Well the other day I caught A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD, and I have to say I'm disapointed. Not as bad perhaps as the critics are making it out to be, for brief moments I was entertained(if only mostly because of Willis) but yes my thumbs down joins them.

Overall this is the first DIE HARD movie where I felt truely whatever. For the shortest-running movie in the series at 90 something minutes (or about half hour shorter than the other DH movies), I wanted it to end.

All the previous DIE HARD movies, especially the original DIE HARD (one of the greatest action films ever produced) all were successful for me for their blend of successful elements:

(1) Exciting (coherently-shot) action scenes.
(2) A good narrative rhythm, patient in putting the story pieces into place before dropping the 'hammer,' or usually when the bad guys begin their operations. The second 'hammer' is when its time for Willis to start killing bad guys.
(3) Good villains, casted with good actors, with cool heist schemes and/or and/or very detailed creative plans to pull them off that always impressed me. (On an action film level at least.)
(4) A terrific sense of humor, one-liners. Usually from Bruce Willis, but not exclusively.

More or less A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD failed all at all 4. The humor is too broad, or can't hit the broadside of the barn. (But some laughs still, but not enough.)

Like too many action movies since the 1990s, we have 'post-action' cinematography, aka "shakey cam." No sense of geography, no timing, you have no idea what the fuck is happening. We have a big ass epic car chase in Moscow, countless cars destroyed (the real kind, not CGI-ed) and....I didn't care. After awhile when you get tired of trying to make sense of this chaotic mayhem, you just quit. You get detached, you get bored. (I always have this problem with Michael Bay movies.) That's disapointing.

There's no patience in the narrative, no build-up, no satisfying pay-off. I guess this is what happens when you hire the director of BEHIND ENEMY LINES and MAX PAYNE. They got what they paid for.

The villain here, for the first time in a DH movie, is shockingly irrelevant with no presence. The actor playing him has no sense to, if you will, ham it up like Alan Rickman and Jeremy Irons were allowed to. He did have one good moment I must admit, suggesting he could've been a dancer instead of a terrorist. Kinda thoughtful, but wasted here unfortunately. In fact his and his team's scheme....you know, it made no sense at all to me. Not even fully sure what their objective was. (Something about Chernobyl, since every Hollywood movie in Russia has to involve that infamous location for some reason.)

Now in the Shoutbox I got into a fight with a misguided local who thought I was complaining about the logic of action scenes when I was bitching about the shakey-cam filmed action sequences. I felt truely sorry for him. DIE HARD films are exciting, thrilling, vulgar cartoons, and I view them as such. Even though the original DIE HARD mostly benefitted from being the least cartoonish of the bunch. Maybe they should try to return to that.

I admire the DH series for keeping the same actor 25 years onward, at a time when Hollywood is trigger-happy for reboots and remakes and recastings. I admired that started with Willis with a head full of hair, to him now balder than the American Eagle. And I like that. I like that two children of his in the first movie were kids, now decades later they're adults and focal points of the last two DH pictures.

In other words, I wouldn't give up on DH yet. Every franchise seems to fuck up inevitably (James Bond more than once), so I'm just saying I'm up for one more DIE HARD movie. Make it as good as possible, no shakey cam garbage. Hell John McTiernan should be out of jail by then, hire him when he gets out. It can work.

Using my star system DickNose is so obsessed over (I finally got my own sexy stalker!), I give A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD **1/2 out of 5.