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

[Starkers]

Finally saw this last night. It isn't a good Die Hard film, and I'm not even sure it's a good action film.

The bad:

The setting. Seriously they filmed this in Moscow and (supposedly) Chernobyl, yet neither place feels remotely real, we never get a feel for Moscow, a city with wonderful architecture and a very different way of life. For a Die Hard film it's unforgivable not to play up the 'fish out of water' elements of having John McClane in another country dealing with another culture. Even the cab driver speaks/sings English, and where are the Russian cops? Really you could have set this film anywhere. In Vengence New York was a character in itself. As for Chernobyle, I felt like they were just on a set and again you didn't get a feel for what the place looked like cos it was night (also I like that it takes 5 minutes to drive there from Moscow apparently...)

Jai Courteny. Charisma vacuum. If they have to do a 6th I hope they bring Lucy back because she dominated the screen more in 2 minutes than he did in 90+

Overly convoluted plans. Seriously as contrived as Silva's plan is in Skyfall it pales in comparison to Komorov's(?) five years in prison plan, or in fact the CIA's dumbest plans ever#125, so Jack goes and shoots a guy, so he can be arrested and then end up in court next to Komorov? WTF?

The direction. The car chase was atrocious, I almost had to look away at times because it was giving me motion sickness, and it was a mess. See the aformentioned comments regarding how flatly Moscow and Chernobyl were filmed, plus the ridiculous lingering camerawork. How long do you have to stare at Jack's boot gun/knife before you realise IT'S IMPORTANT! (several minutes apparently)

The bad guys. No charisma, Komorov and his daughter were vaguely interesting, but generic to a fault and dancing guy...with a carrot?

John and Jack as Terminators..., the entire notion that made the first one so great is that Mcclane isn't an invulnerable superman. I can appreciate that he's older and more experienced but still...

On the plus side I thought Willis was great, considering I'd heard he looked bored throughout the film I was pleasantly surprised, I only hope he gets to make one more decent Die Hard film before he hangs up his Beretta. In fairness this wasn't as awful as I'd expected it to be, and frankly I haven't seen the 4th one in ages, but at the moment this is the worst of the five for me.

[Chemahkuu]

Finally saw it today, there were three people there besides me, two chatted to each other the whole time and the other was either eating or on his phone not paying attention.

The film itself was disappointing, there were plenty of nice little moments here and there but everything else just fell flat and most of it is instantly forgettable.

The two biggest set pieces of the entire film were idiotic, the chase scene was far too obviously filmed in Hungary, not just bits and pieces but all the historic districts of the area, the connecting bridges, Hungarian on many signs and buildings and the Danube taking up chunks of the screen several times.

And the Chernobyl sequence was brainless indeed, the spray used to decontaminate the boxes interesting in that there are some that do that, the likes of Chloro-flouro-methane. The problem is all these gasses are lethal and will, amongst other things, liquify the lungs and other organs if inhaled, causing major chemical burns to skin and eyes on contact.

The lack of a single villain was annoying, all of them were weak and poorly done, the movie plods along and what good sequences we get don't last too long.

The family aspect of it was great though, every scene of him and either Jack or Lucy is well done and the ending was touching. I was just hoping for better overall.

[marillion]

Fast and dirty review:

B... Better than 4 and, frankly 2 (mostly becuase 2 was too much of a retread of 1)... But it was a far cry from 1 and 3...

The bad: Over the top stunts... For those of us who thought the ejector seat stunt in #2 was over the top, this took the cake.. However they weren't as bad (mostly) as the stunts in #4 (You killed a helicopter with a car? Really?)...

The good: The action was great and despite the McClanes as Terminators, it was loud and popcorny fun... The father/son relationship was a nice touch and frankly, I didn't have a problem with the thinly developed baddie(s)... Let's face it, NONE of the bad guys in these movies have been that well developed... The Grubers were saved by being played by great actors..

And finally.. And this is just one of those nitpicks... John and Holly are no longer together. OK, I get that.. Duh... But don't you think that Mom Gennero would want to be at the airport when her son arrives? If Lucy can be there, is Holly so busy that she couldn't? I wouldn't even have minded if it were a different actress... It just seemed weird not to have her at least mentioned...

[DarthPipes]

A Good Day to Die Hard had such a thin story, thin for even a Die Hard movie. Add to that having Bruce Willis standing around repeating himself constantly and you have a definite mistake for a film.

[doubleohfive]

Like I said earlier: Garbage.

[Captain Craig]

While it's domestic total is going to be underwhelming, currently at $60m, over the weekend it crossed $200m WW for a total of $221m.

If Fox wants to close this saga out right they've got the financial power to do so and Willis has said he'd like to do one more. I think we all just hope a more solid effort is applied.

Getting to say Yippie Kai Yeah MotherFucker doesn't mean much when so much else was sacrificed it seems.

I didn't hate the film but it was a step down from the other entries.

[Gaith]

For the final act, they ought to go back to the very basics: McClane on a ________. Only a modest budget necessary. And make him mortal again, for Pete's sake.

Has "cruise ship" been played out by Speed 2?

[Star Wolf]

Too many random people on a cruise ship. You can lock the bulk of them up but then you have the original Die Hard on a ..... Stevan Seagal's Under Siege

[FPAlpha]

Gaith wrote:

---

For the final act, they ought to go back to the very basics: McClane on a ________. Only a modest budget necessary. And make him mortal again, for Pete's sake.

Has "cruise ship" been played out by Speed 2?

Maybe he'll pull a Stallone and make his version of Rocky Balboa (which together with the first one were awesome movies in themselves, the others are just brainless fun movies).

I had the good graces to stay away from it and from what i hear it's a good decision. Die Hard died for me with the atrocious 4th movie and it shall remain there until either Willis gives up or pulls an ace out of his sleeve.

[JarodRussell]

Getting into terrorist trouble by accident for the sixth fucking time? No.

Die Hard 2 was already stretching that.
Die Hard 3 ONLY worked because it was a revenge plot by a Gruber brother. There was an actual reason why the hell he was involved again.

The other films are total nonsense.

If anything, the 4th film should have had John McClane doing actual police work, getting into trouble that way.

[Star Wolf]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Getting into terrorist trouble by accident for the sixth fucking time? No.

Die Hard 2 was already stretching that.
Die Hard 3 ONLY worked because it was a revenge plot by a Gruber brother. There was an actual reason why the hell he was involved again.

The other films are total nonsense.

If anything, the 4th film should have had John McClane doing actual police work, getting into trouble that way.

But see that was it, he was a cop, it could have been the old LAPD guy with a rewrite, who got in the middle of criminals masquerading as terrorist. And standing in for the every-man we wish all cops were like that. It is part of the reason we want them armed when off duty.

[Mr Light]

McClaine's involvement in the story in 3 and 4 makes sense. In 3 he was the target, and in 4 they were calling in all the detectives in the area to round people up. Unfortunately 5 falls for the old mistake of in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Gaith]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Getting into terrorist trouble by accident for the sixth fucking time? No.

Bit late to worry about franchise-wide credibility, innit?

I don't care if the setup is contrived/wildly coincidental. I'd far rather have an absurd setup that jumps right into a first-rate story than something like the last two movies, whose plots seem downright sheepish about justifying their own existence.

[Starkers]

Gaith wrote:

---

Bit late to worry about franchise-wide credibility, innit?

I don't care if the setup is contrived/wildly coincidental. I'd far rather have an absurd setup that jumps right into a first-rate story than something like the last two movies, whose plots seem downright sheepish about justifying their own existence.

I will give the 5th one very minor props for at least trying to return to the wrong guy/wrong place/wrong time idea, even if it handled it horribly.

With regard to McClane getting into terrorist trouble by accident, I think the third film should be the template to go with, because McClane doesn't get involved by accident, his involvement is entirely part of a carefully orchestrated plot. Ok I'm pretty sure Simon didn't expect it to pan out like it did, but still nothing accidental about John boy's presense.

[Agent Richard07]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Die Hard 3 ONLY worked because it was a revenge plot by a Gruber brother. There was an actual reason why the hell he was involved again.

That answers my question. I've been wondering why Die Hard 3 was so highly regarded. Like 4 and 5, I've always seen it as a generic action movie with Bruce Willis and the "Die Hard" name slapped on.