Sure, it's just a movie. And, fwiw, I don't think it's really any worse than the other Die Hard sequels. But, I think the plot barely holds together and some of the action scenes, while generally well done, get really implausible at times. The first movie was at a relatively realistic level. Granted, there were some awfully big explosions, but for the most part they kept it at a plausible level. (Dropping a body on a car is only unlikely, not impossible. And fine for dramatic effect, because even if he missed it would have the same effect. Gruber took out the helicopter when he blew up the roof.) I'm not saying that the original is a masterpiece of neo-realism, but it's a long way from throwing yourself out of speeding cop cars and getting up, blowing up helicopters with a car jump, and surfing off of fighter jets. FWIW, the bad guys seem to get the benefit of the doubt too as one jumps out of a helicopter and walks away and another gets hit with an SUV, crashes through several walls, and keeps on fighting. I do like that the finale kept things at a very human level though. I wish more of the film was like that. And, I certainly think that John McClane, helicopter pilot, was a sign that they had written themselves into a corner and needed to get him back to the coast in a hurry before the bad guy could complete his scheme. I'll grant that it was merely implausible, not impossible, but it runs counter to his depiction as a blue collar guy. It certainly strikes me as a very arbitrary decision by the writers. FWIW, I did have a better time than I did during POTC3. A fast paced, 2 hour movie, with plenty of action, and a focussed (if implausible) storyline certainly has something to recommend it. Robert