Bruce Willis Interviewing ‘Die Hard 5′ Directors; Script Being Rewritten

Published 4 years ago by , Updated August 24th, 2013 at 9:40 am,

die hard 5 bruce willis Bruce Willis Interviewing Die Hard 5 Directors; Script Being Rewritten

[UPDATED: Deadline is reporting that Noam Murro has been hired by Fox to direct. Read more below…]

With four films and over twenty years of history, the Die Hard franchise is certainly living up to its name. Each film has been an over-the-top, fun-filled thrill ride, which made a bad-ass legend out of Bruce Willis and his character John McClane.

While some viewers thought the fourth installment Live Free or Die Hard was a failure, we gave it a hearty 4-star review for its action-packed fun and excitement.  Even though we really liked the film, it never really made sense for Fox to make a Die Hard 5 (like THAT’s ever stopped a studio before) but this time last year Bruce Willis said the filming could begin as early as 2011.

Recently, Willis said that writer Skip Woods (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) had turned in a draft of the Die Hard 5 script. However, Vulture has news that Fox was unhappy with the most recent draft and has sent Woods back to work revising the whole thing from the beginning. Meanwhile, Bruce Willis is taking this opportunity to interview potential directors for Die Hard 5 and right now upcoming director Jorge Daniel Espinosa is the frontrunner.

The Die Hard quadrilogy has had three directors behind the lens – John McTiernan (Die Hard, Die Hard: With a Vengeance), Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2) and Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard). If Willis truly wants Espinosa for his next film he’ll have to wait, as the up-and-coming young director’s current film, Safe House – starring Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds – begins filming later this month.

As Willis and Fox move forward with Die Hard 5, and as Willis begins his interviewing process, inevitably more names for potential directors will surface.  So far we know that Die Hard 5 and 6 will be the last hurrah for Officer John McClane, and that another member of the Gruber family could be the main villain.


Deadline is now reporting conflicting information that Fox has already hired Noam Murro to fill the job of director for Die Hard 5 – though this decision makes very little sense. While Espinosa has critically acclaimed foreign action/drama films like The Fighter (not the recent Mark Wahlberg film) and Easy Money, Murro only has a HBO TV film and the 2008 Sarah Jessica Parker romance-comedy Smart People on his resume. Something doesn’t seem right with the news about Murro, so either NY Magazine or Deadline have it wrong. Both sites are running stories they received from “inside sources” so until an official press release comes from Fox you should probably keep all of this in the rumor bin.

If Fox and friends ever get their act regarding Die Hard 5, who else would you like to see rejoin the Die Hard franchise – Sergeant Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson), Captain Carmine Lorenzo (Dennis Franz) or Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson)?

Die Hard 5 currently has no release date.

Follow us on Twitter for TV and Movie News @Walwus and @ScreenRant

Source: Vulture, Deadline

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Just read on Deadline that Noam Murro is reportedly directing Die Hard 5.

    • @mrkenkins – just saw that too…both sites can’t be right. You can usually trust either NY Mag or Deadline so we’ll see how this plays out. Thanks for the heads up.

      • Np. Great article as always.

  2. Oh god, Willis wasn’t a credible action hero when young much less now that he’s old and withered. Rebooting with a younger actor might work but unless old man Willis manages to bulk up like old man Stallone i won’t be bothering.

    • “Wasn’t a credible action hero” – What? Are you kidding? Compared to whom in the action genre that WAS credible? Willis was one of the more credible heroes – playing the everyman instead of some superhuman guy.


      • The everyman thing is precisely why he isn’t credible. He looks ordinary while surviving things that only a superhuman could get away with. If he starred in thrillers where he wasn’t up against an army of thugs but just one bad guy fair enough. But if you are going to star in what are basically fantasies, then like Stallone and Arnold you should look the like a fantasy character – which given the drug usage is what Sly and co are.

        • Michael,

          To me he’s an ordinary man put in extraordinary, but at least somewhat believable circumstances. Of course in an action film you have to exaggerate things – otherwise it wouldn’t be an action film. But watching the first Die Hard, there was not a single thing that took me out of the film and made me say “aw, give me a friggin’ break.”


    • LMAO @ Michael Claymore. I’m assuming your comment was a joke right? Ooh, I know, let’s have John Cena play the role! Haha, good one dude. 😀

      • I’m wondering if that dude above(claymore)knows that Die Hard is pretty much responsible for influencing most of the flood action movies that came out in the late 80’s, 90’s and so on.

        • Read before you respond, i said nothing about Die Hard’s influence.

          • I’m aware, and I simply don’t care lol.

      • @ Ken J

        Lol, Or maybe Tatum Channing retire from the G.I Joe franchise to play a younger John McClane. Btw been awhile since i seen you around, Where ya been?

        • @WallyWest

          Been busy man, no time to do anything lately…

    • Claymore are you serious? How could anyone claim Willis isn’t credible? Seriously the guy is one of if not the greatest action hero of our time.

      • Average man doing way above average things which no real man can, not my idea of credible.

        • Claymore give me a break man your saying he isn’t credible because it isn’t believable? Have you watched a Stallone or Arnold movie? They are not at all believable either.

          Also did you watch Die hard? I would say Die hard was 100 times more believable than any of Arnolds flicks every single one of them and all of Stallones outside of Rocky.

          In Die Hard Bruce got the crap kicked out of him and only survived because he used his head. It wasn’t about him standing up and out boxing guys bigger or fighting some supernatural threat. He hid in the shadows and used his head to take out terrorists one at a time. That’s what makes it one of the most believable action flicks period. Please watch a Stallone flick or Arnold flick and tell me what makes them more credible.

          • @Dan F – “I would say Die hard was 100 times more believable than any of Arnolds flicks every single one of them…”

            You mean like using a police cruiser to take down a helicopter by launching it off a median from a tunnel? 😛 lol sorry I had to bring that up…

            • Paul two things.

              First I said Die hard not Die Hard2, Die hard 3 or Die hard 4 i said Die hard.

              Second i never said it was the most believable movie in existence I said more believable than an Arnold flick. You know where Arnold fights a strange creatue called a Predator that his basically better than him in every way but he still wins or where Arnold is a Robot that fights other robots after traveling through time to save a kid who is the son of a guy from the future or where Arnold is a robot that gets sent back in time to kill a girl and this normal every day girl kills this unstoppable killing machine… Talk about credible action heroes can we talk about Sarah Conner? Or how about the one where Arnold fights the devil him self. How about Arnold giving birth not an action flick but just as unbelievable as any of his other films.

              I’ll believe the cop car scene over anything that happened in Predator or the first Terminator no problem.

              • @DanF – Easy big guy I’m on your side :) I was just poking a bit a fun. To argue you point though…

                Predator and Terminator are scifi flicks so reality pretty much takes a backseat from the get go and has a lot of leeway within which to work. Now comparing the stunts in LFoDH to say Rambo or Commando would probably be more appropriate IMHO.

                • Lol Paul not like I was angry just responding.

                  Anyway I’m not really talking about the realistic nature of the existence of a predator. I’m talking directly about Claymoores point. He’s saying that a guy like Bruce Willis taken down terrorists in Die Hard isn’t believable and then defends Arnold. I’m saying none of the action in predators was believable. Even if you suspend disblief and accept that Predators are real and actually one living in the jungle even then the action is still no believable. Arnold defeating that creature isn’t believable hell even that entire team beating them wouldn’t be believable.

                  Yes Die Hard 1-4 are not only more credible, but more believable than either commando or Rambo.

                  Whats really funny is he makes it sound as if a guy couldn’t be heroic unless he’s 230 + pounds of muscle which is really funny because real life heroes in actual reality are rarely ever muscle bound guys. We have had men in some very heroic events in our history and rarely if ever have these guys been muscle bound guys. Then look at the men and women in our military and tell me how many look like Arnold? These guys are all true heroes and save lives all the time just like our Police men and women do none of them look like Arnold.

                  • Dan I wonder what he thought about Scott Pilgrim and Kick-Ass then? Those guys don’t represents that type of hero at all.

                    • Paul I’m sure he protested watching either due to lack of muscle bound man who can’t act. What no stiff wooden acting from a muscle bound bafoon? I’m out.

                    • LOL Daniel, you crack me up sir :)

        • You do know that movies are make believe right?

        • Actually, the original Die Hard is probably one of the most believable one man versus many men type of movies ever made. He was calculating with his moves, he did recon work to get an idea of the number of individuals, their names, where they are stationed, who was the leader, etc. before he went after them. And when he went after them he tried to split them up so he can take them on one at a time instead of going against multiple bad guys all at once like in most other movies…

          Anyway, if anything, you can stick with documentaries or dramas since no action flick is truly 100% credible if you really think about it… But it’s fine, you have your opinion, everyone else has their’s, lol. 😉

          • Oh, the above comment was a reply to Michael Clayton BTW. :)

          • Ken that’s exactly what I said above. I don’t know how anyone could claim other wise.

          • @ Ken J

            I agree with all you said & even i noticed McClane was doin all that each time i watched the film. Keeping his cool, & doin what he can to get help or find way to escape when it seemed he was pretty much trapped. Lol when that gun strap snapped & he feel in the elevator shaft i wonder say at the sametime no-ones that lucky lol. I know i couldn’t do that. Not to mention him crawing in the airvent,lol somthing else i wouldn’t be crazy about since i hate in-closed places. Another thing he did was remembering what was Hans doin on the roof & told Al stay off for awhile so he can go check to see what Han was up to. Of-course Karl was most likely listening into their conversation.

            Btw Ken, understandable that you been busy. Im less busy now these days with hours being cut. Good to hear from ya though.

    • Seriously, you must be kinda young to say that (maybe 14, 15). Willis was one of the MOST credible actors when he did Die Hard and still is to this day. Did you not see Red? Anyway, Bruce did GREAT in DH4 and I look forward to 5 and 6. Bruce, you are still the man!

  3. what i liked about die hard 4 was that the director didn’t implement the dreaded shaky cam ‘technique’ into the action scenes (form what i recall anyways). as long as they they hire someone who knows how to use a f***ing camera and can edit properly i’m happy.

  4. I’m torn in so many ways.

    Bruce Willis IMO is the greatest action her of all time I’ll watch the guy in anything.

    Die hard is the greatest straight up action film of all time and the franchise has always been good even at it’s worst.

    The negatives are that the franchise has gotten further from what it was more and more with each film. It went from a building to an airport to a city to a national threat. The films were all enjoyable with Die Hard 2 being the only weak point. However if the film continues to grow in the size of what Bruce has to save that makes The World the next step and I’m not excited for that.

    The guy they hired to do the rewrite isn’t exactly a master writer and A-team wasn’t a good film in anyway shape or form and hiring the guy who wrote that is a very bad move. Not keen on either director either.

    • A-Team was total sh*te

      Die Hard 4.0/Live Free etc was an enjoyable, almost guilty pleasure, that counts as a respectable action flick regardless of its place within the franchise.

      The confined space concept would better lend itself to further sequels if done correctly, though nobody wants to see ‘Die Hard on a…..’ over and over, surely?

      We’ve had trains(in Under Siege 2(Under Siege itself being a Die Hard wannabe), and cruise liners in Speed 2, Air Force One, and so on. There needs to be very careful consideration of what might actually make sense from here in. The escalation that has threatened to harm the stories so far, at least provided originality and avoided the issue of re treading old ground. Unfortunately, it came with an ever increasing demand for the audience to suspend its disbelief to ridiculous levels.

      I fear we may be in for something like Die Hard in space.

  5. I’m all for a number 5. Yeah, four was over-the-top, but I loved the heck out of it! Oh well, personal pref, I guess.

  6. Pleave return to the R rating Willis, it’s just simply not the same.

    • Anthony I actually liked that they went PG 13 and then released an Unrated DVD. It was the best thing they could do. PG 13 was a huge financial success for them and much more than they would of made with a rated R. It’s important that they make money in order for these things to continue. I really don’t think R and PG13 make all that much difference. It was slightly less blood and no F words big woop. Still if the most important things in film to you are blood and f bombs the unrated DVD was released to appease those fans where there is a bit more blood and a bit more foul language for you to enjoy.

      The great thing about that set up is it covers everyone one great box office from people being able to bring their kids more comfortably which resulted in the best BO yet for Die hard then they were able to give the fans the more adult version on DVD. At the end of the day they still made an R rated film for the fans, but also made a film that will make them more money.

      • Daniel,

        I know we’ve had this discussion before, but there’s a difference to me between taking a movie that was shot as “R” and paring it down to PG-13 and taking a PG-13 movie and “upping” it to an R rating. The former seems natural, and the latter seems contrived.

        It was obvious to me that CGI blood was inserted into the unrated version and f-bombs dubbed in, which made it seem stupid to me. As opposed to the other films where the stuff was in there originally and obviously flowed with the rhythm of the films.


        • “It was obvious to me that CGI blood was inserted into the unrated version and f-bombs dubbed in, which made it seem stupid to me.”

          I agree about the CGI blood being added, but I dont think the f bombs were dubbed in, they were in the original cut. Or at least some of them were.

          Even at the cinema it didnt bother me the lack of swearing, in the UK Die Hard 4.0 was released with a 15 certificate due to the violence. I didnt even notice the lack of bad language at all.

  7. I wonder if Samuel L. Jackson would be too busy to work away from the Marvel films to do another Die Hard film. Then again what could his character do with McClane a 2nd time. It would be nice to see Reginald Veljohnson return, maybe even for minor role this time since it seem his appearance in Die Hard 2 seemed pretty much like a cameo appearance. I wonder if that Gruber Family story is scrupt now or still up in the air. Too bad John McTiernan can’t direct the 5th film since i loved the first film the most & Die Hard: With A Vengance is my 2nd favorite.

  8. Best news ever!!! Bring back Al and make it Christmas time for the love of god!!!

  9. So why don’t they just get McTiernan to direct? He should be pretty cheap to get now, what with his last couple movies and everything else.

    • Uhh I think he is still in Prison.

  10. I love all the Die Hard movies. The more McClane the better!

    • I can watch them all, but none of them match up to the first. :)


      • @ Vic

        Same here. I probly watched the first film more than any of others in the franchise.

      • Totally agree Vic. It goes Die Hard 1, 3, 2 and 4. At least for me. I can watch the first one any time.

        • I’d say say for me

          Die Hard
          Die Hard With A Vengeance + Die Hard 4.0
          Die Hard 2:Die Harder

          I’d rank 3 and 4 the same.

          4 was excellent, I loved it, it was a great update for the series. Some of the best action sequences I have seen for a long time, sure it was over the top, but it was a lot of fun and very well directed by Len Wiseman.

        • @ Andy S

          I think that’s how id list them as being well liked imo aswell in that order.

  11. So how many here actually liked the fourth one? I really can’t understand why that movie is so well-liked. The hacker plot was already dated in the 90s. The movie was a slicked-up, sanitized modern action movie with none of the testosterone and brutal intensity of the originals. The writing and acting were both sub-par. And Justin Long was awful. After watching Die Hard 4, I didn’t even realize Timothy Olyphant was such a fantastic actor until I watched Deadwood. The only mildly redeeming factor was Bruce Willis, who did the best job he could under the circumstances. If Die Hard 5 is seriously happening, and I hope it isn’t, then they need to go back and watch the original movie again so they can remember why it was so good, because the people who made the 4th one had clearly forgotten.

    • @ CrowMagnumMan

      I liked the 4th film & thought it was good. Even bought the unrated version dvd hoping it would be better but wasn’t really. Outta all the other films, i felt the 4th film was waterdowned. So i hope the franchise picks up momentum with the 5th film.

      • That’s one of the more reasonable opinions I’ve heard regarding the 4th film. Sometimes I think I get a little overly militant in my hate for it. I think if it wasn’t a Die Hard film I’d be a lot more forgiving, and maybe even call it a halfway decent film; unlike Indy 4, which I thought was just plain bad in its own right, along with being offensively stupid and disappointing as an Indy film.

  12. Get an R rated script, a competent director who has guts, and no Justin Long.

    • Word.

  13. Just came to me if they would or could make another great Die Hard film as great as the first film after remembering what James Cameron was talkin about how films about terrorism would be made little more differently since 9/11 happend. Besides the Gruber Family idea, What if someone related to Karl & his brother went after McClane?

  14. These angry family member ideas seem ridiculous to me. I could fathom it happening once, for Die Hard 3. But after that it would just be stretching believability. I’d rather they just came up with a new villain that has nothing to do with McClane.

  15. If its another pg13 kiddy action flick, I’d rather they not tarnish the series… DH1 classic, DH2 stunk then I thought DH3 was incredible again… DH4 was just terrible in every way possible…I can’t even list all the reasons behind it being so bad because I have to get to work…

    Either bring in a Andrew Davis or John McTiernan who are the only ones who make the 1 vs 100 work (Die Hard 1 and UnderSiege 1 Directors) or just stop with the over cgi kiddy action flick stuff.. John go buy a 6 pack and some smokes and curse a little, John McClane turned into a politically correct pansy…

  16. Die Hard 4 was awful… It was terrible in every way, everything we liked about John was stripped away and what was left was a overly contrived story, political correctness, and just kiddie pg13 nonsense… I mean it was sooo bad I understand it was a DIE HARD flick, but in name only.

    I miss the late 80s and early 90s… Where there were adult action films for adults, with language adults use, blood (yes people bleed when punched or kicked or shot for that matter)and most importantly with realistic fight choreographing(OK van damme was over the top but still leaps and bounds better than anything today)..

    I saw Steven Seagal being somewhat bad mouthed above so I quickly wanted to address something.. Yes Steven Seagal turned into some anonymous and unrecognizable blob of awful movie making.. Yes since 1996 he has been horrendous in every way possible in terms of movie making…
    That being said though, between 1987 to 1995 he had without a doubt the best back to back credible action films, although he may be less skilled as an actor, or director, he was more then capable in the action department. This is the primary reason he was successful in the early years.

    Were his films a little repetitive at times? Sure they were straight forward action films for people who enjoyed that… He was a very believable action hero in my opinion in fact the most believable ever to me simply because he was an actual martial arts master, not the typical overly muscled 80s action hero but just a realistic always the fight choreographer on all his films. In his early films he was always forced into a situation that deemed a response just as John McClane in Die Hard 1 did…It was the believable yet reluctant hero that’s forced into a situation formula, those with any competent action star tend to be the best films..

    To wrap it all up, and I sincerely apologize for the above rant but as an action film buff who was born in the early 80s I CANNOT stand the pg13 kiddie action films that are constantly produced by overly politically correct \ non risk taking studios.

    Die Hard 5 needs to be made by an Andrew Davis (Under Siege 1, The Fugitive, Above the Law), secondly it needs to have a more adult style of action and story. Stallone until a few years back was a washed up ex action hero, the reason he has had a string of hits was because he stopped with the BS and produced some adult themed action films (Rocky+Rambo). Until the studios give up on this watered down garbage and create some new believable Seagal/Norris types these movies are going to continue to suck..

    I’m tired of hearing how transformers 3 is the best action film of all time.. it’s a 2 hour computer animation fest, nothing more. I’m tired of Hollywood shitting on the action genre in general… The werewolf from twilight is now being billed as the next big action film star, kinda makes me wanna vomit. Sorry for any typos and/or run-ons above, just a long rant from a disgruntled action film fan.

    Disgruntled Action Film Fan

    • Uh… No, Die Hard should NOT be directed by the guy who directed a bunch of Steven Seagal movies. Sorry, I know you’re a Steven Seagal fan… Maybe he should do a new movie with Steven Seagal, but don’t touch Die Hard. Thanks…

      • He directed two, and he’s actually a pretty good director. Under Siege was, by far, the best Steven Seagal movie (in my opinion). Davis also directed The Fugitive, which was an awesome movie. I’d feel a lot better about Die Hard 5 if Andrew Davis directed. Though, of course, John McTiernan would still be my first choice, if he would ever get out of prison.

        Anyways. I agree with DisgruntledActionFilmFan. Die Hard 4 wasn’t as insultingly bad as Indy 4, but it was still pretty poor compared to the first three films.

        • I agree with some of what you just said. I agree that Under Siege is the best Steven Seagal movie. It was good, not great, but I enjoyed it. And The Fugitive is also good. I also agree that Indy 4 was terrible, but disagree that Die Hard 4 was worse than the first 3. Die Hard 2 is definitely the worst for me, by far. I don’t need gore and curse words to enjoy a movie. As long as the action is insane and Willis is a smart ass bad ass, that’s all it needs. But that’s just my opinion.

          • Yeah, Die Hard 2 is definitely the worst of the first three. I’ll agree with that at least. The second movie was pretty cheesy, but it at least felt like a properly badass action/thriller with some great action sequences. I just didn’t like how superhuman John McClane became in the fourth movie. John was more human in the second movie still. And then there was Justin Long, the hacking nonsense, and the weak central villain (and that’s coming from a huge fan of Timothy Olpyhant). Anyways, I can respect someone who doesn’t dislike the second movie, as there are a lot of valid reasons to dislike it. I just have a tough time seeing the fourth movie being anywhere near as good as the first or third film. And as much as I like the third film, nothing is ever going to beat the first movie.

            • I think regardless of your opinion of the 2nd or 4th movie, most people will agree that the 1st is the best one and probably will always be the best one…