hated Die Hard 4 so this is just not doing anything for me at all.

    The only way I could get on board for Die Hard 6 is if John McT came back. It would be the best redemption for him, and hopefully kick the series back into shape.

    Either that, or Shane Black.

    February 14, 2013 at 12:32AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Philip Jones

    You are an idiot. I will go see the movie and love every minute of it. I do not listen to or read what film critics have to say because they can get too technical with a movie instead of watching it like a regular veiwer. Die Hard movies have done very well despite you putting your foot in your mouth. I suggest you go see it agian without a bur up your but and I know you will enjoy the new Die Hard movie much better.

    February 14, 2013 at 1:32AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho You just read what a film critic had to say. So if you don't read film critics, why did you read a film critic? Why are you here? You haven't even seen the movie, so how do you know he's an idiot? In what sense has he put his foot in his mouth? Do you even know what that means? Did someone force you to read this review? I don't understand why you are here.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:36AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Well, Philip Jones, I wish you nothing but happiness watching terrible, terrible, terrible movies.

      February 14, 2013 at 4:20AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      favoritecamel as films have a wide range of content, style, and structure...i'd like everyone to realize that "terrible is nothing more than an a shallow opinion. one man's junk is another man's treasure.

      February 14, 2013 at 8:11AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      steve Someone is beating a dead camel.

      February 14, 2013 at 2:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ben Kabak For someone that doesn't read what critics have to say you took the time out to read and comment on what this critic had to say. Congrats.

      February 15, 2013 at 11:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Travis Johnson That's positively Brechtian.

      February 16, 2013 at 5:47AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Nick

    Just got home from seeing this after an all day Die Hard marathon at the theater. As it was ending I thought there was no way that was all the film was...there had to be some crazy twist to this story that would finally capture my attention. But alas, there was not, and it ended on a dull thud. Worth seeing on the big screen? Sure. But it basically took everything that was awful about Live Free Or Die Hard and increased it. Highly disappointing.

    February 14, 2013 at 1:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lou

    Whoever wrote this review is an idiot! It sounds like you are reviewing drama movie! It's an action movie! You can't take that sh*t seriously! It's for pure enjoyment! I just saw the movie and i enjoyed it a lot! If in your opinion none of the sequels were good you shouldnt write any more reviews because Die Hard with a Vengence is amazing! And you are a dumbass trying be professional reviewer! You SUCK!

    February 14, 2013 at 2:00AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho He didn't say none of the sequels were good. He said this one wasn't good. Why can't you take an action movie seriously? I love action movies, and I take them seriously. That's how I separate the good ones from the bad ones. Because I actually use my brain while I watch them. I might like this one, I might not. Do you understand what critics do? If not, then you shouldn't bother to read reviews.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:40AM EST
    • Phlogo_talkback_profile

      Playhouse It states very clearly at the top who wrote the review. Reading comprehension helps, my friend.

      February 14, 2013 at 10:49AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      steve See, this is the problem. Once upon a time, Die Hard was a thinking man's action movie. Now it just seems to bring out the mouth breathers.

      February 14, 2013 at 2:55PM EST
  • Batboy_talkback_profile

    Rev. Slappy

    Wow, where did all these cretins come from? One of the very best things about this site is the smart discussion between the readers and the Hitfix staff. I really hope this doesn't turn into AICN.

    February 14, 2013 at 2:43AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Mehmm_talkback_profile

      Scudman Rupert Murdoch's family?

      February 14, 2013 at 3:09AM EST
    • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

      Mulderism Agreed. This talkback has brought all the slack-jawed yokels out of the woodwork.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:26PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Datman MSNBC?

      February 15, 2013 at 11:55AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Finland

    Dude! A lot of people watch movies that are subtitled! How can you whine about four minutes of reading? Try watching some art movies from France and reading the subtitles! You americans are always complaining about subtitles, because you are the same as spanish, french, german and italian. You prefer everything in your own language... Even if it means dubbing!

    February 14, 2013 at 3:29AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho Sigh... he wasn't complaining about the subtitles. He was complaining that the movie opens with two characters we don't know anything about who happen to be speaking in subtitles. The subtitles are not the problem. Real film fans watch a lot of foreign films, myself included. No one's complaining about subtitles here.

      February 14, 2013 at 3:44AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Oh, Finland, you know me so well. I named my first son Toshiro because I don't like subtitled movies. You nailed me! Woooooo-boy, I can't believe my secret is finally out.

      February 14, 2013 at 4:21AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jack

    The reviewer just doesn't like Die Hard movies does he. Still going to see despite what any reviewer says. Peace out :)

    February 14, 2013 at 4:51AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      mark Then why are you bothering to read any review? Peace out.

      February 14, 2013 at 2:57PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Brian

    I'm willing to read more reviews before deciding if this will be worth seeing. Often in critic circles, a bad review will be released on a film people are expecting to be decent just confuse and divide the audiences. No matter what this critic says, people will still turn out in droves to see this... including me.

    February 14, 2013 at 5:35AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    NoHoGreg

    Saw it tonight at an advanced screening. I guess I had modest expectations because I mostly enjoyed it and would consider it a decent though problematic action movie.

    You nailed it on the total miscalculation of the first scene and not giving the McClanes more of an urgent reason to go to by themselves. In regards to unsuccessful staging, I was really bothered that Jack blamed his father for him missing his window for extraction when their initial interaction took literally less than a minute, not the five or six minute delay the plotting indicated caused the initial plan to go bust. That made me dislike the son character more than I felt we were supposed to.

    I am surprised you cited the McClane getting himself involved in another one of these scenarios as the film's biggest problem. Obviously, you'd wish for a better/story or script if they are going to the well again, but think this strained less than second or fourth movie to get there. Obviously Die Hard 5 is going to require a suspension of disbelief. You know that from the moment it entered existence.

    It seemed like you really hated the movie. It wasn't perfect, but I still enjoyed watching the John McClane character after all these years. I thought Willis elevated the material. And I also liked Radivoje Bukvic's scene in the ball room and thought Jai Courtney for the most part nailed what he was given to work with.

    Nothing is ever going to compare to the original Die Hard (although it's a fair point of comparison given this is a franchise,) but this was more solid than you give it credit for. Definitely better than failed action vehicles like Contraband, Haywire, Savages , Bourne Legacy or Jack Reacher from last year.

    Drew, if you are still willing to venture into the comments section after the initial less than stellar dialogue, I have a question for you. As I said, I completely agree with the film's logic/plot engine failing with the McClanes' decision late in the film to head to the final confrontation. But was it really any different than the last act of "Skyfall," which you loved? What sense did it make for Bond and M to head to a place with no backup and with no idea if there would be weaponry there for them to a force a final confrontation they were incredibly unlikely to win, only to end up essentially going all Home Alone on the bad guys?

    February 14, 2013 at 6:22AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      chinofjim I think Drew is saying that in terms of character, it doesn't make sense for McClane to needlessly put look for danger. He was always the reluctant guy who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time (although there is tension in that his wife is involved in the situation in Die Hard).

      In Skyfall, in terms of character it absolutely makes sense for M and Bond to go to Skyfall. The story is really about M confronting the fact she has had to make so many hard choices that risk or sacrifice her agents for the greater good. This is about her being willing to risk and sacrifice herself for the greater good, and trusting Bond to get the job done. Going to remote and isolated Skyfall is ensuring that no other agents or government people are put at risk

      February 15, 2013 at 4:25AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Grich1

    Duh. As if I went to any of them with great expectations.

    February 14, 2013 at 6:43AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Wozzaseds

    This is sad. I was hoping they were going to pull off a kind of reverse Star Trek, where only the odd ones were good (I watched 'with a vengeance' again recently and I stand by it as a good action film that ties nicely to the first film with Gruber's brother taking the opportunity to get a bit of revenge as a side dish to his main plan).

    February 14, 2013 at 7:15AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Nlf2_talkback_profile

    Vern

    Oh jesus, the dreaded "it's not supposed to be Shakespeare" argument. Action is my favorite genre. I love it. I've written books about it. DIE HARD is my favorite movie. The reason we know it's better than other action movies is because there is such a thing as good and bad action movies. Not having standards is not something to be proud of. If you will accept any old garbage then please explain to us why we're snobs for not liking that one DIE HARD rip-off that stars Anna Nicole Smith. It has explosions in it. It's not supposed to be good. It fits what you're looking for. It's all yours.

    Unfortunately Drew is right on this one. I have enjoyed all of the previous DIE HARD movies, but this one blows it. Its main sin, which Drew doesn't even mention, is that the action is shot and edited horribly. The big car chase scene should be amazing but it's indecipherable. If you don't think action movies are supposed to be well crafted then you assholes deserve this bullshit. But I don't.

    Anyway I'm calling your bluff. If you're so dedicated to watching anything with explosions and guns then where the hell were you when Stallone's much better movie BULLET TO THE HEAD came out two weeks ago? The movie was a massive flop, and so was Arnold's THE LAST STAND (not great, but also much better than A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD). You knuckleheads weren't there and you know it. I looked for you. I waited two hours. You stood me up. I'm calling you out. I want an apology.

    February 14, 2013 at 7:42AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      angrypanda They wouldn't let me bring my baby in, those bastards, I had to pick one of the three to get a babysitter, sounds like I picked wrong Vern. My love of McClane is to large.

      February 14, 2013 at 11:39AM EST
    • Im like you, Vern. Die Hard is a part of my blood (it was even mentioned in my wedding vowels in a totally non-lame way, I promise). I love that damn movie because it's just so damn entertaining and, dare I say it, smart. It works because it limits itself and creates interesting characters and makes conflict OUT of those interesting characters. Location setup, character setup, shake it all about and you have a fucking wonderful movie.

      February 14, 2013 at 8:48PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Paul S

    Oh well, the first Die Hard movie that I won't be watching at the cinema.
    I had a bad feeling about it what with the February release date & it's always a bad sign when the movie posters don't put any review headlines on them.
    Still, the first one will always be remembered as the high point of the 80's action movies...hopefully Fox will bring out a 4K blu ray transfer of it soon.

    February 14, 2013 at 8:31AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    nick_r

    Sequels/prequels/remakes work best when the filmmakers understand the irreducible element of the original -- the thing that makes that story different from all other stories. With Die Hard, as you point out, that element is the "guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who just happens to have enough skills to muddle through." Thus, if you're going to make Die Hard sequels, it makes a lot more sense storywise to keep switching out the main character, rather than have an increasingly bulletproof McClane saving the day again and again.

    But clearly Fox thinks the irreducible element is Bruce Willis yelling "Yippee Ki-yay!" and smirking while he blows shit up. And judging by the comments, they've convinced a lot of their audience of this as well.

    February 14, 2013 at 12:43PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Chris Williams

    Next to Indiana Jones, John McClane is my favorite Hollywood hero. I love the original Die Hard and, while the other films have faults, there's a lot that I enjoy about them -- even Live Free or Die Hard.

    I saw this at a press screening Tuesday night, and it's the first time I had to leave realizing "wow. I hate a Die Hard movie." It's inert, incoherent, disrespectful of a character we've loved for 25 years and lacking any excitement. Yes, I saw it in my capacity as a critic, but I also fully admit that I'm this film's target audience -- I love Die Hard movies. But this is not Die Hard. This feels like a subpar "Transporter" sequel. There's no wit, joy or energy to any of it. The villains are blank slates, John and Junior's relationship is never really explored and, even worse, McClane's nothing more than a boorish American and a beligerent bully (he STILL gripes at his son after finding out he's a damn good spy). And the whole plot wouldn't even exist if not for McClane dicking around and screwing up Junior's mission! Even "Yippee-Kai-Yay..." feels obligatory and tired.

    I know Bruce Willie has said he wants to do a sixth and final film, and I'm torn. On the one hand, if this is what a new Die Hard looks like, I'm done with the series. I don't want this. On the other, there's potential to do one final film right. Tone down the giant set pieces and effects. Make it brutal and confined. Get a director who knows how to do action (someone earlier suggested Gareth Evans, which is perfect). And let McClane come full circle--bring back Holly, give him a true emotional core.

    Also, one fanboy gripe: McClane spends this whole movie joking about how he's not huggy or emotional. Fans of "Die Hard" can remember that he does break down and cry from time to time and he hugs Al Powell at the end of that film. In fact, Filmspotting's recent Die Hard discussion highlights that it's a fairly anti-macho action movie.

    Okay, off my soapbox.

    February 14, 2013 at 12:50PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    MarkP

    I don't get the hate for DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. In my mind it's the only logical sequel to the original.

    - He's back in NYC, with his marriage on the ropes. Unlike the happy horseshit in DIE HARDER.

    - McClane resists involvement, until he's hip-deep in it.

    - His forced involvement makes logical sense with Simon's plan, using his brother's death as a distraction.

    - Unlike every other film but the original, McClane seems wholly in over his head the whole damn time, improvising his way out of no-win situations. Unlike, say DIE HARDER, where the only moment when I saw the McClane I loved was when he was trying to wave off the crashing jet.

    I don't think (much like Indy Jones) any of the sequels even remotely rise to the level of the original. In fact, I'm a guy who says there should've never been a sequel to DIE HARD, or, if you HAD to do it, make the series about McClane as a regular-Joe cop. That said, of all the sequels, I feel WITH A VENGEANCE comes the closest to a DIE HARD sequel that makes sense to me.

    That's all pretty irrelevant to a discussion of A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD, but...y'know, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD felt so much unlike the John McClane I loved...I didn't expect much of anything anyway.

    February 14, 2013 at 1:26PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chris Williams Odd, I always thought "Die Hard With a Vengeance" was regarded as the most successful of the sequels.

      I recently rewatched it, and I agree. I think it's a good follow-up. Bringing McClane to his lowest point was a smart move, and it feels like this is where he would've gone without Holly around--an alcoholic loser sitting around watching Captain Kangaroo. The action's fun, I think his banter with Samuel L. Jackson is funny and Jeremy Irons is a good villain.

      The only complaint I have about it is that they spend way too much time with the bland supporting character cops. They could have cut back on that or made the characters more interesting or gave us some good actors to watch. But it's a small argument.

      February 15, 2013 at 4:38PM EST
    • A_monty_talkback_profile

      Monty Jack Prior to A Good Gay, With A Vengeance was the worst of the Die Hard films...shakey-cam, AWFUL special effects, and a totally lame, reshot-at-the-last-second ending. It baffles me why people prefer it to Die Harder, EASILLY the best of the sequels.

      February 15, 2013 at 7:05PM EST
  • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

    Mulderism

    Judging from some of the posting here there is a market for movies that cater to the lowest common denominator. That's why they are still cranking out Scary Movie X and all those other shitty so-called parody movies. That's probably why Adam Sandler gave up serious roles and now just craps out pablum that his fanbase eats up with a spoon. Mike and Jay at Red Letter Media do an entertaining analysis of this:
    http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/jack-and-jill/

    I really wish these people aspired for more out of their entertainment instead of just forking out their hard earned money and rewarding studios for their lack of effort. But as long as there is a market for it this will never change.

    February 14, 2013 at 3:37PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Paul S An amusing title for the spoof....A Good Day To Fart Hard!
      Sorry for the toilet humour!

      February 15, 2013 at 6:58AM EST
  • 1
  • 2
Next 78 Comments

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web