New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Felix Quinonez: On one hand, I am really surprised by this result. I know it looks terrible and I have no interest in seeing it...period, but I still expected other people to go see it. I knew the terrible reviews would have some impact on the box office performance but I thought it would be review proof at least opening weekend. This is well below what I expected. On the other hand, I am pretty happy. This was clearly a cynical cash grab and I'm glad to see it didn't pay off (at least as much as they would have wanted.) I'm tired of all of these unnecessary sequels that do nothing but tarnish the memory of the original.

Jason Barney: I think it is a sad day for one of the most interesting action franchises out there. I am a big fan of the original Die Hard; in my book it is one of the best action flicks, ever. The second movie was okay, and I like the third film more than most people. The most recent entry a couple of years ago was pretty good, and a few months ago I was glad to see there was another movie in the works. I'm old enough to be a strong fan of the original, and have been with the series ever since.

I don't think it is a very good sign that an aging action star makes a fifth film in a series and that film opens about $10 million below tracking numbers. With a budget of $92 million, this is not going to be a good performer over the next couple of days, and with horrible reviews, I fear the Die Hard franchise may be put to rest. It is sad. You would think professional writers and professional film makers could come up with a product, especially with a proven brand, that could garner better than 10% positive reviews at RT.

Kim Hollis: Generally, reviews don't really make much of a difference to a film's opening weekend performance, but I think A Good Day to Die Hard is an exception. I have heard many people say that they decided not to see this movie after seeing the reviews. Maybe that should be a lesson that putting some thought and effort into the screenplay is critical. Who knows what Die Hard 5 would have made had it been good?

Edwin Davies: This falls squarely into Best Case Scenario territory for the film, considering that the reviews and word-of-mouth were fairly toxic and began circulating very rapidly. Not rapidly enough to stop the film being number one, but the overwhelmingly negative response no doubt hampered its performance and will probably ensure that it tops out somewhere below its $92 million budget, at least domestically. It'll do well enough overseas to make that less painful, but that just strikes home how cynical and mercenary the whole endeavor has been. This is probably (hopefully) the nail in the coffin for the Die Hard franchise, which peaked with the first film and has seen nothing but diminishing returns since (I haven't seen A Good Day to Die Hard, but I soured on the series at roughly the point where John McClane killed a helicopter with a car in Live Free or Die Hard).

Continued:       1       2       3