A Good Day to Die Hard (aka DH5): Grade, Review, Discuss---SPOILERS!!!

[Trekker4747]

A Good Day to Die Hard

My Grade: B-


-------------------------------

Frankly, I think this movie is getting needlessly panned by critics and some movie goers. I'm really not sure what they expected compared to how most action movies are these days. The movie is no where near as good as the first or third movies but it's certainly not terrible. I think I might go as far as to saying it's better than LFoDH. (Ranking, best to worst: Die Hard, Die Hard with a Vengence, Die Hard 2, A Good Day to Die Hard, Live Free or Die Hard) but the gaps between those various ranks aren't very big.

A Good Day to Die Hard starts with some expository information between a Russian prisoner and a Russian government official (I'm not clear what his position is.) The prisoner is set to go on "trial" shortly where he's expected to go to prison for the rest of his life unless he gives our governmental official the information he wants. The prisoner refuses, citing the usual movie reasons of having nothing to live for outside of the prison.

Meanwhile John "Jack" McClane, Jr. walks into a Russian night club and performs a hit and finds himself quickly arrested. This ends up to be part of a mission he's on for the CIA to capture the Russian prisoner (in hindsight I'm not sure how) as he has information the US Government needs to possibly keep dangerous weapons and materials out of the government official.

Once Jack is arrested John McClane takes a trip to Moscow in order to reunite and be with his estranged son and soon finds himself in the middle of the CIA operation to protect the Russian scientist, recover the information he has and get him back to the states with his daughter. Naturally, as is usually the case with the Die Hard movies, nothing goes to plan for either the heroes or the bad guys nor is everything as it seems.

The movie benefits from not being gimped by a PG-13 rating and not being weighed down too much by comic relief moments and scenes (glances at Justin Long and Kevin Smith.)

The movie gets to the action pretty quickly and only processionally lets up for character scenes, unlike in the previous movie we do get some nice scenes of John "playing cop" and putting the pieces of things together. Even things that seemingly go over the head of his CIA-operative son.

Everything eventually builds up to our climatic scene in the ruins of the town near the melted down Chernobyl reactor.

The movie gets off to a decent start but I think it loses some steam in the middle -particularly during a protracted car-chase scene- but once John and his son begin working together on the mission (at first the younger McClane is hostile towards his father) things pick up, there's some great moments, and the final act battle while with plenty of over-the-top scenes and pieces plays out very well.

If there's one complaint I have about the movie is that it suffers from the "spastic camera" disease that inflicts many Hollywood action movies. The camera is almost constantly in motion as if it was filmed by Michael Bay suffering from advanced Parkinson's while having a seizure. There's some places where it works (there's some nice long-shots of the car-chase scene) but other places... not so much. But it's a fairly minor issue in an otherwise good movie.

I guess to register another complaint I'd say this movie (and the previous one) seemed to forget that John McClane is supposed to be an "every man." Not Rambo or an Arnold Schwarzenegger type. He's not supposed to be a man who can fall from a flaming helicopter, crash through several windows, into a drainage pool and then pretty much shrug it off. Watching the first movies again there's plenty of times John gets hurt and it shows. His action-ability is severely hampered in the first movie after walking through broken glass.

The movies also keeps upping the ante. The first and second movie are pretty trivial instances, where if McClane failed pretty much little of consequence would happen to the world as a whole. If he failed in the third movie, there may have been world-wide economic turmoil but it's hard to say. When we get to the fourth movie potentially the security of the country is at stake and in this one a WWIV situation is entirely possible if McClane fails. It's all a bit much about a movie series that was originally about some "dumb Irish flatfoot from Brooklyn" being the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Maybe if we're to do another movie we need to get back to what made this movie series work, and redefined action movies. Stick John McClane in a building with limited help, limited resources and not much more than his wits. John McClane talking on a CB complaining about the taste of Twinkies is much truer to the character -for me- than John McClane doing ridiculous driving stunts in a Mercedes SUV during Soviet rush-hour.

All the same, I liked this movie. It was a good fun movie that is better than the previous one but still far from the first.

[OdoWanKenobi]

Die Hard 6 needs to be about John McClane fighting the terrorists that take over the hospital where's staying in the cancer ward.

Seriously...walking around Chernobyl with no radiation suit. Why do movies seem to not give a crap about the effects of radiation? It drove me nuts in The Dark Knight Rises, too. Everyone in Gotham is doomed. Thanks Batman.

This movie was pretty atrocious, and I actually liked Live Free or Die Hard. I'm about ready to say it's the dumbest action movie I've sat through since Transformers 2.

[Trekker4747]

Radiation levels at Chernobyl are at fairly "safe" levels. I'm not saying build a vacation home there, but short-term exposure is fine. The area has been slightly more "opened up" in recent years with more and more researchers spending time there studying the effects of urban decay, the impact of radiation on the environment and there's even occasional tour groups who go through there. Those who "work" there long term usually do so in two-weeks on, two-weeks off shifts or something like that. And I'm sure are taking iodine pills or something. The more dangerous areas are closer to the reactor that melted down where very, very limited exposure needs to happen. But even then, there's still people who work there, granted in protective suits.

Besides regardless of the "reality" in the movie we're told the radiation levels were safe. Hell even if the pool they fell in was a cooling pool for used reactants they would have been safe unless they actually swam down and got close to the reactor casks.

[OdoWanKenobi]

Ok, then my information is false. I was under the impression that's really not a place you want to be at all. It and surrounding area are still pretty much a no man's land.

Still, the rest of the movie did not impress me in the slightest.

[Mr Light]

Die Hard 5 was not a BAD movie, but it was not as good as any of the previous ones at all. I felt like there was an entire third act missing. The Chernobyl part felt like the middle of the story and not the end (minus the deaths). The bad guy's plot was not half as ingenious and cool as the ones in the first four movies. McClaine was a spectator in his own movie.

3-2-1 (all very close together) ... 4 ... 5

I actually just rewatched 4 and it held up a lot better than I thought it would. It's not as good as the first three, but it's pretty good! I saw 3 last night and that one really holds the nostalgia vote for me. It's the one I grew up watching over and as a teenager. I love all the NYC location filming and Jeremy Irons and his plot is the best one in the series, even over Alan Rickman.

[Trekker4747]

Well, like I said, I wouldn't go spend the weekend there or build a Summer home, nor would I call it "safe." But it's not entirely "dangerous" either, at least not for spending a few hours there. Film crews have been there taking images of the damage and all sorts of things. (It also can depend on where in the area you are.) And the area is still considered to be uninhabitable for possibly another 20,000 years but you can walk around there for a few hours unprotected and you'd be mostly fine.

That all aside, I think saying it's worse than LVoDH is a bit silly. For me, at least. I liked this better than the last one, it didn't have quite the comic relief-y moments or the bullshit from Justin Long. And the movie was Rated-R, that alone makes it better than the last one!

The movie had plenty of stupid moments, didn't really have interesting villains, but it entertained me for 90 minutes and I walked away happy. (Especially since I didn't see a wedding ring on Lucy meaning her and Doofus Dinkus didn't hook up as was hinted at at the end of the last movie.)

I'd go see another Die Hard movie, fuck it. I enjoy the heck out of them.

[OdoWanKenobi]

I was already hating the movie after the first chase scene. It's almost all closeup shots that give absolutely no idea of the geography of this chase. At points, I wasn't even sure if McClane was still in the damn chase. Also, this chase must have produced a body count of a least several dozen. Even McClane is driving around murdering innocent people left and right. Then he rolls his car multiple times not once, but twice and still walks away without a scratch. He is not playing his character from Unbreakable.

[Trekker4747]

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

I was already hating the movie after the first chase scene. It's almost all closeup shots that give absolutely no idea of the geography of this chase. At points, I wasn't even sure if McClane was still in the damn chase. Also, this chase must have produced a body count of a least several dozen. Even McClane is driving around murdering innocent people left and right. Then he rolls his car multiple times not once, but twice and still walks away without a scratch. He is not playing his character from Unbreakable.

I agree, that first chase scene was too much, and McClane possibly had a pretty high innocents body/injury count. The camera work in this movie was horrid and yeah the "geography" of that chase is hard to understand. It's odd that McCalne felt the need to steal cars and mow down traffic to catch his son during all of that when it didn't seem like he had a grasp at that point on what was going on. Did he feel it was really worth ending up sitting to next to his son in a Russian "court room" because his son apparently escaped custody?

[Saul]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

you can walk around there for a few hours unprotected and you'd be mostly fine.

Heh, mostly.

[Captain Craig]

The 4-Day Presidents Day Weekend Estimates have A Good Day to Die Hard placing #1 with an estimated $37.5m domestically.

I personally wanted at least $40m opening(that would've got it into the top 10 Feb openings) so I'm a bit disappointed but FOX must really be cause they were touting $50m. Maybe they just wanted to get into the top 3 Feb openings? Still, for the 5th film in a franchise opening on a Thursday in February it's not all bad.

Since it opened last weekend in a number of international markets the real sweet spot is looking at it's WW to date after 10 days which is $117m. Thus shooting past it's $92m posted production cost. The film is headed for around $275m - 300m WW most likely when it's all over.

Be curious to see what kind of legs the film has. Does WOM help it, it's Cinemascore and RT Audience rating are great, Metacritic and RT Critic not so much. So what wins out in the WOM game?

[Star Wolf]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

How can this be a Die Hard when you can't even describe it that way.

Sudden Death is Die Hard in a stadium. Under Siege is Die Hard on a boat. Under Siege 2 is Die Hard on a train. You get the idea.

And Die Hard 4 was... Die Hard on the East Coast?
And Die Hard 5 is... Die Hard in Russia?

There's already one big mistake right there.



It's then it's simply no Die Hard when the guy Willis plays is a super hero who walks away from the action scenes like nothing happened. In the original three Die Hards, he always cried at some point, he panicked, shit his pants several times, and in the end he was a physical wreck.

The guy walked on fucking glass and spent the next time crying in the bathroom.


I also hate how he simply walks (or drives) over civilians in this film. What the hell, McClane?

I agree to me it played like what if James Bond's mission was blown and his cop daddy was standing around looking at the carnage with his cop's instincts. But then our ultimate every man survivor stands in the open and blast away with his machinegun as if he were a terminator.

The only things Die Hard about the movie besides Willis playing the lead character were what could have been added onto the script of any franchise. Have someone call John a cowboy, check. Have John jump off of a building before the fireball from an explosion, check. Accept a R rating so John can use his iconic catch phrase again, check

[JarodRussell]

http://www.empireonline.com/intervie...w.asp?IID=1638

Apparently, Bruce Willis is to blame (or praise) for anything and everything in this film.

[Captain Craig]

So there is a directors cut but it only says the initial car chase sequence is longer. It's already long, probably good it was edited down.

I want to know are there edits of say John entering the country and declaring to a customs agent that he's "there on vacation"?
Is there a cut sequence where he or Jack fights that hulked out Russian at the end?

This isn't the first time you hear of actors who've been doing a role for this long that they take an almost strict ownership of what happens. It does sound that reading his statements about Bruce's involvement that Willis did almost everything but yell 'Action'.

[Trekker4747]

Well, Bruce Willis is the only constant through all of the Die Hard movies so, yeah, I'll go with his ideas and recommendations on the character and franchise over anything else. Though for a touch of humor, see Kevin Smith's experience working with Bruce Willis on the set of "Live Free or Die Hard" (where Smith has a small role as a hacker friend of Justin Long's they seek out to help them.)



Relevant portion begins at about 8:00 and continues through the next portion of the uploaded video. (Back story to the segment: Evening With Kevin Smith 1 ended up being a successful "demo video" for Smith as he came across as very genuine in it, as a result he got a lot of audition offers, one being for Die Hard (4.) Before the audition he "re-wrote" the sides to a dialogue he was more comfortable speaking and offered those as his audition. He didn't feel the audition went well but eventually was given the part as Warlock presumably as "payment" for the re-writes he offered which the Director decided to use (but ultimately was discarded in favor of something else as revealed in the story of the video.) It's really an interesting look at what it was like for Kevin to work with Bruce Willis in Die Hard and in a future edition of "Evening With..." Smith recounts his experience in working with Willis on "Cop Out."

[Captain Craig]

Box Office Mojo has done their week one analysis wrap up accounting for the international numbers now. Their early conclusion for a worldwide total is promising.

A Good Day to Die Hard still has to open in Australia, Brazil, France, India and China, which means there's still a good chance it ultimately matches Live Free or Die Hard's $250 million overseas total.

Willis has said/confirmed he'd like to a sixth and final wrap up film so these kinda of numbers bode well for that.

Turns out he doesn't quite get the play on words with the title.