Everyone knows I'm a huge fan of Bruce Willis and the Die Hard series. So when it started getting out there that A Good Day to Die Hard was a pretty bad movie, it was discouraging to hear. Even with all the naysayers, I was still very much looking forward to seeing this. Not only that, I was going to force myself to like this, no matter what and that I would not only like it, but I would give it 4 Stars minimum! Um. one problem with that train of thought though. This movie sucks donkey balls. A Good Day to Die Hard is a 'Die Hard' movie in name only. Sure, it's got Bruce in it and yes, he is playing John McClane. But this movie couldn't be any further from the original flick. Might wanna throw in Die Hard 2 in there as well since that's basically the same movie......but with Snow!! 

Right off the bat I knew this wasn't going to be good....well as good as the other installments. A) It's set entirely in Russia. Boooooring! B) It's basically a 'passing the torch' movie. Who wants to see Junior? Not me! C) The story and writing was horrible with no clue who the villains were and what their motivations were. Why did Bruce sign off on this? Is he illiterate? Does he not know how to read? D) The Director SUCKS! Who the f*ck is this guy? I've never heard of him till now. Does he realize how amateurish he comes across with the constant quick in and out zooms of the camera? It's weak and so are his set ups. As a 'Die Hard' flick, this is easily the weakest and hopefully the last. As an 'Action' flick, it's bad by any standards. I can't even recommend this movie to die hard fans (pun sooooooo intended). This is a Skip. This movie was pointless.

After this one, I am NOT looking forward to Die Hard 6

The one thing I'm curious about is if Mary Elizabeth Winstead had a cameo or not.

Didn't it start with McClane thinking his son was in Russian Prison or something like that?  My mind immediately formulated a sort of mix between Taken and that opening from Mission Impossible 4 where Tom Cruise escapes the prison-- and that would just be for the first act.

Well, I know that Jr is like a secret agent or something, like they're trying to spin off the franchise like they tried to do with Shia in the last Indiana Jones.

There was a great video on **** about ****.com/video_18650_4-things-die-hard-movies-need-more-than-bruce-willis.html" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What Die Hard needs more than John McClane. 

Kevin Smith does a great write-up about Bruce in the book "Tough Sh*t," which I think is more or less transcriptions from his stand-up/Q&A specials.

Getting back to the hate I have about the films director, what the f*ck was up with the lens flare sh*t? Even more proof that this guy doesn't know a camera from his ass. His use of lens flares for no other reason then to use it shows what a hack he is. The lens flares in question made no sense other than to point out that he had access to the newest and latest version of the software. Even JJ Abrams would have issues with how they are used in the movie. I wish someone had posted screencaps of the flares online so that I could post them here. No dice.

Trust me, they are 100% fake.

I have such a disdain for the use of artificial lens flares that I purposely wouldn't use them in my own projects.....even if the story and setting called for it.