Cannes Film Festival 2013

10 things that still don't make sense in 'A Good Day to Die Hard'

We're confused, how about you?

The long awaited fifth "Die Hard" movie, "A Good Day To Die Hard," won the box office crown this President's Day weekend, but we've got to admit that after seeing John Moore's action flick we're still confused about a ton of stuff in the flick that really didn't make a whole lot of sense. 

Full disclosure, neither I nor HitFix's Drew McWeeny (whose review can be read here) are trying to be too tough on the latest John McClane adventure.  We were actually both very much looking forward to it after the surprisingly good "Live Free or Die Hard."  On the other hand, "A Good Day's" screenplay is so whack these were questions that came up as we actually watched the film.  Yes, sometimes our stories write themselves, but unfortunately movies don't and some major gaps of logic seemed to get by everyone associated with "A Good Day."  With that in mind, check out 10 things we still don't understand about "Die Hard 5" in the embedded story gallery.

Agree? Disagree? Make sure to share your thoughts below.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Valeri

    um. Clearly you need to research that since 2011 Chernobyl is a tourist destination and there are no military or guards on sight there,where did such baseless assumptions come from ? And it is not toxic to be there ,even around and in the plant as long as it is not for many days straight. It is nowhere near the dangerous place it was in 1986. And yes,the water would be fine,because it accumulated after the destruction,so it is not poisonous in itself.

    February 18, 2013 at 7:29AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew You mean there are parts of Chernobyl where there are active nuclear materials stored and the public gets to walk around and interact with them? No? Well, guess what else the movie gets completely wrong, then.

      February 18, 2013 at 8:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho I guess this guy didn't see Chernobyl Diaries.

      February 19, 2013 at 3:57AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Derek

    "after the surprisingly good 'Live Free or Die Hard'."

    Congrats, you jsut lost all credibility as a movie critic.

    February 18, 2013 at 7:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Tim Ditto Derek. Hey guys, was Star Wars real too!

      February 18, 2013 at 8:06AM EST
    • A_monty_talkback_profile

      Monty Jack Live Free WAS surprisingly good. With A Vengeance was the (previously) worst Die Hard flick.

      February 18, 2013 at 11:49AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Trevor Don't be mean.

      "Live Free or Die Hard" has 81% on Rotten Tomatoes for crying out loud; it's not like it's a radical opinion or anything...

      February 18, 2013 at 2:09PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Louise

    The estrangement thing isn't too hard to understand - psycho dad would rather keep blowing people up and spending Christmas shooting bad guys than actually spending any time at all with his family. Jack Jr is going to get a little miffed at that.

    Jack PUT A KNIFE IN HIS SOCK, we know this is going to be significant. How that then transfers to him cutting himself free, his dad free and giving his dad a gun, I'm lost. The rest is completely valid.

    February 18, 2013 at 9:30AM EST Reply to Comment
    • A_monty_talkback_profile

      Monty Jack "...would rather spend Christmas shooting bad guys"

      Um, it's not like McClane WANTED to spend Christmas shooting bad guys in the first two movies.

      "Just once, I'd like to have a normal Christmas. Eggnog, carols, a little turkey...but no...I gotta crawl around inside this fuckin' tin can...!"

      February 18, 2013 at 11:51AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Suzy

    Is this guy for real! That's what bothers you in these movies. Not all the totally impossible stunts. These movies are meant to be entertaining and unbelievable, not fact filled true life stories. Get a new job!

    February 18, 2013 at 10:52AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Says who? Did you get some memo that said, "From now on, nothing in these movies is meant to be believable"? Because I didn't.

      February 18, 2013 at 7:59PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho You mean the Die Hard movies are meant to be nothing but Bruce Willis blowing shit up for two hours? Gee, I guess I read the original movie all wrong. I guess it wasn't about a guy trying to save his wife after all. My mistake. I must have missed all the unbelievable shit that happened in it and all the illogical plot twists and character moments that made no sense. Oh wait, I forgot, Die Hard actually WASN'T a shitty film. It was actually EXCELLENT. Well-written, well-directed and well-acted. It was a cut above the usual "blowed 'em up real good" crap. People seemed to get that in 1988. Has everyone forgotten that since? Or are you just too young to remember when these movies were WELL MADE and the people who made them GAVE A DAMN?

      February 19, 2013 at 3:43AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Movie Jit

    I love the quotes from A Good Day to Die Hard.. Thump Up

    http://www.moviejit.com/tag/a-good-day-to-die-hard-movie-qutoes/

    February 18, 2013 at 11:22AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dan Brown

    What the fuck is this?? Do you really have something interesting about die hard that you didn't understand or are you just out to criticize. It's a movie which that you went to see to get entertained. How the fuck does it matter if it has some errors??

    February 18, 2013 at 11:49AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho This from the guy who wrote The DaVinci Code.

      February 19, 2013 at 3:35AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Atmo

    Dissecting and over-thinking a Die Hard movie? Really guys!? Must be a slow day at the office

    February 18, 2013 at 12:56PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew It's not "over-thinking" so much as it is "thinking," something it seems like the most rabid "Die Hard 5" defenders are willing to no longer do.

      February 18, 2013 at 7:58PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Cody B

    I think I MAY have an explanation for the Gun, Knife, Boot scene. When Jack & John went to the CIA safe house and Jack was gearing up, I THINK I saw Jack putting bullets into the bottom of the knife like it doubled as a small pistol. I remember thinking that was a cool spy gadget. Anyone else notice that or was I just seeing things?

    February 18, 2013 at 1:27PM EST Reply to Comment
  • 003_talkback_profile

    Elevation

    "Skip Hoods ("The A-Team")" is probably the answer to all your problems.

    February 18, 2013 at 3:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Mojo CoCo

    It's die hard, it doesnt need to make sense

    February 18, 2013 at 6:51PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Why not? Have you seen the first film? Are you going to try to tell me it doesn't make sense? At what point did they decide it doesn't matter anymore? Are you seriously saying that it doesn't matter at all if a film is coherent or deals in internal logic?

      Really?

      February 18, 2013 at 7:55PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho It's Die Hard. IT NEEDS TO MAKE SENSE. BECAUSE IT'S DIE HARD.

      February 19, 2013 at 3:46AM EST
    • The series has gotten less logical with every release. This is now his 5th time dealing with terrorists, as the article points out.

      I wouldnt expect anything to make sense after he became an outright superhero in the last one. Do I want it to make sense? Sure, but that'd mean going all the way back to Die Hard 2 and saying "goddamnit, follow the rules the first set up!"

      February 20, 2013 at 4:35PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Crastor

    I get the feeling that a lot of these things wouldn't have bothered you all that much if the movie hung together as a whole a little better. I mean #6 is something you see in practically every action movie and #5- well, if you knew offhand the driving distance from Moscow to Chernobyl, I'm bloody impressed.
    It's a bad movie. Don't hold it to a higher standard than it deserves.

    February 18, 2013 at 10:15PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho #8 actually bothered me the most. The John McClane of the original would never have said, "Let's KILL these motherfuckers." Let's STOP them, maybe. But that John McClane never chose to be a hero. He was just trying to survive and rescue the hostages, including his wife. If he had to kill bad guys to do that, then so be it. But he wasn't a bloodthirsty guy. The filmmakers don't understand McClane at all.

      This is the difference between a John McTiernan and a John Moore. People who think Hollywood directors are interchangeable are completely wrong.

      February 19, 2013 at 3:51AM EST
  • The_skull_avatar_talkback_profile

    StanWarnerJr

    Another thing that didn't make sense was why did Komarov and his daughter continue the subterfuge once they were at Chernobyl. None of the henchman seemed upset over Alik the dancing bad guy getting killed or at least they didn't show any negative reaction to his death.

    February 19, 2013 at 1:21AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

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