7 Reasons Everyone Agrees A Good Day To Die Hard Sucks

A Good Day to Die Hard1 7 Reasons Everyone Agrees A Good Day To Die Hard Sucks

Consensus is next to impossible when it comes to judging the quality of movies. Dissenting opinion is encouraged, usually for good reason, by the constant discussion on fan sites and in theater lobbies, and an opinion that goes against the grain will earn you a ton of attention. That being said, there is virtual consensus in the verdict for A Good Day to Die Hard, and that verdict is that it is baaaaad. So bad.

How did this happen? How did a movie with so much potential, so much hype, and such high expectations for success turn out so badly? I mean, the trailer looked good enough. The Beethoven was overdramatic but this is a franchise traditionally featuring massive explosions and a snarky attitude from its protagonist, so grandiosity is par for the course. The last installment, Live Free or Die Hard, was fantastic. Bruce Willis is one of the most dependable stars around. But this one just did a nosedive, as detailed nicely already on this very site, and further evidenced by its abysmal current 17% Rotten Tomatoes ranking. This bomb is a confirmed dud.

It’s not like this is the greatest movie franchise of all time, but it has previously been a lot of fun. Let’s try to figure out where it faltered, especially in comparison to the previous surprisingly strong Live Free or Die Hard.

Continue reading on the next page…

OMGwhat

“The last installment, Live Free or Die Hard, was fantastic”

Omg what ? i almost spat blood there . Previous movie was awful and felt like a kiss of death to a great franchise . It’s were john mclane went from trapped , reluctant and kinda smart hero , to “dumb luck mclane or the next hero of Final destination” . And a movie shot in horrible blue dominated tints and hue , by yet another wannabe michael bay .

Die Hard was a cinematic godsend in 1988, as it was a grounded action film in a sea of over-the-top action fiestas . Live Free, on the other hand, replaces gritty action with the exact type of logic-bending spectacle that the original Die Hard provided sweet relief from.
JTK

This whole article is just dumb. There isn’t even anything else that can really be said about it besides that.
http://www.facebook.com/joe.boyko.9 Joe Boyko

This is precisely why I get more and more aggravated at Hollywood with every new remake, reboot and sequel. The production almost always seems to lose touch with what made the source material so popular to begin with. Whether it be that Douglas Quaid getting “his ass to Mars” is real or in his head in ‘Total Recall’, or the cold war paranoia of John Milius while writing ‘Red Dawn’ are completely overlooked and are the reason that these movies don’t translate well with a newer audience. Case in point, John McClain… We loved the Original ‘Die Hard’ because the character was an “everyman”. Sure, he might have been a somewhat exceptional everyman, but regardless of how tough or badass he might be, the audience could still relate to him. You know the deck is stacked against him and that he’s clearly out of his element. The new ‘Die Hard’ (as well as the last one for that matter) is sort of like John McClain is a video game character that someone decided to use an invincibility cheat code on. There’s no element of danger for the character and you know that no matter what kind of hell is dished out at him, he’s got nothing to worry about. Where’s the fun in that?
Gozzi

Secretly Die Hard and Unbreakable became one series XD
Johannes

**Spoiler** In 4.0 John flies a helicopter, how awesome would it be if he had broken into the cockpit actually fight a bad guy and then fly around shooting the guns! The movie would still have sucked, but that would have been a better climax.
Dalinkwent

The villains, action and plot really were the worst offenses in DH5. The villains don’t register a pulse because they’re bland and their motivations are muddled and unexplained. In the other Die Hard movies you knew what the villains wanted and they usually set the tone in their opening scene. Hans killing Takagi, Stewart doing martial arts in the nude and crashing a plane, Simon’s first phone call, and Gabriel’s interaction with his henchmen. They all left a impression and made you care about what they wanted. Then their’s the incoherent actions scenes. The first chase scene is hard to comprehend because you don’t know who’s who during the entire chase, and the camera goes ape shit the entire time. There’s no flow or build either, it’s simply car’s crashing into cars and car flips. After the chase scene, the rest of the action scenes is basically John and Jack having a shootout, then performing some big stunt to escape the danger…every single time. What’s striking is the climax is basically a longer version of the 2nd big set piece. Now for the plot. I honestly couldn’t tell you what the villains wanted beyond some file. Why the file is important is never explained, which makes it hard to care about the importance of John and Jack stopping them.
David

What puzzles me about all the complaining (which I agree with) is: where were all these idiot reviewers/writers when Live Free or Die Hard was released? Because I remember everyone was praising that one and it basically suffers from almost everything cited in this article:

John McClane is not there. Just Bruce playing himself. Looking bored and even arrogant.

John McClane surfed a jet, which is, in my book, more over the top than anything in a Good Day to Die Hard (which is at least rated R)

John McClane knows how to fly helicopters in Die Hard 4. Which was very stupid.

Sure, we knew who the main villain was, but it was bland and sucked.

So yeah. That.
Blackbelt_Jones

I was done with Die Hard after part 2.