[BigFoot87]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_good_day_to_die_hard/

A Good Day to Die Hard is the weakest entry in a storied franchise, and not even Bruce Willis' smirking demeanor can enliven a cliched, uninspired script.

Currently 16% at Rotten Tomatoes.

[Rooks]

It's no classic but it's nowhere near as bad as the review claims - it's a fairly enjoyable action film. It is the least Die Hard-like film of the five (in my opinion) and definitely not in the same league as the original or With a Vengence but it's certainly not awful.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Rooks

It's no classic but it's nowhere near as bad as the review claims - it's a fairly enjoyable action film. It is the least Die Hard-like film of the five (in my opinion) and definitely not in the same league as the original or With a Vengence but it's certainly not awful.

Sorry but i beg to differ, the film is awful, it makes Live Free or Die Hard look brilliant by comparison (at least LFoDH felt Die Hard-ish, this could just be a poor Bourne knock off). The screenplay has some of the most atrocious dialogue i've seen in a theatrically released film, the villain is a horrifyingly poor caricature that is instantly forgotten (before this film, the Die Hard films all had memorable villains, even weaker ones like Timothy Olyphant's hacker in the fourth film at least had character), and the action scenes are pathetic, especially when they used CGI. Then there's the cuts to get a 12A rating on top of all that...The film fails in just about every aspect and it completely deserves the critical drubbing that it's getting.

I say all of that as a long time Die Hard fan. This abomination was not a Die Hard film.

[sinbad8982]

Very poor entry, most of the scenes were completly nonsensical, bad guys and military helicopters appearing suddenly from thin air like in a video game. But the biggest problem is Willis is so far removed from the John Mclane we know and love from the original movie. it seems pointless to to try and end the franchise properly with a sixth movie. At least when Stallone finished the Rocky and Rambo films he still seemed like the same character.

[ritch]

I hate the excuse "its a popcorn action film, it doesnt matter how bad it is". It does....

[ASIFZED]

Die Hard 5 is abysmal. An embarassment to a franchise that should have remained a trilogy. Willis was a bit part in his own film, just running around yelling 'Jack' or 'I'm on vacation!' (hilarious -not). I couldn't even grab a few mins shut eye in the cinema, because most of the film is subtitled! The action staging was atrocious, constant zooming in to create a false sense of urgency. Over the top automobile destruction, with Mclane walking away unscathed. Ridiculous. Lame villains, convoluted plot, no sense of danger, pathetically (but mercifully) short run time...i could go on.

I thought LFADH was just about passable as a belated, but unecessary addition to the series. A Good Day to Die Hard ain't even fit to kiss that film's boots. Biggest turkey I've seen in a long time. Hopefully, Bruce Willis (and Arnie + Sly), will retire from the action genre and either do more character pieces (ala Sixth Sense / Unbreakable), or step behind the camera. Rating - 1/10..and that 1 is for the musical score only.

[Yuffie]

I'm not one for not going to see a film because somebody else said it was bad. I can make up my mind on films.

But this film is getting such awful reviews that I really have no desire whatsoever to go see this.

[sinbad8982]

Yes i went along to make my own mind up, but if you have a true appreciation for the other entries in the series the only verdict on this is lame.

[phillees]

Just got back from the cinema. Forget it's called Die Hard and treat it as a normal over the top action film and you'll enjoy it.
To be honest, if they want to call this Die Hard then the two Willis films advertised before it should called Die Hard too.

[Spacedone]

Originally Posted by phillees

Just got back from the cinema. Forget it's called Die Hard and treat it as a normal over the top action film and you'll enjoy it.
To be honest, if they want to call this Die Hard then the two Willis films advertised before it should called Die Hard too.

That's the problem really. Only 1 and 2 are really Die Hard movies. After that they become generic action films with more explosions, less realistic violence to get the teen audience and a sidekick and they just happen to have a character called McClane in them.

[Tassium]

The Rotten Tomatoes critics are no guide to a films worth as an entertainment, or worth as a piece of film-making either.

This collection of " top critics" from around the world thought Prometheus an 80% film for example.


I'm sure Die Hard 5 is terrible though.

[Andy_C75]

Had the misfortune to see this the other night.
I reserved judgement by reading very few reviews.....I almost walked out and I have never considered walking out of a cinema before!
Everything was just terrible, shaky camera work, confusing action, terrible script and even worse action sequences. I was soooo disappointed.

And whats with the special machine that neutralises 20yrs of full on meltdown radiation??
does it exist??
I doubt it! otherwise the whole city would be decontaminated and then redeveloped!

At least all the previous films had mostly believable storylines (yes even the 4th)
this one was just shite!

oh and closing thought......Jack Mclane cuts the flexi-cuffs to escape.....how did John Mclane get his off???
I didnt notice them get cut off or did I fall asleep???

[stvn758]

Flogging a dead horse now, they just use the name for some easy cash. At least Willis still gets decent roles like Looper, that gives these ones a little more respectability, he's still a star.

[DarthFader]

Bruce should be ashamed of himself, the worse bit is I am willing to bet he got a sack load of cash for this rubbish.

[mwardy]

Well, that's that then. Thanks all.

I wonder when the time will come that quick word of mouth will stop these cynical cash-ins being made at all.

[Virgil Tracy]

just saw this .

the action scenes are pretty good , and its no more ridiculous than the last one . glad I saw it in the cinema , the sound mix is great .

however I haven't a clue what the plot is , every time they started talking I just zoned out , everyone was rather dull . and there's no humour .


interesting to see that it was in 1.77 , all the others are 2.35 aren't they . Well I'm not a fan of 2.35 so it suited me .

[Muttley76]

It's under performing at the US box office, but fairing better world wide. It's already made a profit, so I think it will likely be back, even though, from a legacy point of view they would be better off pulling the plug....

[frost]

Originally Posted by Tassium

I'm sure Die Hard 5 is terrible though.

It isnt.

Its a perfectly fine movie. The action is good, the acting is alright. Decent enough plot.

I'm not about to say its an all time great movie or anything, but its not bad. Personally I enjoyed it at the cinema and I'll buy it when it comes out. Good enough for me.

[jonny1973]

I haven't seen it, I gave up after Die Hard 3 but they are already planning Die Hard 6.

[Rincewind78]

thought it couldnt be as bad as they are making out....but it was!!!!
It was simply awful. Seem to start off okay. and that car chase was done well. but it just went awful.

[dbob]

Originally Posted by frost

It isnt.

Its a perfectly fine movie. The action is good, the acting is alright. Decent enough plot.

I'm not about to say its an all time great movie or anything, but its not bad. Personally I enjoyed it at the cinema and I'll buy it when it comes out. Good enough for me.

You are obviously easily pleased. The film is an embarrassment and no where near perfectly fine.

[DarthFader]

Have they said why they made this film in 16:9 (or whatever the cinematic equivalent is) unlike the other 4? I understand it was because they shot it not on film but is that the real reason or were they just cutting corners? I know it is the least of the films problems but still, I would like to know.

PJ

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by DarthFader

Have they said why they made this film in 16:9 (or whatever the cinematic equivalent is) unlike the other 4? I understand it was because they shot it not on film but is that the real reason or were they just cutting corners? I know it is the least of the films problems but still, I would like to know.

PJ

I'm not certain, but i wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the IMAX presentation of the movie. Even though it was a conversion, it filled the screen rather than having black borders on IMAX Digital screens. Could possibly have had something to do with that.

It's either that or Fox just felt like being cheap and opted for 1:85:1 ratio rather than the wider ratio of the previous films.

[DarthFader]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

I'm not certain, but i wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the IMAX presentation of the movie. Even though it was a conversion, it filled the screen rather than having black borders on IMAX Digital screens. Could possibly have had something to do with that.

It's either that or Fox just felt like being cheap and opted for 1:85:1 ratio rather than the wider ratio of the previous films.

Good point about IMAX. It doesn't deserve to be in any cinema screen let alone the grandeur of an IMAX

PJ

[wakey]

I haven't seen it yet due to the trailers. What I have always thought made the Die Hard movies was that the actions scenes always seemed to have a basis in reality, most likely as most of them were actually live stunts and action scenes.

The one part of Die Hard 4 I didn't like was the 'Plane Sufing' scene as that seemed to lose any basis in reality and the Trailer for DH5 seemed to indicate rather than staying to their roots of Live Action stunts that were believable they have gone to using CGI as a way to get bigger with the stunts/action bu by doing so they are now doing things that not in the slightest believable.