Why do critics hate this so much?
Way better than many action movies these days. Just because it doesn't quite match up with the original doesn't mean it's not a great action flick. Roger Ebert is about the only one who has a brain.
shareThis is considered by many ( critics included ) to be the second best Die Hard movie. It was even included on an EW list as one of the best sequels of all time.
The Rottentomatoes critics score is not an accurate reflection of how this movie is viewed in general. It just has a few American reviews posted on the site ( less than 50 in all ), and half the ones featured were mostly critics at the time that had a stick up their asses because of the release date of the movie : It came out just a month after the Oklahoma City bombing. At the time, that was held against the movie as some claimed the timing was insensitive and that it glorified/made light of the terrorist bombing. Which was bullsh!t of course.
What is mystifying to me to this day, is why so many of them praised that so-called fourth part 'Live Free or Die Hard'. That movie was utter concentrated shyte.
SPIRAL OUT!........KEEP GOING!
Ah interesting. Didn't know about the Oklahoma City bombing thing. I was just basing my post on the fact both Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic ratings are both in the 50's in ratings. I guess it doesn't matter, it's one of the best action movies out there.
share