Great movie, why all the hate??

Just watched it for the 1st time and seemed OK to me, not great and perhaps the weakest of the franchise but watchable.

It's only disliked here on IMDb message boards, just ignore it. Just about everyone else likes this flick. Seriously, ask people in the real world what they think of it and the worst response you get is 'yeah it wasn't bad', but going by the responses around here you'd think it was the worst movie ever.

Honestly I think it's better than DH2, which is almost unwatchable. And compared to the 5th it's Oscar worthy.

movie kicks ass.

Better than part 2

I just watched the first 4 DHs, 4 nights in a row.

DH1: Re-defined action flicks, not a lot to fault it with, with the usual action-flick suspension of belief, of course. Well done, all pre-CGI, yes?

DH2: I don't think I ever need to see this one again. There were a couple of clever turns, but since I've seen it at least twice before, 3 times is all it warrants for me.

DH3: Returned to DH1 formula, not done nearly as well, lot's of scenes that even "the usual action-flick suspension of belief" doesn't excuse, but one thing is for sure: it beats the crap out of DH2. But there's a reason why this film is included in the list of "worst CGI films of the '90s".

DH4: This is the only one of the 4 I'd not seen before. The main thing this impressed upon me is that it finally got going with the production values of more modern day action films (Bourne, MI, etc.). Also, they did a better job of covering up the "WTF" moments of DH3, and the story was was fairly tense. Also, the tech scenes didn't make me wince too much. So it is at least tied with DH3.

So I rate them like this:

-- DH1
-- DH4
-- DH3
-- DH2

PS: Some of you might be wondering, "Yo, hey, where's DH5 in this line up"? I usually don't let ratings/critics decide a film's fate for me, but I'm thinking that few will fault me for skipping this one. Let's hope DH6 ends up being decent.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Weak villain and sidekick. Badly directed. No memorable action sequences or decent humor. No decent supporting characters like in the first three etc etc

Some people don't like it because it was PG-13. They think Die Hard has to be rated R, have lots of gore, and if it doesn't have plenty of F-bombs it "sucks."

This had cartoon violence in it, but if the folks who hate this one just realized it, ALL of them have cartoon violence. This one was just a little more honest about it. McClane would have been dead halfway through the first Die Hard if it were at all realistic. And Alexander Godunov living through being hung and dangling like that? He gets his "second wind," HOW?

I agree that the pairing of Justin Long and Bruce Willis was fantastic. They played well off each other. "How'd you do yours?" and Willis just gives him the patented look. It was a great movie. I could understand the hate if it was directed at "A Good Day to Die Hard."

I understand Mel Gibson did a movie where people's heads literally explode. That'll be the new bar, and if the next Die Hard doesn't meet it, they'll whine about that, too.