Film review: A Good Day to Die Hard

posted at 9:31 am on February 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

“Do you go looking for trouble, or does it always find you?” John McClane’s son Jack asks him in the fifth film of the Die Hard franchise, A Good Day to Die Hard.  “I still ask myself the same question,” the elder McClane answers with a laugh.  In this case, though, Bruce Willis and company had to go looking mighty hard to find trouble, and it shows.

Briefly, we catch up to McClane a few years after his heroics in the surprisingly good Live Free or Die Hard, having resolved his relationship with his daughter Lucy (a return cameo by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), but his son Jack (Jai Courtney, Spartacus:War of the Damned) is a different matter.  Jack has been arrested in Moscow, and John goes to see how he can help what he thinks is a chronic screw-up son.  What he doesn’t know is that Jack works for the government and is on a mission — a mission that John inadvertently disrupts — and the fates of Russia and the US are on the line.  It gets difficult to tell between the good guys and the bad guys, but will the two McClanes be the Johnnies-on-the-spot?

This isn’t a bad popcorn movie for those who just want to see gunfights, tracer rounds, explosions, and John McClane killing scumbags.  In fact, that’s what McClane tells his son that McClanes do, in one scene that depicts the two bonding.  At the popcorn-movie level, the film works passably well, probably more so in the first half than the second.

However, the previous Die Hard films at least had some sense of detective work to them, something that made John McClane a little bit better than other investigators, and more than just a killing machine.   They were smart, taut films that limited plot holes — like, say, the scene in which the two McClanes are shown driving from Moscow to Chernobyl in a hurry to stop the aforementioned scumbags who traveled there by helicopter, which would be a 12-hour trip by car (971 km) and one that crosses an international border.

The other Die Hard films had another unique quality: familiarity.  In those films, McClane just happened to be the guy around when the familiar turned into a nightmare.  A Christmas party gets interrupted by a heist; a Christmas trip gets interrupted by an airport takeover; and in the previous film, everyday life collapses when hackers seize control of practically every institution on which we rely. John McClane wasn’t a superhero who just ran around killing bad guys simply because that’s just what he does. This time, McClane goes out to Russia looking for trouble, seems to have no problem finding his son literally within minutes of his arrival, and overcomes language and knowledge gaps to get a grasp of the situation in a literally unbelievable time frame.  The audience has no connection to the events or the environment, as we did in the other Die Hard films, a disconnect that gets amplified by the now de rigueur shaky-camera and blue-washed cinematography of action films today.

A Good Day to Die Hard isn’t a terrible film, but it’s not nearly as good as its franchise predecessors.  The good news is that McClane only has one more family relationship left to resolve, and Bonnie Bedelia seems uninterested in reprising her role as Holly Gennaro McClane, so this is probably the end of the line for Die Hard. (In Japan, it’s called Die Hard: Last Day, which might be a good idea.)  Bruce Willis is fun if not quite as charming as in the earlier entries, and this time of year you’re not likely to find an action film all that much better.  If you go into the theater with your expectations properly set and tell your brain to take a break, you can have some fun with it.

A Good Day to Die Hard is rated R — for many good reasons. It’s not for children, young teens, or anyone squeamish about screen violence.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rottentomatoes.com gave the film a 16%, meaning rotten!

It has been lambasted by every critic out there!

I think I will put this one on my Wait-For-The-Blu-Ray list.

pilamaye on February 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

We don’t really watch John Mclane for the plot, do we??? I didn’t think so.

msupertas on February 17, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I’m gonna skip this one…unless I get invited to watch it with friends and we can make fun of it!

22044 on February 17, 2013 at 9:45 AM

This isn’t a bad popcorn movie for those who just want to see gunfights, tracer rounds, explosions, and John McClane killing scumbags. … A Good Day to Die Hard isn’t a terrible film, but it’s not nearly as good as its franchise predecessors. … If you go into the theater with your expectations properly set and tell your brain to take a break, you can have some fun with it.

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM

My brother and I went to see it yesterday and basically agree with this review wholeheartedly. It’s nowhere near as bad as the critics are saying, but it’s definitely the weakest (and shortest!) of the entire series.

and blue-washed cinematography of action films today.

Yeah, what’s up with that, anyway? So much blue and orange in action movies these days.

JimLennon on February 17, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Rottentomatoes.com gave the film a 16%, meaning rotten!

It has been lambasted by every critic out there!

I think I will put this one on my Wait-For-The-Blu-Ray list.

pilamaye on February 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

The audience at Rotten Tomatoes gave it an 82%.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 9:45 AM

So, I guess you’d say, “It ain’t Shakspeare.” Well I’m good with that!

Yippee Ki Ay!

dogsoldier on February 17, 2013 at 9:47 AM

If you go into the theater with your expectations properly set and tell your brain to take a break, you can have some fun with it.

If I were to ever set foot into a theater again, this is the only reason I’d be there.

tru2tx on February 17, 2013 at 9:47 AM

It has been lambasted by every critic out there!t.

pilamaye on February 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

that’s all I need to know… I’m sooo there.

LtGenRob on February 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM

thanks Ed…appreciate the review….mr cmsinaz wants to wait until it hits Netflix…

cmsinaz on February 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM

It has been lambasted by every critic out there!

I think I will put this one on my Wait-For-The-Blu-Ray list.

pilamaye on February 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Usually the critics give the thumbs up to the movie about the English woman on a grand trip to self discovery with “complex relationships intertwined.(Total barf) If the actress is really, really liberal, then two thumbs up. Remember Bruce Willis is conservative. My formula, if they hate it, I love it. If they love it, I hate it. Rarely lets me down.

msupertas on February 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Most every on line film blog and review site I read and do occasional guest posts and retrospectives, have trashed this film. John McClane reduced to Michael Bay caricature. And Hollywood going to the well of one of their better financial film franchises one time too often.

I also have a wager with one site host that this film will be an HBO flagship film by this time next year. While the host predicts six to seven months. Well before 2014.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 9:54 AM

The first and third films were the best.

Scherzo442 on February 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Rottentomatoes.com gave the film a 16%, meaning rotten!

It has been lambasted by every critic out there!

I think I will put this one on my Wait-For-The-Blu-Ray list.

pilamaye on February 17, 2013 at 9:41 AM

If the critics pan it, it’s usually not bad. If they swoon over it, best to wait for the Television Event.

garnkikaloid on February 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Usually the critics give the thumbs up to the movie about the English woman on a grand trip to self discovery with “complex relationships intertwined.(Total barf) If the actress is really, really liberal, then two thumbs up. Remember Bruce Willis is conservative. My formula, if they hate it, I love it. If they love it, I hate it. Rarely lets me down.

msupertas on February 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM

This has been my observation as well. And it is why I’ve been to very few movies over the years.

tru2tx on February 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Good heavens, man. The movie was a mess. Poor production values, editing, music, and a violent congeries of recycled set pieces and cliches. Straight-to-DVD level craftsmanship and storytelling.

rrpjr on February 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Given Willis’ recent 2nd amendment comments, I doubt the critics and many bloggers would love this one if it were better than all the others.

Scherzo442 on February 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Rotten Tomatoes critics are kinda ehhhh.

I look at the audience numbers.

Plugged In Online is another good site for reviews.

PappyD61 on February 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Given Willis’ recent 2nd amendment comments, I doubt the critics and many bloggers would love this one if it were better than all the others.

Scherzo442 on February 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM

You’re not suggesting their liberal sensibilities would influence them are you?

When you have 82% of the audience liking a film, and 84% of the critics disliking a film, I will go with the audience.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I wouldn’t put too much stock in those film reviews on rottentomatoes. Don’t forget Bruce just committed a cardinal sin against the gun grabbers so he’s in the doghouse for a little while.

bictech on February 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Willis does the best he can with this material, but this is easily the worst of the five films.

The closest thing to the original Die Hard I saw all evening was the promo for Olympus Has Fallen, an upcoming Gerald Butler film.

NCC on February 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Critics 16%, audience 82%?

I’m probably somewhat between a critic and an audience member.

22044 on February 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM

The closest thing to the original Die Hard I saw all evening was the promo for Olympus Has Fallen, an upcoming Gerald Butler film.

NCC on February 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I saw the trailer the other night and came away thinking GB had borrowed Steven Seagals schtick, minus the pony tail.

EnglishRogue on February 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM

You’re not suggesting their liberal sensibilities would influence them are you?

Only in the real world.

Scherzo442 on February 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Another fabrication, Ms. Dowd?

Kissmygrits on February 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM

If you go into the theater with your expectations properly set and tell your brain to take a break, you can have some fun with it.

Oh? There’s ANOTHER way to see today’s films?

Cleombrotus on February 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM

The good news is that McClane only has one more family relationship left to resolve, and Bonnie Bedelia seems uninterested in reprising her role as Holly Gennaro McClane, so this is probably the end of the line for Die Hard.

You mean I won’t be able to watch John McClane battle his way through the zombie apocalypse to reach the cause of the viral breakout, Zombie Hans Gruber out for revenge?

trubble on February 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM

You mean I won’t be able to watch John McClane battle his way through the zombie apocalypse to reach the cause of the viral breakout, Zombie Hans Gruber out for revenge?

Good one.

Scherzo442 on February 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM

I watched this yesterday, the big problem IMO, is action scenes become blurred when the camera pans. This is the problem with digital video. I would prefer the old 70mm on the big screen.
Am I Wrong?

deptofredundancydept on February 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM

…nice job!…I’m going to end up watching it though…my wife loves the guy and I have to support him!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Film critics don’t live in the same world that the rest of us do. Remember, they’re part of the MSM, and share the “conventional wisdom” of the self-defined “enlightened elite’”.

One exception to that was Michael Medved, who went from film critic to conservative columnist… after the papers he worked for decided that anyone with his “outre’” political views could not be a legitimate judge of how good or bad a movie was.

The mainstream critics often descend to self-parody without realizing it. One time on the old Siskel & Ebert PBS show, the pair were fawning over a groaningly polemic feminist film set in the 1880s in New Mexico (!), that was made by a “women’s collective” at a university. Ebert said, “A lot of people watching are probably thinking we’re liking this because it’s ‘Women’s Collective‘ and not ‘Warner Brothers‘”, and Siskel agreed. The thing is, that’s exactly what they were doing, as the film barely reached film-school lab project levels in terms of film-making. A two-hour film of the director sitting on a bare stage ranting about her pet peeves would have gotten the same massage across, and probably been less painful to sit through.

Here in Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch film critic used to be Frank Gabrenya. I could tell, in advance, what he would say about any science fiction movie- he panned all of them because he, personally, hated SF and didn’t understand it. His replacement didn’t exactly hate SF, but he constantly harped on there being “too much science” in SF movie stories. Considering how little actual science (as opposed to the Hollywood kind) ever gets into most “SF” movies, I am forced to conclude that he must have slept through most of his science classes in high school.

Similarly, most film critics today have specific types of movies they like, and thus consider worthwhile projects and “must-see” films for the rest of us. Said films usually having far-left messages and very little else to recommend them.

This is why I ignore critics. It’s also why I watch movies on DVD, at home. That way, if it turns out to be good, I’ve gotten a bargain (there are several “Bargain DVD” vendors who work by mail-order, which is where I get most of mine).

And if it’s a dog, well, I’m out $3.95 and an evening’s sitting at home, instead of $20 and a trip to the local multi-screen movie palace.

cheers

eon

eon on February 17, 2013 at 10:38 AM

It was a fun movie, but that’s all. I could watch “Live Free or Die Hard” or the first movie again and again. I could watch this one maybe once more. Maybe.

The Rogue Tomato on February 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM

trubble said:

You mean I won’t be able to watch John McClane battle his way through the zombie apocalypse to reach the cause of the viral breakout, Zombie Hans Gruber out for revenge?

That would have been Bruce Willis’ brief role as Lt. Muldoon in Robert Rodriguez’s godawful ‘Planet Terror’.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

That would have been Bruce Willis’ brief role as Lt. Muldoon in Robert Rodriguez’s godawful ‘Planet Terror’.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Or Twelve Monkeys.

Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Well it carries much of the series elements, the false flags, a brutal attack, that covers other objectives, characters that aren’t what they seem, This seems to be typical about other films involving Russia, like the Day of the Jackal rebut, which was really ridiculous, and GoldenEye, which this film somewhat resembles, infact
Yulia’s character is sort of Onatopp at the end,

narciso on February 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Finally we agree on a movie Ed. Nice review.

After Live Free or Die Hard I had low expectations for this one, and it didn’t disappoint.

Slade73 on February 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM

It was okay; I wouldn’t see it again. The 12 year olds liked
the huge trucks running over every thing. The 13 year old thinks
Jai Courtney is a hottie; he was good in the film.

Rated R for violence and language…nothing these kids don’t see
on XBox and hear (language) in their hockey games.

I will take them to almost any movie they want to see as long
as it doesn’t have detailed sex scenes. Not because they don’t
know about it; it just makes them all embarrassed. They don’t want to even think about it. In 7th grade
health class they showed these kids a movie of a child being born;
explicit to say the least. They told me that the whole class
put their heads on their desk and didn’t watch.

We saw “Side Effects” (not with the children and definitely not
for any children) and it was pretty good.

Amjean on February 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Ed Morrissey said:

Or Twelve Monkeys.

Good point, Ed.

I saw on Red Eye this week that DHS has a new training film out. On how to kill Zombies during the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse.

Oddly enough, the DHS troopers shoot mostly center mass. Which goes against George A. Romero’s unwritten law about head shots.

Jack Deth AKA: TankerGuy54.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Saw this last night. One thing I found curious was a scene at the beginning where McClain was shooting in a police station gun range. In the background was a very large presdential portrait of Obama hung on the wall.

What strikes me as interesting about this is that I’ve seen several movies and TV shows where this same picture is prominently displayed in the sets of government buildings. (IE Jack Reacher, Eureka)

“Well DUH… They’re US government buildings, of course they’ll have that picture.”

Sure but… Who here recalls W’s presidential portrait in the movies of the day?
What was also odd was that A – it was a gun range (they keep presidential portraits in gun ranges?) there was NO US flag, there was no New York flag… Heck there were no other identifying marks that this was a police station except for the New York police station badge fathead on the other side of the wall ad the presidential portrait was as big as it! Worse, they framed the shot of a discussion between two people not with McClain on one side and his buddy on the other but with McClain on one side, his buddy in the middle and the portrait fully displayed on the other.

IE It wasn’t accidental…

It’s just more proof that the leftists (and the director proclaimed he was) are worshipping a cult of personality… (And not the country… No US flag…)

Skywise on February 17, 2013 at 11:38 AM

That would have been Bruce Willis’ brief role as Lt. Muldoon in Robert Rodriguez’s godawful ‘Planet Terror’.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Yea, but the second half of that double feature with Kurt Russell getting his ass kicked by the three chicks was freaking awesome. Wish I could remember the name. Death something?

msupertas on February 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Holes in the plot…?

Are you kidding?

I was watching Live Free Or Die Hard just last night as it has been on all week.
The number of impossible things in that movie were too numerous too count.
Can a man outrun a Harrier jump jet?
Can a guy fall out of a helicopter and just dust himself off?
Can you shut down a whole regional electric grid but then turn on one elevator in one building in seconds…?

Show me a guy who can shoot himself through the shoulder with a 9mm and a half hour later is just sitting on the tailgate of an ambulance with a bandage on like it was a scratch.

You pretty much have to take a break from reality in all Die Hard movies.

NeoKong on February 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM

As for the movie, I liked it more than I though it would- Ed’s review is spot-on but I would add that it has no soul. McClain acts out of character for the first half of the film and every other character is flat. The action sequences are good (if not a bit over the top) but McClain always seems to be a participant in the action… Not the driver of such…

Skywise on February 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM

LtGenRob on February 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Exactly! Rottentomatoes is, well, pretty rotten.

Sherman1864 on February 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

That would have been Bruce Willis’ brief role as Lt. Muldoon in Robert Rodriguez’s godawful ‘Planet Terror’.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Yea, but the second half of that double feature with Kurt Russell getting his ass kicked by the three chicks was freaking awesome. Wish I could remember the name. Death something?

msupertas on February 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Death Proof, which was the Quentin Tarentino-directed half of the “Grindhouse” double feature.

The fake trailers in between were in truth the best part of “Grindhouse,” IMO. Two of them were even made into movies after the fact (the illegal-alien sympathizing “Machete” and “Hobo with a Shotgun,” which won some Canadian filmmaking contest to get put into “Grindhouse,” IIRC).

My favorite, BTW, was “Don’t!”

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Oddly enough, the DHS troopers shoot mostly center mass. Which goes against George A. Romero’s unwritten law about head shots.

Jack Deth AKA: TankerGuy54.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Well, don’t tell DHS about that.

Let the clowns learn the hard way…like the rest of us had to.

:-)

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Haven’t heard anything yet about the ‘bad guy’. Can’t have a good action movie without a strong ‘bad guy’.

phreshone on February 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Well there’s a reason for that, remember how Sadler’s Colonel Stewart, Harlin’s evil Oliver North caricature was the main villain in the second one, but not the only one?

narciso on February 17, 2013 at 12:51 PM

There’s a fellow who is the Russian Hans Gruber, Alik, who puts the plot in motion, he supposedly works for the Russian Defense Minister, who is supposed to be worse then Putin,

narciso on February 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM

At the end they established that Jack was also “John McClain”, in sort of an Indiana Jones way. I wondered if this movie was meant as a vehicle for passing of the torch.

Sebastian on February 17, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Myron Falwell opined:

The fake trailers in between were in truth the best part of “Grindhouse,” IMO. Two of them were even made into movies after the fact (the illegal-alien sympathizing “Machete” and “Hobo with a Shotgun,” which won some Canadian filmmaking contest to get put into “Grindhouse,” IIRC).

My favorite, BTW, was “Don’t!”

I would have liked a film make from the trailer for:

‘Werewolf Women of the SS’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AFpMu6ZdFk

Has a very distinct ‘Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS’ look and feel about it.

Jack Deth on February 17, 2013 at 2:25 PM

This isn’t a bad popcorn movie for those who just want to see gunfights, tracer rounds, explosions, and John McClane killing scumbags.

-
So I’ll be adding it to the collection then… “Don’t encourage him.” pfft… Too late!
-

RalphyBoy on February 17, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Saw this just last night, and found it very entertaining…if you suspend acres and acres of disbelief….

Stretching your view of reality is at the heart of these “action genre” young-guy-centric flicks…and with each appearance of the “Expendables”, mine stretches and never quite works the wrinkles out as it contracts back into my head….

I say “young-guy-centric” because that is, or must be, the target audience of these popcorn burners…young guys suspend disbelief just to get through life…chest bumping is a way of life among men of a certain age…or, historically, it ends up being so…after all, old men start wars, but young men think that they can fight them….

…better Stallone and Segall as an outlet than picking fights across international borders….

As cinema, it fits snugly in its genre. If you wanna see Shakespeare, go see some actual Shakespeare. (As an aside, go to Amazon and search “Shakespeare globe”, and there’re more than half a dozen DVDs of productions filmed in the reconstructed Globe Theater in London. They’re mostly the minor comedies, but the Henry IV parts 1 and 2 are splendid! But, sadly, young guys generally might have to wait to middle age to appreciate them.)

What struck me about this installment of the franchise was Mr. Willis’ age, quite frankly. “Die Hard With A Walker” must be in the works, surely. Still spry now, time takes no prisoners, and his days of being slammed down construction scaffolding, into furniture and through plate glass and then standing back up is coming to an end. Disbelief will only suspend so far.

I feel that I can say this because Mr. Willis, God bless him, is four days older than I am…and, yes, it really IS all about me in the end. I know what it’s like just getting out of my arm chair, let alone dangling from the back of a cargo helicopter.

…and, inevitably, all “Die Hard”‘s are compared with the first in the franchise, and none really measure up. That would be impossible. The first “Die Hard” pretty much put the genre on the map, and is frankly transends the genre. It is a treasure.

Think that a little strong? Well…if a boring pot of tripe like “Out of Africa” or “Kramer Vs. Kramer” can win Oscars, “Die Hard” can be treasure. *PPPHHTTTT!*

Standing by itself in the movie-going marketplace today, it’s a pretty good film, and if your disbelief hasn’t been worn out by the Obama Administation’s handling of foreign affairs and the economy, you’ll enjoy it for what it is.

Puritan1648 on February 17, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They were smart, taut films that limited plot holes

Umm, really? You mean like the cargo/passenger aircraft in the second movie – that has an ejection seat?!? Nooooo, hardly a plot hole at all in that one…….. *eyeroll*

GWB on February 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM

You mean I won’t be able to watch John McClane battle his way through the zombie apocalypse to reach the cause of the viral breakout, Zombie Hans Gruber out for revenge?

trubble on February 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Hmpf. That’s a better movie right there than 80% of what’s offered.

kim roy on February 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I will take them to almost any movie they want to see as long
as it doesn’t have detailed sex scenes. Not because they don’t
know about it; it just makes them all embarrassed. They don’t want to even think about it. In 7th grade
health class they showed these kids a movie of a child being born;
explicit to say the least. They told me that the whole class
put their heads on their desk and didn’t watch.

Amjean on February 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Now there’s an ad for abstinence. Either you’ll have to go through this or have to watch it close up in great gory detail. Make it a screamer with lots of bodily fluid. Can’t lose.

You have great sounding kids.

kim roy on February 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

I refuse to watch an action film that has Shaky Cam, especially a Die Hard movie! I hated that deliberately shaken camera and short frames cut up by rapid editing, and I hate the last two Bourne movies for making this the norm in so many action films these days.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a time for a hand held camera as used by Kubrick, Friedkin, Spielberg, Scott, but that hack Greengrass completely overdid it in his Bourne movies and all other hacks now follow.

Daemonocracy on February 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

I’ve always enjoyed the Die Hard movies. But this one was just AWFUL. Trying to go for a father/son bonding experience between firefights and helicopter attacks – uhh, no.

Now a question. When the team goes into a sealed room at Chernobyl (yes, that one) one of them mentions that “radiation has been pooling in here for two decades”. Can anybody please explain to me how radiation accumulates in pools?

Demonized on February 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM

The first two Die Hard movies were fun but the last two were bad. I think I will wait until this comes out on DVD.

Captain Kirock on February 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I saw this movie last week and enjoyed it. It’s less like the other Diehard movies and more like “Taken”, only the daughters the son, and son can kick as much a** as the dad. It was worth the 16 bucks (wife liked it too).

MechEng5by5 on February 17, 2013 at 11:45 PM

Ed
You gave it the ultimate kiss of death by one little observation:

“a disconnect that gets amplified by the now de rigueur shaky-camera

I cannot bear to watch any film presented in the juvenille ‘shaky camera’ style. Makes my head spin and ache. Any film that starts like that, I’m outta here.

soghornetgunner on February 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM