February 14th, 2013 [10:17:15]
Tanman32123: Die hard is die hard, so no matter what I will always find something to love about these films..
Die hard 5 was downright a crappy plot line, not like anything the predecessors had, but I knew that going in. Anyways..
They still had some wicked action, some great lines, and I still had a good time watching it, and that's what I payed for.
So in closing.. 6-7 outta 10 :)
February 18th, 2013 [4:31:04]
Rocksteddy: Need I say more? Good god, I want to shoot myself in the fucking head. I'd rather watch Arnie's comeback.
|John Moore finally managed to kill John McClane|
May 16th, 2013 [6:03:04]
Ip_man: You'll find plenty of negative reviews about this movie so i won't repeat what others have said - just this,I hope this is John Moore's last movie.This guy is just a horrible director.Can't really blame Bruce for this - we know he agreed to do it just for the money.
Die Hard 6 ? I would say yes only to finish this honorable franchise with a good taste in the mouth , and please no more side kicks - put McClane alone somewhere with a group of nazi terrorists.
|Die Already, Geez...|
July 5th, 2013 [8:31:57]
cress: A pointless sequel that has a few good action sequences, but is wrecked by a stupid script with terrible dialogue.
"I'm on vacation!" That's 50% of Bruce Willis' dialogue right there. No shit. He says that a lot, and it's not funny. In fact, none of his dialogue is, and his character usually has some witty one-liners in all the previous films. Not in this film, though. It's really sad how bad the dialogue is between him and his son.
There's homages to the previous films (talk of terrorists hating cowboys, the twist reveal of the bad guy's plot, etc., a Gruber-esque death), but it comes off as cheesy fan service that is a bit laughable. I didn't have as much of a problem with John Moore's direction as others. It can be a bit haphazard and frenetic (certainly not as bad as the dipshit that directed that shitpile TAKEN 2), but there were a few good action sequences. I did like the end action sequence, with the helicoptor and McClane swinging from a truck. It was way over the top, but it was shot well and had a lot of bang for the buck.
Which brings me to the best thing about this film. It was shot for $92 million and it had some action sequences that rivaled $250 million summer blockbusters. If anything good can be said about John Moore, it's that he can manage a budget and give you a lot of boom visually.
It's certainly not an abomination, like TAKEN 2, but it's a paltry entry into a series that began with one of the greatest action films in history.