What was their evil plot? It has three primary villains, all of them forgettable. Imagine what a better movie this could've been with those cut scenes added back in. Here's a concise summary of why it's just so bad: 1 John McClane's role is really as a side-kick. They're not intelligent, not menacing, not memorable. Now, I'm a fan of the first three movies. A good action movie has to have a good villain.
The villain was weak, John's son was uninteresting and a lame addition to the franchise, as if he were there to sell action figures. I love them really a lot, especially the original but I also love the 3rd installment, mainly due to the chemistry between Jackson and Willis. Because, almost nothing in this movie resembled anything about Die Hard. McClane thinks his son is a criminal, so it comes as a shock when he learns that Jack is actually working undercover to protect Komarov, a Russian government whistleblower. This movie attempts to have such a complex plot for a Die Hard whereas the other four were so simple that even the dumbest person could tell what was happening. So in summary, go plant a tree, play football, go for a walk, in fact - do anything but for the love of all that you hold dear - don't waste your life on this. Being an hard-core Die Hard fan, I suggest that other fans should just let this one pass.
A Good day to Die Hard is a movie that makes you think that this day is a good day for you to die hard. Bruce Willis does a fantastic job in the movie but every other member of the cast really didn't appeal to me. Here's a no brainer - bring back John McTiernan or Renny Harlin hell, even Len Wiseman for all I care , and hire a good screenwriter who really delivers the old school action goods. His son Jack Jai Courtney , filling in for McClane's sidekick, has certain charisma and shows a few glimpses of character development in McClane but it is cut short by the merciless and absurd action sequences. No emotional investment, no excitement. However, I'd stay clear out of this one unless you're a Die Hard fan. It's hard to discern if it's the role he's been asked to play or him, but either way he come across as a spoiled brat pretending to be Jason Bourne.
What dastardly deeds do they have? Please rate and comment for everyone's convenience. McClane thinks his son is a criminal, so it comes as a shock when he learns that Jack is actually working undercover to protect Komarov, a Russian government whistleblower. He is a reluctant hero in the first four films, he can get seriously wounded, as he is up against worthy adversaries that are cool, calculative and almost one step ahead of him. However, Bruce Willis, bless him, is still McClane without a doubt, as he dishes out the bad guys with weathered-out cynicism in his eyes. I would also argue that the shorter running time is a sign of laziness and a factor to why the movie feels so insignificant. First off, I am a huge fan of the three first films, the fourth film was alright, but it didn't feel like a Die Hard movie, sadly, this one doesn't either.
The bad family relationship story is getting really tiresome, especially when Die Hard 4 focused primarily on the father-daughter relationship. John Moore could of done so much more with this film, but instead, he messes it up just like he did with Max Payne. Please rate it so others can enjoy! At the very least, there's some competent cinematography from Jonathan Sela and a good, riveting music score from Marco Beltrami, who really knows his stuff when it comes to action, as well as incorporating Michael Kamen's themes into this one. There was no tone, no tension and as a result, it felt nothing like Die Hard. We're promised one thing and that is a larger scale than that of the last movie. Genre: , , Stars: , , Director: John Moore Country: Rating: 6. He is reduced to a wise-cracking action supercop, and even his wisecracks are weak.
There, a whole lot of crap begins to happen. Because the whole movie feels like one action- forced chase. Do not watch it, pointless action movie that does not resemble Die Hard. I'm dying to talk about the story here, but let's just say it has a really stupid ending. With their own lives on the line, McClane and Jack must overcome their differences in order to get Komarov to safety and thwart a potentially disastrous crime in the Chernobyl region.
I couldn't bear to watch the pain that I went through in this film, why? No good plot, bad cgi, rushed scenes etc. Rather, writer Skip Woods and director John Moore are to blame. John McClane, one of my favorite film characters of all time, is given a horrendous treatment no beloved character should ever be given: relegated to a sidekick. Bring McTiernan back, and let him end the series with a huge bang! Yes, it really is that bad. Unlike Lucy McClane who just came off as a brat, Jack McClane is introduced pulling a gun on his father.
Pity the rest of the movie can't hold up to this sensational chase scene alone, especially the end which essentially turns McClane into The Terminator. I strongly believe Bruce and McClane can deliver the goods still and ride off into the sunset, instead of falling off his horse here. Please rate and comment for everyone's convenience. Does the movie have people that are bad - of course, but it lacks that McClane v Super-villain factor. My other big problem is that the movie is repetitive and boring.
I have also removed the italics. If you do choose to watch the movie after reading this the good news is that yes, it does eventually end - although it may not feel this way. Look up his filmography and see titles like the remake of Omen and Max Payne. With their own lives on the line, McClane and Jack must overcome their differences in order to get Komarov to safety and thwart a potentially disastrous crime in the Chernobyl region. Timing may work for other movie files too. From the start he is inexplicably thrust into Russia with no back story of how the previous films over the years have shaped his character now - a key trait that was visible in the previous four films. John Moore directs with the subtlety of a car crash.