There are no 'metamucil' product placements in the fifth installment of this perennial Bruce Willis franchise.
Jack Poessiger says it does serve up non-stop action, but little else, despite the father-son headbutt sub-plot.
Like most franchises, the 1st installment is usually the best. IE: rooted in a common reality and shared humanity to make the audience care, yet twisted enough with the extra ordinary to give all a white knuckle thrill of satisfaction about the price of admission. Sequels are, more often than naught, simply a lame, over-produced excuse for the studio and actors to laugh all the way back to the bank.
I haven't seen 'Die Hard 5,' but this strikes me as bloody violent Tarantino wanna-bee - except in place of 'N' words, horses, 6 shooters, and a gratuitously gory pogrom against whitey, there are 'F' bombs, airports, machine guns and snappy repartee - amid a gratuitously gory pogrom against Muscovites.
Other than that, it might be OK.
And, most assuredly, the next time a metro cop goes all full-auto machine gun on some suspect,
Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill will praise him/her as a hero - like 'John McClane' in a 'Die Hard' movie.
'Cause, apparently, proglodytes love that gun justice stuff.
