I saw this once at a mates when we where all having drinks so I didn't really take much of it in is it that bad?
I love the first 4 especially 1 and 4 (4 was the only one that came out when I was old enough to see it so it's the only one I got to watch on the big screen)
So is this terminator Genesis bad? Or just not up to par with the others
For me, Die Hard is two franchises. 1-3 are alike, as are 4-5. The latter two are different but fun and 5 is no worse than 4.
shareFor me, Die Hard is two franchises. 1-3 are alike, as are 4-5. The latter two are different but fun and 5 is no worse than 4.I agree 4-5 have a similar "feel" in tone/aesthetics. I suppose that's almost inevitable considering the difference in time. It's a new generation, new technology, etc.
It is the weakest entry in the series, but I don't mind it that much. I don't know if I would recommend it, especially to fans of the franchise. The problem is it's a very generic action film with forgettable villains. Sadly Bruce Willis is practically sleepwalking through the film. I got nothing against Jai Courtney. Mary Elizabeth Winstead returns for a couple scenes, and it's nice to see her as Lucy again. Everyone else is just a face, and I have no idea who these people are.
TERMINATOR: GENISYS is another film that isn't really that bad in my opinion, but that film is more confusingly (and a little infuriatingly) bad. A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD is just... meh.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
I rather like it.
shareNo Plot
No Script
Bad Dialogue
Horrible Shaky-Cam and Zoom Cam
Bad Editing (Plus dubbed in dialogue AND using footage multiple times)
And Detective John McClane drives over people probably killing random people.
And the film has almost no connection to any Die Hard (Apart from the ending) and Bruce Willis looks like he's gonna fall asleep in 5 minutes.
At least you could tell what was going on in Die Hard 4. Good luck with the Car chase.
YOU sir, are telling it like it is.
I grew up on the first two, saw the third in theatre when I was a teenager (that still technically shouldn't have been allowed,) and still ended up kinda thinking the 4th was alright and kinda worthy of the franchise.
But the 5th? I feel everybody above that's justifying it is lying to themselves. It's the least Die-Hardy movie of them all, based on everything you mentioned above, and more. At no point in the movie did it even really feel like 'Die Hard', and I couldn't stand have effing cocky Jai Courtney's character got. I mean, this is the 5th time his dad is going through this crap, I'm pretty sure there's gotta be a statue somewhere, commemorating his service. Otherwise, it's like a zombie movie taking place in a world where zombie movies don't exist (all of them); and by now, considering our culture, there would be a movie in the 'Die Hard' universe that's based on the events of Nakatomi or Dulles or New York, whatever. They'd probably get John Cusack to play McClane in the fictional movie.
As far as I'm concerned, 'Die Hard 5' is the 'Godfather III' of 'Die Hard.' You don't have to watch it at all.
Yeah... the forth one was the best and the first one and third... second... and after that fifth installment, it was bad, my rating for this one was 4.5
shareI actually thought most of it was fine, better than fine, but the stupid stuff was really, really stupid, and dragged the rest of it all majorly down. The big finale is too stupid for words, and the initial set up of the McClane's is monumentally dumb too. Other than that it's a fine, fun action film with some good setpieces, and the classic Die Hard leaning on the familial element.
____
You might even provide a heaven for them... Hell we can make for ourselves
No. it is not that bad.
shareIt's not bad at all.
This installment throws in some entertaining father/son character development in between the wild action sequences. McClane's daughter, introduced in the previous film, also appears for good measure (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).
The story may not be quite as engaging as "Live Free or Die Hard" (2007), but it was good enough and the action scenes are out of this world, including a long vehicle chase in Moscow in the opening act. Director John Moore ups the ante with quick-editing for this one. Some parts are eye-rolling absurd, but what else is new? Everything's done with a quasi-realistic tone, which sorta helps the viewer go along with the ridiculousness rather than tune out.
The Die Hard flicks are the natural progeny of over-the-top films like 1977's "The Gauntlet" where the action scenes are so overdone they're cartoony, but entertaining. There's a thin line that filmmakers must tread with these kinds of blockbusters because they can easily fall into overKILL. Thankfully, "A Good Day to Die Hard" pretty much evades that ditch by giving us entertaining protagonists & antagonists, amusing one-liners, worthy bits of character development and a compelling comic booky story. Speaking of the story, one of the highlights is the infamous Russian locale of the final act. Another highlight is raven-haired Yuliya Snigir.
https://www.cbr.com/good-day-to-die-hard-wrong-ending/
Throughout the previous films in the franchise, John McClane always came up with a clever plan to outwit his enemies in overwhelming situations, as opposed to heavily relying on guns, as he does here. He is often shown taking a strategic approach and being physically vulnerable. There were often personal stakes involved, and these moments defined McClane's character, making him a relatable and realistic action hero. He is an ordinary cop who barely survives the film, whereas A Good Day to Die Hard turned him into a near-invulnerable superhero.share
Additionally, A Good Day to Die Hard's weak villains in Irina and Komarov give McClane zero chances to show off his trademark wits. The villains in the previous Die Hard entries have had great chemistry with McClane and were interesting enough to present a unique challenge to the reluctant cop.
The CIA aspect in A Good Day to Die Hard also sullies the spirit of the franchise, making the film needlessly complicated with spies and nuclear materials, closer resembling a bad Bond film than a Die Hard entry. The situations that McClane previously faced, while extreme, were ones that a police officer could realistically find themselves in. The fact that most of these scenarios could potentially happen in real life with gritty consequences made the films interesting.
In the end, A Good Day to Die Hard was a generic film with a convoluted plot and almost none of the trademark moments that fans have come to expect from the franchise. While the film didn't flop at the box office, it received largely negative reviews from audiences and critics, resulting in a stunning 14 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.