A Good Day to Die Hard

Get ready for Die Hard 6 then.

Cause you know when it happens, that name will come up.

That will be your fault too. Just so you know.

And of course the porno version will doubtless be entitled A Good Day to Get Hard.

Damn You!!!!

GREAT NEWS EVERYONE

A Good Day to Die Hard is oficially R (or for Australia: MA)

SO F*CK YEAH MOTHERF*CKER

Don't you mean "Yippe Kay Yay, Motherfucker"?

So, anyone know why they seem to have shot this film in 1.85:1 rather than 2.35:1 like the previous films?

Good twists and awesome action setpieces, but the script was pretty weak at points and the whole father-son aspect seemed more like an afterthought. But with tagline like that, is it really a surprise?

We went to see it when it opened at midnight. We spent the entire time laughing.

Oh dear. So not a return to form after LFODH?

I still refuse to believe that this will be worse than the fourth one.

Seeing it in 20 minutes.

I like the premise of the fourth Die Hard, but unfortunately I don't think the villain was up to par. He should have been like Aiden in that upcoming game Watch Dogs, causing bridges to rise and traffic lights to change at the push of a button.

I'll be honest. I'm kind of pissed off at how generic and bad this movie was.

Yes, folks. This movie makes the fourth film look like a action classic.

I actually thought it was better than the fourth film. Still not very good though.

Haven't seen it, but I did LOL in the theater during the trailer at this line of Chuck Norris cheese:

Know what I hate about Americans? EVERYTHING.

Haven't seen the fourth, but found this pretty average.

It's just a goddamn shame that people who made these last two Die Hard flicks seem to think that Die Hard is Bruce Willis being a invincible superman who can brush off horrible wrecks (he literally just walks out of this unharmed just to get hit by another vehicle on the busy street, which doesn't really hurt him either), shooting bad guys left and right.

Where are the tightly paced plots with charismatic villains, a healthy amount of tension, a good sense of realism (though, not too realistic) and interesting characters? There's plenty of homages to the first Die Hard film in this new film ( The main villain's death which is also a nice homage to The Last Boy Scout, John's ringer on his phone, John and his son 'shooting the glass') but it's like the writer and the director didn't even watch or care about the original trilogy outside of some superficial elements.

edited 17th Feb '13 2:54:41 PM by Kentok

I really don't want to see this, considering it got a 16% rating on Rotten Tomatoes...I don't usually take their word as truth, but whenever the rating goes below about 50%, I start wondering how bad the movie is (since even the most formulaic action movie will get some critics giving it like a 4/5, saying something like "It's Not Supposed to Win Oscars").

edited 17th Feb '13 3:00:45 PM by wuggles

Part of the problem is that it just doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. The bad guys have little to no presence during the whole thing.

True, it's less of a "John McClane movie" than it is a "Bruce Willis on autopilot movie". Still, lots of fun.

edited 18th Feb '13 8:49:47 PM by erforce

&

My thoughts exactly. I have the feeling that this movie would be a little better received if it was a standard Bruce Willis vehicle instead of the fifth movie in a well respected action franchise.

I liked the practical effects/stunt choreography and the location shooting (seems to be mostly Hungary rather than Russia), but the kid playing the son was boring and the director was downright incompetent.

The fourth one was not particularly good at the everyman hero/physics-compliant action thing, but it was a genuinely fun movie with memorable villains and entertaining foils for Willis. This is...just barely an adequate timewaster.

The film has a Hind in it. Most criticisms are hence invalid. I love the Hind.

I have always thought the version with the twin 30mm cannon and wing mounted Spiral missiles would make the perfect CASEVAC aircraft for use in West Central Scotland.

Having just seen it, I have to agree that while a good action movie, it's not really a Die Hard movie, at least compared to the first three.

I haven't seen LFODH, but on the way back from the theater I stopped by the local Blockbuster Video store to rent it, for the sake of completionism if nothing else.

(And I'm not even going to get into all the You Fail Nuclear Physics Forever stuff in the Chernobyl scenes... )

Strathclyde Police could have used a couple for crowd control at Old Firm games:

"Hello, hello, we are the Billy-" DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA

edited 18th Feb '13 1:55:33 PM by Achaemenid

Some of my problems with the film:

1. The lead character continues to become less of a real person and more of a bad Schwarzenegger throwback with every passing movie. Remember how in the original film he was just an ordinary schlub who didn't really know what he was doing and how much the very realistic problem of glass in his feet slowed him down? Well, now he's "Die Another Day" Bond except pushing sixty. Even in his first scene it's all "Well, I guess I gotta go invade Russia now. Cover me for me, Larry." "Yeah ... see ya ... whatever".

2. The chase scene at the beginning of the movie goes on for far too long (in the shortest film of the series), pushes the suspension of disbelief too far and gets boring fast. I ended up just counting the number of innocent people McClane alone must have crushed to death during that sequence and how many times McClane himself would have died doing it. Again, remember how in the first film glass was enough to slow him to a halt?

3. Despite McClane now being considered some kind of superhero in-universe, the lack of acknowledgement for any of the previous films is still a baffling trend that keeps getting more inexplicable. In the second film McClane was big news, but despite now having single-handedly stopped FOUR major terrorist attacks he's STILL a washed up bum doing cop work in the most miserable basement the NYPD has to offer? The guy should have his own monument in Washington DC by this point!

4. On a related note, still no Holly! I know it's a relatively small point, but was she really too busy to greet her son getting off the plane after he almost died? Is Bonnie Bedelia really that hard to get?

5. The villains are boring, paper-thin and cliche-ridden with a plot (?) that doesn't really make any sense. Stolen Plutonium stashed in a secret lair beneath Chernobyl? That's where you're going with this? In a Die Hard film?

6. Did the cameraman have the shakes? Why did the camera keep moving on simple shot/reverse shot dialogue?

7. The slow-mo and lens flare thing. What does that add, exactly? Really, why was the not-as-bad-?-Russian-guy walking towards the camera flanked by a hundred judges (?) done in slow-mo? What was the point? And does anyone else think this looks a bit too Batman at times?

8. I didn't get a "Yippie ki-yay, Motherfucker". Fuck you, 12A rating, fuck you. Not even a "Yippe ki-yay, Mother Russia"!

9. A magic liquid that neutralizes radiation from a Nuclear disaster instantaneously? Is that miracle stuff really harder to sell than rogue Plutonium?