With us around, you'll (almost) never watch a bad movie Not sure yet?

A Good Day to Die Hard

In theaters : February 22, 2013

A Good Day to Die Hard
http://images.desimartini.com/media/main/movie_poster_detail/909f176b-3b42-4aa4-9af8-6820ad3ae191.jpg
A Good Day to Die Hard
2.5
DM rating:

2.5/ 50 - 435 Ratings 10

Critic rating:

2.3/5 - 2 Ratings

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) - Movie Rating - Trailer, Cast, Story - Desimartini.com

Verdict: A Good Day to Die Hard is the weakest film in the Die Hard series. The action makes up for the bad scripting and thin characterization. One time watch for fans of action films.

Pre-release Buzz

2,328 votes

  • Rate Now!
Plot: John McClane has found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the skills and attitude to always be the last man standing, making him enemy #1 for terrorists the world over. Now, McClane faces his greatest challenge ever, this time on an international stage, when his estranged son Jack is caught up in the daring prison escape of a rogue Russian leader, and father and son McClane must work together to keep each other alive and keep the world safe for democracy.

Director

Producer

Alex Young

Cast

12 Reviews

Sort by:
A Good Day to Die Hard
Nikhil Arora
Nikhil Arora Movie Jockey
213352
A Good Day to Die Hard Review - Johnny B. GoodeFeb 27, 2013News Die Hard movies are based on a formula which consists of these essential things: John McClane (Bruce Willis) kicking butt, a wicked villain (who is a terrorist), great action sequences with a thrilling plot and funny dialogue. McClane besides wearing the white vest and quipping his catchphrase “Yippee-Ki-Yay Motherf*****” must kick ass like a superhero. The action sequences should be unlike anything we've ever seen before. The villain has to be a terrorist, otherwise it would just be any other action film. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) was not the best Die Hard film and was more of an action film but it had it checked off these boxes so it qualifies. It offered good action while being entertaining. A Good Day to Die Hard is neither a Die Hard film nor a good action film. Hell, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) is more of a Die Hard film than this one.John McClane divorced his wife by the time the third film came along. The fourth one dealt with him reconnecting with his daughter. Obviously, Die Hard 5 should be about him trying to make amends with his son. John McClane Jr is played by Jai Courtney. This isn't a case of bad casting as he shows promise. He is woefully betrayed by the script as his character is as shapeless as the wind. McClane condescendingly laughs when he finds out his son is a spy. This is one of the biggest mistakes of this film. Die Hard is nowhere near the sub-genre of spy films. It shouldn't be or it becomes something else. I wonder who greenlit this film.The other big mistakes are the laughable plot and substandard action. The film begins with a lesson in how not to shoot and edit an action sequence. I had no idea what was going on and I didn't seem to care either. I would want to care, because well, it's Die Hard! I would try each time another action scene came along but after a point I was bored out of my wits. I think I also tuned out for a brief period. This feat was achieved last by the egregious Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011). John Moore besides picking some tacky zooms and losing all visual talent, decides to mostly blow shit up.A true fan of the Die Hard series knows the first film is the best. It is one of the best action films ever made. Then the divide of the fans begins as they shout, “the second film is better” or “the third film is better”. I'm in the second category due to only one reason: Samuel L. Jackson. Fan-talk aside, I've always felt Die Hard sequels are full of potential and feel pertinent now more than ever as each film deals with terrorism. I was looking forward to what Die Hard 4 would do as it was coming off the heels of 9/11. They decided to take a different route and I was fine with it. The fifth one could have gone that way but all it does is go back in time to a fuzzy cold war-ish territory and bores the hell out of us. They could have done so many things. The children could have had lives apart from being John McClane's progenies. They could have brought back Sam Jackson. I wouldn't mind them bringing back Justin Long for that matter, considering how badly this film needs any sort of attempt at salvation.This film makes the profession of screenwriting look bad. Besides a handicapped plot, the film tries hard to set up a family reunion. There is actually a scene where a political prisoner gives John McClane some familial advice. No kidding. To top this, his son overhears this. Do movies still do this? I thought only TV soaps stoop so low to let their characters eavesdrop on information. The lack of imagination of the writers extends further as they pick the Chernobyl disaster as a backdrop. How about a more recent nuclear disaster, you know, not 1986 but 2011? The Fukushima Daiichi disaster for instance? I don't know if they could conjure up a better plot but at least it's a start.It's not all darkness here. A few wisecracks are funny. Some parts of the action stunts are awesome. The final shot is cool. Alas, you can count these on your fingers, that too on one hand. Surely, this can't be a good thing. I really wanted to enjoy this film, forget liking it or appreciating it. I just wanted to enjoy it. This film doesn't just forget the basic Die Hard rules altogether but even the few rules of making a good action film. Bruce Willis claims he has one more Die Hard film in him before he hangs the vest. I hope he picks a good director to make a fitting farewell to the series. Till then, I would be erasing this film from my memory. It wouldn't be that hard since there isn't much of a film here.Nikhil Arora A Good Day to Die Hard Review - Johnny B. Goode Feb 27, 2013
1.5/5

Die Hard movies are based on a formula which consists of these essential things: John McClane (Bruce Willis) kicking butt, a wicked villain (who is a terrorist), great action sequences with a thrilling plot and funny dialogue. McClane besides wearing the white vest and quipping his catchphrase “Yippee-Ki-Yay Motherf*****” must kick ass like a superhero. The action sequences should be unlike anything we've ever seen before. The villain has to be a terrorist, otherwise it would just be any other action film. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) was not the best Die Hard film and was more of an action film but it had it checked off these boxes so it qualifies. It offered good action while being entertaining. A Good Day to Die Hard is neither a Die Hard film nor a good action film. Hell, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) is more of a Die Hard film than this one.

John McClane divorced his wife by the time the third film came along. The fourth one dealt with him reconnecting with his daughter. Obviously, Die Hard 5 should be about him trying to make amends with his son. John McClane Jr is played by Jai Courtney. This isn't a case of bad casting as he shows promise. He is woefully betrayed by the script as his character is as shapeless as the wind. McClane condescendingly laughs when he finds out his son is a spy. This is one of the biggest mistakes of this film. Die Hard is nowhere near the sub-genre of spy films. It shouldn't be or it becomes something else. I wonder who greenlit this film.

The other big mistakes are the laughable plot and substandard action. The film begins with a lesson in how not to shoot and edit an action sequence. I had no idea what was going on and I didn't seem to care either. I would want to care, because well, it's Die Hard! I would try each time another action scene came along but after a point I was bored out of my wits. I think I also tuned out for a brief period. This feat was achieved last by the egregious Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011). John Moore besides picking some tacky zooms and losing all visual talent, decides to mostly blow shit up.

A true fan of the Die Hard series knows the first film is the best. It is one of the best action films ever made. Then the divide of the fans begins as they shout, “the second film is better” or “the third film is better”. I'm in the second category due to only one reason: Samuel L. Jackson. Fan-talk aside, I've always felt Die Hard sequels are full of potential and feel pertinent now more than ever as each film deals with terrorism. I was looking forward to what Die Hard 4 would do as it was coming off the heels of 9/11. They decided to take a different route and I was fine with it. The fifth one could have gone that way but all it does is go back in time to a fuzzy cold war-ish territory and bores the hell out of us. They could have done so many things. The children could have had lives apart from being John McClane's progenies. They could have brought back Sam Jackson. I wouldn't mind them bringing back Justin Long for that matter, considering how badly this film needs any sort of attempt at salvation.

This film makes the profession of screenwriting look bad. Besides a handicapped plot, the film tries hard to set up a family reunion. There is actually a scene where a political prisoner gives John McClane some familial advice. No kidding. To top this, his son overhears this. Do movies still do this? I thought only TV soaps stoop so low to let their characters eavesdrop on information. The lack of imagination of the writers extends further as they pick the Chernobyl disaster as a backdrop. How about a more recent nuclear disaster, you know, not 1986 but 2011? The Fukushima Daiichi disaster for instance? I don't know if they could conjure up a better plot but at least it's a start.

It's not all darkness here. A few wisecracks are funny. Some parts of the action stunts are awesome. The final shot is cool. Alas, you can count these on your fingers, that too on one hand. Surely, this can't be a good thing. I really wanted to enjoy this film, forget liking it or appreciating it. I just wanted to enjoy it. This film doesn't just forget the basic Die Hard rules altogether but even the few rules of making a good action film. Bruce Willis claims he has one more Die Hard film in him before he hangs the vest. I hope he picks a good director to make a fitting farewell to the series. Till then, I would be erasing this film from my memory. It wouldn't be that hard since there isn't much of a film here.

view less
Danish Bagdadi
Danish Bagdadi Movie Jockey
28242
The Family McClaneFeb 22, 2013
2.0/5
The trailer blew me away but the movie for a lack of a better word simply blew. This is the kind of excuse of a movie made to milk the franchise f... read more
Rajiv Menon
Rajiv Menon Movie Jockey
15475
3.0/5
There are Bruce Willis fans and “Die Hard” Bruce Willis fans. I belong to the second group and with all due respect to the franchise, I feel th... read more
Review A Good Day to Die Hard
    • Rate Now!
     *
    *
    Max 90 Chars
  • *
    Min 140 Chars | Max 6000 Chars
  • Yes No(If your review reveals too much, select 'Yes')
  • Mandatory Fields*

  • Post this activity on facebook

Hollywood Movies

Feedback
DMCA