What did you think of A Good Day To Die Hard?

News Den Of Geek 15 Feb 2013 - 06:22

Leave your spoiler-filled thoughts on Die Hard 5 right here...

WARNING: Lots of spoilers potentially in the comments below...

By now, chances are you're more than well aware that A Good Day To Die Hard has been on the receiving end of some savage reviews. And chances are, quite a few of you might just have seen the movie by now.

We've thus opened up this post for spoiler-filled discussion of the film, and for you to tell us how wrong we are. Are critics being too hard on the movie, or is A Good Day To Die Hard really that bad? Share your thoughts below. And feel free to include as many spoilers as you like.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

A Good Day to poop hard. That is all

I'd be more interested in knowing how many have bothered seeing it after such scathing reviews.

I enjoyed it. I found it hilariously over the top more than once (which is not a negative) and liked "Jack". It wasn't as suspenseful as any of the others, it had less actual goings on than in any previous film in spite of the layers of story suggested in the opening montage, and John McClaine had less opportunities to show his downtrodden detective side. In spite of that I really enjoyed myself in the cinema and look forward to the next film.

I loved it. I love ridiculous, I got ridiculous. Can't wait to see it again. The first is a classic, the second is fun and tough, three is solid but I love how over the top 4 and 5 are. If you don't like to see cars and helicopters being thrown all over the place stay away from it. It was like grand theft Auto Moscow edition. :) I'm from Ireland and it wasn't cut over here.

It wasn't awful but it wasn't die hard.

It was good fun & I came out with a smile on my face, as it was ridiculous (in a good way) & the action sequences were all very good. It's just the film was lacking in plot. From a Die Hard movie, you expect more of a solid storyline. In amongst the non-stop bonanza of destruction, they should have fleshed out the plot. It's not like they couldn't have done it, since it's only a 97 minute film & the pieces of a good plot were there.

Thanks for the heads up on it not being cut here in Ireland, herself and I had decided to give this a miss, might reconsider now...

For me this was always going to be a 'wait for it to be on TV' movie, so I haven't seen it.

There are many, many worse films than this. Bruce did look a bit bored and old, and it was clearly the least good of the 'Die Hards', but the action scenes were generally great fun, there were a few laughs and a few nods to the first film. Yeah, I enjoyed it and so did my partner.

Rotten tomatoes gave it 14% or somthing. I went to see it last night it was okay at most. It certainly deserved more than 14%. I starting to think that these film critics have a motive.
Some of the crap the RT has made me see in the year that has been marked as fresh has been terrible.

The movie was, quite simply, AWESOME. If I could underline and bold that I would. I LOVED THIS MOVIE. The movie could've ended after the first 20 minutes and I'd have been good. BUT IT DIDN'T. And by the end I was like, "Oooooooooooooooooh damn!!!"

Look, if you're watching Die Hard movies expecting Jean de Florette, look elsewhere. Action movies aren't meant to make sense. The ones that do, great, but that's not what normally happens. The action movies of the 80s are deeply entrenched within my psyche, and I look to action movies to bring what those hallowed troves brought: a freaking good time, without having to analyze and think about whether or not the movie makes sense. This is what I loved about "Ninja Assassin", what I loved about "The Expendables", and what I love about "A Good Day To Die Hard". It was just a damn good action movie where people died and things blew up. End of story.

Despite the fact this franchise has been on downward trend since Die Hard with a Vengeance, I thought the trailer looked promising (sucker!) and shelled out to go see it in the cinema. Its starts OK, but after about half way through this entry had completely lost the plot and was more like Expendables 2.1 - although I enjoyed that movie far more than this one! Overall its short on tension, laughs, originality & running time, so the one positive is that it's over pretty quickly....
Worst of all was the fact that it had clearly been butchered to earn the 12 rating (thanks a bunch FOX!) so I do hold out some hope that an uncut DVD version will bring it back to life a bit, but there are so many other problems I'm not convinced it can be saved.

The actionsequences are tremendous. The first carchase alone is by far the coolest chase... in the world! At last Blues Brothers have been surpassed when it comes number of cars destroyed. But this movie just reeks of missed chances. The main story is - as always - far out, and that's fine and DieHardy, but it seriously lacks the intriguing characters, that McClane can play off. You have just seen the villains too many times in other movies. They are flat and transparent. The two russian excomrades starts out fine and interesting in their first scene, but they just don't go anywhere from there. But the biggest missed opportunity is by far the relationship between father and son. It was an enormous chance to bring the light and sharp humor from the first three movies front and center, but the script sadly decides too go deeper into the conflicts between them and try to make it realistic and relevant. But why? When has a DH movie ever been realistic and relevant? It's not supposed to be. As a result the few jokes between them fall flat to the ground. Nothing wrong with the acting... it's the script. But don't get me wrong... I grew up on these movies, and now I'm taking my kids along, and I'm damm sure going to be there opening day for the next one. But still... better choices next time, character wise would be nice.

Nowhere near as bad as the reviews have suggested (yours included) but I wasn't happy about having to watch an "ITV Saturday night 6pm" version for the kids. Komarov was so obviously meant to be diced to pieces by the helicopter rotors...but instead the only thing that was cut horribly was this movie.

Have to wait for the dvd to see the real deal.

Wow, you're easily pleased. Lazy Hollywood hacks love people like you.

Guess so. (shrugs)


Hardly, but if I am paying to see a film, the absolute least I expect from it is for the story to make sense and have had a little thought put into it. It doesn't matter what the genre is. There are many reasons why the original Die Hard is a classic - it had great characters, great dialogue, great cinematography as well as great action - the full package. There is such thing as a brilliant "brainless" action movie, but the recent Die Hards and Expendables movies are cynical, lazy cash grabs plain and simple.

I don't understand the mentality of people who can sit through dross like Underworld, Resident Evil and The Expendables - with the rather apologetic excuse that "Some stuff blowed up and it had a pretty lady in it". I can go and see that stuff on Youtube, for free. Bombastic action, with no characterisation or context is simply empty spectacle. Monotonous and boring. Without a decent script or likable characters, what's the point? I demand a little more from my entertainment.

I'd rather watch the original Die Hard again than watch another crap sequel.

this is clearly not the best movie ever made, but does it desserve this "hatred" from the critics ??? I don't think so .... this movie has many flaws, but I've seen it two days ago and can still quote some of the dialogue between John and son (and for that is a good sign !! :) ) , I found Jai a "worthy son" of John McClane, the car chase was good and had some "new" (which becomes rare these days, because everything has already been done) elements, like the taxe flipped backwards over, McClane driving his SUV over other cars ... and everyone's complaining the villain's plot is too complicated, and when it's too simple, they are also complaining ... so in the end it is never well!!! conclusion, great movie ??? no ... enjoyeable movie ??? certainly !!

I liked the bit where he said "I'm on vacation". Did you see that bit? It's okay if you didn't, because he said it again. And again. And again. Even though he wasn't actually on vacation.

It would simply appear then that we have a difference of opinion.

I really enjoyed it.....Was it as good as the first one no...but then what movie is...My only issue was the poor cuts to get a 12 certificate...

Few films have no merits. Some films are so bad they're good. My only worry is a film is so exceptionally mediocre it is just a waste of time. Fox should have renamed this film and given it away for free, presumably to agencies as an alternative to water boarding.

It felt like there was only four characters that had any lines, and almost everyone was one scene away from turning out to be a bad guy. This film gave me jet lag. It's as hollow and empty as the 80 or so cars they trash. I hope no one ever pays any money to see it, not even on pirate. I also hope it's the dullest film I see this year because everything else will be something to look forward to. More irksome is knowing it will make more money than a wealth of better films, particularly those that deserve a sequel but probably won't get one(Dredd).

I hope the directors commentary is a solid 97 minutes of John Moore saying 'I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry. Fox made me do it. They threatened my family. I gave my fee to needy children.'.

Only feckless morons with impossibly low expectations could enjoy this film. I have an Unlimited card and although I didn't pay for a ticket I wish the girl behind the counter refused me one. Throughout the film I kept hearing this guy yelling 'Boooooo!'. I turned around to tell him to leave but then realised the noise was coming from the voice in my head. Anyone using it as a date movie will not have sex afterwards. Well maybe, but it'll be fueled by anger, boredom and bitter resentment. Boooooo.


AGREED! Totally!
People ask far to much of movies these days. Besides in the modern day every audience member is clearly to cynical to enjoy ANYTHING 90% of the time.

I really wanted to like this film as I loved the original 3 films, and quite enjoyed the 4th, so I went to see this with an open mind but I'm afraid I really didn't enjoy it at all. It takes itself far too seriously and lacks the humour of the others, and it's basically just one action sequence after another, with barely any attempt at characterisation. I wasn't expecting Kafka but I was hoping for something which would hold my attention - as it was I just got increasingly bored. I am sure this was partly because I found the dialogue really hard to hear - bit like Tom Hardy before the redubbing of Dark Knight. Sorry guys - I wanted to like it, I really did - but I just didn't. I will just have to go back to the DVD collection - yippee kay yay y'all.

Agreed with the people that said its no where as bad as critics have said!
I enjoyed it, it wasn't as great as it could have been but it was ok so its 3 out of 5 from me as that is just above average which is what I thought it was!

This might have been reasonably enjoyable had the cameraman been able to hold the camera steady, not got carried away with zooming his lens in and out, and if the editor had attributed the audience with an attention span longer than 2 seconds; I might then have been able to focus on something in the action sequences, instead I left the cinema stressed and sporting a headache.

When I first heard AGDTDH (terrible abbreviation, still better than the the full title) had been cut for a 12A, I nearly hit the roof. As it turns out, the family-friendly rating was the least of my worries. I was actually fairly satisfied with the level of violence and language (bullets punching through flesh, crunchy neck break, death by propeller blade, multiple f-bombs - thanks and everything BBFC, but you're clearly insane to put this in the same bracket as Harry Potter). Instead, it's just about every other aspect of the film that lead me to leaving the cinema feeling thoroughly depressed and cheated. Here's me beefs:

1) Dialogue that appears to have been written on the back of a fag packet at closing time. In the rain. With a crayon.
2) Inept sound mixing that makes it impossible to make out said dialogue. Let alone the score (which I'm almost certain was quite good, although I couldn't be sure for obvious reasons).
3) Shaky-shaky cam. There are a few slow motion shots at the end of DH5 (slightly better) which would have looked daft in any other flick. But I was relieved when they finally showed up as it meant that I could almost understand what was happening after enduring what had felt like a realistic simulation of Parkinson's disease for an hour and a bit.
4) Zoomy-zoomy cam. No, we don't necessarily need to read every car number plate during a car chase. If you'd just focus on the action in hand, that'd be great.
5) Villains. Even the forgettable ones in Die Hard 2 were better than these cliched chumps. Also, we get that you're Russian, you don't have to garble your speech to the point of incomprehension just to get this across (see points 1 and 2 for more details).
6) Supporting characters. Um, there weren't any, unless you count the taxi driver at the start. One thing that made the original Die Hard so dynamic was it's wealth of supporting characters who'd show up to either support or hinder John McClane. Where's Al? Reg? Agents Johnson and Johnson? Sitting this one out it would appear, and wisely so.
7) Chernobyl. I know I just made a joke about Parkinson's and everything but it's still pretty tasteless to retcon one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of recent times in order to fill out your scant plot. Shame on you, Skip Woods.
8) Bruce Willis. Come on Mr Charisma, crack a smile! Where's the trademark McClane wit? And if you're so bored on set that you can't wait to rush back to your trailer to jerk off to NFL, or whatever, try not to let it show on-screen. Because it did. Big time.
9) John Moore (see points 1-9. Also, good luck finding work in Hollywood again)

Look, I'm not a whinging fanboy who spits his dummy out every time they do a boo-boo in one of his favourite franchises. I really, really liked Die Hard 4.0. Heck, I don't even mind The Phantom Menace that much (I'm going to hell for that one). But this was way too much. If anything I'd say the critics have been too kind. Bruce, by all means make a Die Hard 6 but for God's sake ditch Skip Woods and John Moore and take into account everything that's been said about this travesty. I still have hope.

Die Soft

RT scores are really misleading though - don't forget 14% isn't the 'average' review score, it means 14% of the reviews were 'positive' (6/10 or equivalent). So if every review gave a film 5/10 RT would rate it as 0%...

Suggestion for future versions of this feature: Add in a poll which averages out the scores given by us users so we don't have to trawl through all the comments to find the good/interesting ones. In fact, you could even implement this feature in your regular film reviews.

I went in with low expectations and it didn't disappoint.

And when did John Maclane turn into Superman?!?!! The bit where he flies through the air, crashes through a window with barely a scratch!

The mobile phone joke was good though

I don't know why everyone hates it, it's a good popcorn action movie, it's not as good as good as the first 4, but may I remind people of The Phantom menace? Now THATS a bad gfilm

Sponsored Links