THIS MOVIE SUCKS! Let me explain why
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61jGy2jNRm4
Haha, let me know what you guys think? Any Die Hard Die Hard fans? Here's my gripes with the film
John McClane, Jr, aka Jack McClane, was mentioned in the first movie. In fact, he's shown playing with Lucy briefly when Holly calls the house. He was played by Noah Land. You're such a big fan of the first but don't remember Jack? He was also mentioned in the fourth movie by Thomas Gabriel.
How did Bruce Willis create a town? Plainfield, New Jersey is an actually city. Look it up. If that's not what you meant, I'm not exactly sure what point you were trying to make.
How is the plot at all hard to describe or follow? CIA breaks Yuri out of jail because they need information that they believe Yuri has on a corrupt government official they believe to be set to instigate war against the US. Said official has his own team of mercenaries all set to break Yuri out as they too want this file so that Chagarin is not outed for his criminal past. SPOILERS! McClane arrives on the scene and inadvertently foils Yuri's plot, who was the villain all along. There was no file and he manipulated the CIA and Chagarin into bringing him to Chernobyl where they discover he has a vault full of uranium he plans to reclaim so as to rebuild his fortune he lost after Chagarin threw him in jail. It was an elaborate heist. Very Die Hard.
Can't disagree with you on the rapid editing and the ADR. John Moore, the director, just wasn't right for the project, and it shows.
Scared motormouth? I don't understand this desire for fans to paint McClane as this selfish guy who's burnt out and only ever does the right thing in situations because he doesn't have a choice. McClane is a cop. He hates to lose. He hates bad guys. Since the first movie he's bent rules and doesn't mind causing collateral damage as long as he gets the bad guy. When is John McClane scared? Human, yes. Scared, no.
I disagree that a majority of the stunts in this looked as though they couldn't be survived. Die Hard 5 is a lot more grounded than the 4th movie and a lot more in line with With a Vengeance. Sure, it's over the top, but not absolutely absurd. A lot of the stunts in this movie were done practically, meaning that theoretically they could be survived. But come on, it's a movie. Suspend disbelief a little. It's a fun action movie. Die Hard hasn't been all that believable since arguably the second film.
Why is Alik eating a carrot? Why is he tap-dancing? Why did Colonel Stuart practice tai chi naked in the mirror while watching the news? Why did Hans hum to himself in the elevator just before he was getting ready to storm a Christmas party? Why was Simon eating an egg as he shot Sam Jackson? Just because. It's a character quirk. Why is the eccentricity of Alik somehow a bad thing here but not in the other films? Take a look at the car chase scene. Alik is clearly a psychopath. He's eating and tap-dancing because it shows he is completely and totally relaxed with the idea of killing two men whom he knows nothing about. Remorseless. Cold. He's enjoying it. It's a fun time for him.
Lastly, how is it not Die Hard? This is the one complaint most fans make and I just don't get it. John is stuck in a situation where he has no friends or means of escape. He doesn't want to be there. His involvement is unplanned and unexpected, thus thwarting the bad guys by unraveling their carefully layered plans. John cracks wise, reunites with a member of his family, gets bloody and beat up, shoots up some terrorists, and stops the bad guys from getting away with a massive pay day. It is Die Hard.
All of that writing and you still can't convince us that this was a good movie. The movie is awful, don't try to defend it. The ratings and box office speaks for itself. This movie was clearly made for young adults, a flamboyant action movie that is far from the originals.
State champ in martial arts. Trained with firearms. Don't be a keyboard warrior.
Good is all subjective. It's not like you're going to read anything I write or anyone else writes and suddenly think, "I've been wrong for three years. Die Hard 5 is an amazing movie!" OP asked for thoughts on his review and I gave them. A lot of the issues he had with the movie I refuted. The things fans pick on are things they might as well get at any other action movie for. Genuine complaints, in my opinion, are when the OP mentions John Moore's direction. No argument there. Moore was so wrong for the project. The short run time doesn't do the movie any favors, either. The script is also pretty weak.
I like Die Hard 5. I defend it because it's a movie I think is unfairly criticized. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But I don't think it deserves the insanely negative reception it got. I have no desire to convince you or anyone else that it's a good movie or a bad movie. You dislike the movie, and that's great. There are plenty of people that hated it and they're entitled to their opinion. But also accept that there are people like me who do enjoy it and don't consider the worst in the series by a long shot. It's entirely possible for me to like Die Hard 5 and still consider the original Die Hard one of the best movies all time.