PodBill Just what I expected

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

mygerlparts No idea why Bruce Willis would agree to reprise his role as John McClane in this way. This is NOT a Die Hard movie. It's Bruce Willis playing some dude with the same name. That's it. If you wanted to put him on vacation, why not do it in Hawaii? OR in El Paso and he and his son accidentally get mixed up with a cartel and cross the border. THAT I could believe. But this? In Russia? I hope the next movie in the franchise is an ACTUAL Die Hard film. Ugh.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 2013 and directed by John Moore, "A Good Day to Die Hard" is the Third of (currently) five installments in the Die Hard series. In this one John McClane (Bruce Willis) travels to Moscow to aid his unruly son, Jack (Jai Courtney), only to discover that Jack is an undercover agent. Father & son team-up to stop a nuclear weapons heist. Sebastian Koch is on hand as a focal point in the heist.The Die Hard flicks fill the bill if you're in the mood for big, dumb, fun action thrills. Don't get me wrong because a lot of work goes into making these kinds of films and it takes talent & genius to pull them off. I mean "dumb" in the sense that the focus is on unbelievable action rather than deeper themes beyond "genuinely good people may be flawed and somewhat profane, but they're courageous and never give up in the face of evil." Thankfully, this installment throws in some entertaining father/son character development in between the wild action sequences. McClane's daughter also appears for good measure (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).The story isn't 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 Moore ups the ante with quick-editing for this one. Some parts are eye-rolling absurd, but 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, like 2001's "The Mummy Returns." 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 location of the final act. Another highlight is hottie raven-haired Yuliya Snigir.THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 38 minutes and was shot in Budapest, Hungary, with the Chernobyl scenes done at Old Soviet Air Force Base, Kiskunlacháza, Hungary, along with establishing shots of Moscow. WRITERS: Skip Woods.GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

Kmb_the_Nepali_reviewer I don't even want to acknowledge this as a movie - forget about acknowledging it as a Die Hard movie. Some plotlines are recycled versions of the plotlines from previous Die Hard movies. In "Live Free or Die Hard" (2007) we saw McClane's daughter having daddy issues, now we get to see his son with daddy issues .... so original. I am not saying previous Die Hard movies were totally original, they were some sort of rehash of the first one or of the ones prior to them. But all of them were different at the same time. They had their own moments, the rehashes weren't a mere rehash. But this one? Holy crap! The rehashing is merely a rehashing. As it is clear from the trailer, they are gonna pit McClane and his son against each other ..... which sounds interesting. But as the movie goes on, and (no spoilers) they start getting along, the reason behind it is revealed so abruptly. It's not that you don't get a feeling of you're watching a not so good movie, right after the first 10 minutes or so - but right after the reveal, the father-son conflict seems so lame, the movie loses all its weight and the remaining of the movie feels tiresome. They put certain twists here and there - which I did not expected. But, none of them made any sense. In fact the entire planning of events that drive the story feels like a typical screenwriter's convenience relying completely on coincidences, and the coincidences are known to the planner prior to its occurrence - Spidey sense, I think. The "losing of weight" I mentioned is so much similar to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" and I happened to know that the monkey who wrote this crap, was also a co-writer of Wolverine 1. Also prominent in this movie is the weird characterization of John McClane - he is literally unkillable and is more invincible than Superman. Plus, he's an annoying @$$#0le. He isn't a "people loving" guy who kills just the bad guys. Looks like this writer is the one who made the clown out of Deadpool in Wolverine 1 - other writer of that movie being someone who wrote 25th hour and apparently unlikely to ruin a fan favorite character. Bruce Willis plays a parody of his most infamous character, John McClane and a shallow and ridiculous version of David Dunn from "Unbreakable" at the same time. He looks as interested to star in this movie as much as I enjoy the movie "Son of the Mask". Also, the actions are bad. They have no drama or character moments in them, they are noisy and too yellowish orange. At least they could've been well choreographed, but that would make this movie a little redeeming, won't it? Plus, they mock Hans Gruber as if it was so cool to do so. All it does is it pisses off the fans and simply looks ridiculous. And CGI - terrible. I am not someone who complains about CGI, normally, if it isn't absolutely bad. It looks so fake. Like I said just yellowish orange things that look like MS Paint edits converted into a video, of course with some whacky noise. Terribly written, inconsistencies everywhere badly directed and will piss you off completely. Yippee-ki-yay motherf****r, the makers gave us a franchise killer. It gets an "F" and a "0/10".

Jonathan Brammer A far cry from the original 3 that we all know and love. I urge you to watch this yourself and make up your own mind but don't say I didn't warn you.Why introduce the son? Someone to pass the torch too? Oh dear.The originals were about one man against great odds, who despite his faults got through it with luck, determination and brute force blood and sweat, other than one-time reluctant sidekick Samuel L. Jackson in Die Hard with a Vengeance. Know body wants 2 John McClain's and that is how the son is portrayed. 2 protagonists at odds with each other fighting over the steering wheel thus steering this movie off a cliff.Yippee ki yay melon farmer!