Full Movie Reviews
Yojimbo - wrote on 07/06/2017
John McClane travels to Russia for the trial of his son who is charged with attempted murder and is caught up in a feud between shadowy figures in the Russian establishment with a past in organised crime.
Despite its less than lukewarm reception, Die Hard 4.0 wasn’t a total disaster; I actually thought it started rather well but faltered thanks to its increasing over-reliance on preposterously bone-headed action set pieces. The fifth instalment begins with preposterously bone-headed action set pieces and goes downhill from there. That’s not to say that this is a terrible film; the action is efficient enough and it never bores, but there is no chemistry between the stars and Bruce Willis’ charisma is never allowed to shine as the dumbed-down script completely lacks the humour and …
SIngli6 - wrote on 06/27/2017
A Good Day to Die Hard, the latest in the multi-million dollar series, is a deceptive film. It’s opening five or so minutes, which see multiple plot threads being set up with Nolanesque aplomb, seduce you into letting your guard down… which is when the film’s putrid awfulness strikes.
But what is this awfulness? Well, it’s not the meagre script, nor is it Bruce Willis’ disinterested performance, nor is it the absence of any remotely interesting or intimidating villains, nor is it the fact that this film turns Willis into a bloody sidekick – because obviously the producers thought that what the public wanted to see from in the next Die Hard film is John McClane being made to look a useless twat by his punk kid – no, it’s simply the cinematography. Oh, the …
memento_mori - wrote on 11/02/2013
Bruce Willis… What happened?
I address Willis here, because he could have stopped pretty much everything. How anyone else on set didn't say: 'Stop! This is terrible!' is beyond me, because all I can feel right now is absolute anger and disappointment. A Good Day To Die Hard is the worst entry into an otherwise solid franchise, and I hope they make a sixth, because they just can't leave it like this.
This director is a fu*king dumb-a*s, I'm sorry, I just had to curse at this mockery of a decision to institute John Moore as director for a Die Hard movie. What a laugh. Just because you have eye-soaring lens flare in the background doesn't mean you are a creative director Moore!
Lengthy scenes with poor dialogue are often filmed in terrible lighting as well as unnecessary shaky-cam. …
sreekirch - wrote on 06/23/2013
I thought John Moore (Max Payne) was shy to call it Die Hard 5.0. What a terrific trash! It is pretty straight for any person who has watched this film. This is a bad day to even try for an action junkie out there. The mammoth sized action set pieces were cumbersome and mostly damp squib. This one neither gave me fun, nor the interest to care for the really bad father-son relationship. It is just one action after another without looking serious into the plot. So what’s the plot? I did not care , nor the director. Willis is not the McClane we saw years ago. He is old and his son Courtney has no time for building relation with his long lost father. The caption goes right, Like father, Like Son, Like Hell. Yes this is Hell. A truth we have to digest.
The truckzilla episode, the giant …
Daniel - wrote on 06/11/2013
It is a bad day to die hard.... in fact this movie gave us the reason to not die hard.
We all know and love Bruce Willis because... well, because he is Bruce Willis. He made countless movies amazing or even watchable due to just being that great actor with a smirk on his face whether in the face of danger or whether he is facing a crazed female. Unfortunately the odds were against him this time. This movie simply could not tap into Bruce's potential and use him to the fullest to create what could have been a gem. The script is probably the weakest link, since the effects were GREAT! Yes bigger and louder and awesome-er; but the script just kept making the movie trip over and stumble to its knees, with full knowledge that every actor had the ability to deliver a great performance. One …
Daniel Corleone - wrote on 05/01/2013
Overloaded action sequences with more explosions and car crashes. Lacks the depth for the father and son McLane's, antagonist was not as terrorizing enough unlike the previous installments. The lines tried to be cute and funny while the drama in certain scenes were out of place. Having a huge budget and popular star cannot be suffice to make a good movie. If the Bourne series had Bourne Legacy, then this was the equivalent for the Die Hard franchise. Lacks the charm of John McLane, one man army barrage and a son who easily transform just because his long lost dad converses with him again. Even the twists on the bad guys was a bit too much since the plot just revoled around a silly file that wasn't given enough information to its viewer to make it vital to the story. Typical eye …
Looneymanthegreat - wrote on 03/01/2013
Those monsters, they did it, they killed Die Hard, screw them. How do you ruin Die Hard? It’s a fairly simple to make a Die hard movie, and yet they clearly put no effort into making this an even remotely good sequel.
The action sequence at the end is kind of fun, but the movie is poorly written so much so that the entire second act is nearly incomprehensible. Then at the end the audience isn’t very invested in what’s going on so the action sequence, no matter how well staged, feels tedious.
They try to create a relationship between McLain and his son, which is a good idea, but (again) is ruined by the awful awful script. This script was pretty much an unfinished product and needed a few more rewrites before it could be considered a finished product.
I am a huge Die …
Ikkinbot - wrote on 02/19/2013
I decided to go with 3 stars even though I was disappointed. Why? Because the action was great and if it wasn't Die Hard I wouldn't be disappointed. Die Hard is special among action movies because the bad guys matter. They have presence. They are not interchangeable. Not so in this movie. So, this movie fell down on its Die Hardness, but not on its essential actioness. There were some sequences that were new and very cool looking, but who cares really. Die Hard was unique, to me anyway, because it was always a slow starter. You just got to hang out in the movie for awhile get to know and care about the characters and then bang everything started to blow up. This movie was missing that slow build and some how that lessened the danger. I think having such a competent companion in this …
Chris Kavan - wrote on 02/16/2013
Die Hard is arguably one of the greatest action films to grace the silver screen. It also helped propel Bruce Willis into the action hero stratosphere (something he hasn't been shy to capitalize on). While the films in the series have had their ups and downs, there is no doubt in my mind that A Good Day to Die Hard is the weakest entry into this series thus far.
Although there is plenty of action and some of that off-beat humor that made previous Die Hard films so fun, the main problem with this entry is two-fold: one - compared to passed entries, the villain is nowhere near as memorable (not even compared to Timothy Olyphant from Live Free or Die Hard) and two - the McClane clan is given even less to do and while Jai Courtney looks like he could be the son of Willis - besides looking …
lastonetoleave - wrote on 02/15/2013
A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) John McClane (Bruce Willis) travels to Russia to try get his son (Jai Courtney) back on track. What John doesn’t know is his son isn’t a kid bumming his way through Europe - he’s a CIA operative trying to stop the sale of nuclear weapons. Now John must team up with his son to keep the world safe. Yippee Ki yay bad! This is one of those films where the plot is so badly thought out that, at the end if the film, you have no idea how you got there. There are lots of daddy issue jokes/situations and unlike some of the other Die Hard films, this one just isn't fun. The film feels like it’s just one long explosion of a movie, and I have no idea who the villain of the film is, though it could possibly be the screenwriter. My Rating: You Would Have to Pay …