It wouldn't be a "Die Hard" movie without lots of destruction, and "A Good Day to Die Hard" (starring Bruce Willis and Jai Courtney) has plenty of that. In fact, that's about all this fifth entry into the ever-diminishing franchise has.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- "A Good Day to Die Hard?" More like a good day to fall short of everyone's expectations.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- "A Good Day to Die Hard?" More like a good day to fall short of everyone's expectations. This is by far the worst of the "Die Hard" movies, and even if it weren't part of the franchise, it still would not be a good movie.
In it, Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) travels to Russia in hopes of saving his son, Jack (Jai Courtney, "Jack Reacher"), from a lifetime in a Russian prison. He ends up in the middle of a political and military mess.
The biggest problem with this is that McClane's son hasn't been seen since the first movie. How are viewers supposed to be sympathetic to a failed father-son relationship when we haven't seen the kid in 25 years? The relationship felt like it was being forced upon us.
On top of searching for the father-son bond in the movie, I found myself searching for good acting. There was such little conversation within the movie that you had no idea if the cast had any acting ability at all. The longest conversation must have lasted only 10 minutes, if that.
What I find amazing is the fact that John McClane is seemingly invincible now. He is almost like a superhero, as opposed to in the beginning when he actually did get hurt.
Also, in the original "Die Hard," he was just a normal guy caught up in a bad situation. It was the fear that his family would get hurt that drove him. Now, though he does originally go to Russia to help his son, it feels like he is almost forced to be there.
It was that original John McClane that we loved! Where did he go? Why did the directors and writers change that?
Plus, in the previous "Die Hard" films, there was at least some detective work, which made McClane more than just a killing machine. He actually used his skills as a police officer to help defeat the bad guys.
Granted, it's not the detective work we love, it's the action, but that work made the plot a little more interesting. There is hardly any plot in this film -- just constant explosions, gunfire and fights. The digitally amplified clatter of guns, choppers, fireballs and crashing cars never stops.
I'd talk about the holes in the plot, but it's hard to do that if there is no plot to begin with. If you are simply looking for an action-packed, storyless movie, then this is it. However, if you're in search of the John McClane of 25 years ago, then I am afraid you are going to be a little more than disappointed.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- "A Good Day to Die Hard?" More like a good day to fall short of everyone's expectations. This is by far the worst of the "Die Hard" movies, and even if it weren't part of the franchise, it still would not be a good movie.
In it, Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) travels to Russia in hopes of saving his son, Jack (Jai Courtney, "Jack Reacher"), from a lifetime in a Russian prison. He ends up in the middle of a political and military mess.
The biggest problem with this is that McClane's son hasn't been seen since the first movie. How are viewers supposed to be sympathetic to a failed father-son relationship when we haven't seen the kid in 25 years? The relationship felt like it was being forced upon us.
On top of searching for the father-son bond in the movie, I found myself searching for good acting. There was such little conversation within the movie that you had no idea if the cast had any acting ability at all. The longest conversation must have lasted only 10 minutes, if that.
What I find amazing is the fact that John McClane is seemingly invincible now. He is almost like a superhero, as opposed to in the beginning when he actually did get hurt.
Also, in the original "Die Hard," he was just a normal guy caught up in a bad situation. It was the fear that his family would get hurt that drove him. Now, though he does originally go to Russia to help his son, it feels like he is almost forced to be there.
It was that original John McClane that we loved! Where did he go? Why did the directors and writers change that?
Plus, in the previous "Die Hard" films, there was at least some detective work, which made McClane more than just a killing machine. He actually used his skills as a police officer to help defeat the bad guys.
Granted, it's not the detective work we love, it's the action, but that work made the plot a little more interesting. There is hardly any plot in this film -- just constant explosions, gunfire and fights. The digitally amplified clatter of guns, choppers, fireballs and crashing cars never stops.
I'd talk about the holes in the plot, but it's hard to do that if there is no plot to begin with. If you are simply looking for an action-packed, storyless movie, then this is it. However, if you're in search of the John McClane of 25 years ago, then I am afraid you are going to be a little more than disappointed.
Get Connected