User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 470 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 14, 2013
    5
    It really pains me to say this, but A Good Day to Die Hard is a muddled, occasionally frustrating affair. As good as Bruce Willis continues to be as John McClane, and as fun as the action sequences are, it clashes with ugly cinematography, an unremarkable premise, and a VERY vanilla performance by Jai Courtney, with Willis often having to be pushed to the back. As it stands it's an okayIt really pains me to say this, but A Good Day to Die Hard is a muddled, occasionally frustrating affair. As good as Bruce Willis continues to be as John McClane, and as fun as the action sequences are, it clashes with ugly cinematography, an unremarkable premise, and a VERY vanilla performance by Jai Courtney, with Willis often having to be pushed to the back. As it stands it's an okay action film, but it's the weak link in the Die Hard chain. Expand
  2. Jun 4, 2013
    5
    "While its barley worthy enough to call itself a "Die Hard" its still not as horrible as it could of been. It suffers from a middling plot, uninspired chemistry & a not-so intriguing premise overall. But nevertheless it was nice seeing John McClane again." C
  3. Mar 29, 2013
    5
    I was expecting this movie just like any other die hard series, but unfortunately it's a complete let down and it's incredibly nothing like the others. Fresh idea for die hard series that will make this rubbish a memorable one for me.

    I won't lie that the explosions and the FXs were good, but the storyline was lame and somehow boring! I wasted my money to watch this on the big screen
    I was expecting this movie just like any other die hard series, but unfortunately it's a complete let down and it's incredibly nothing like the others. Fresh idea for die hard series that will make this rubbish a memorable one for me.

    I won't lie that the explosions and the FXs were good, but the storyline was lame and somehow boring!

    I wasted my money to watch this on the big screen without checking the viewer ratings, it's my fault. On the other hand, i took the risk to watch "The Host" even though i knew the ratings was bad, but i found it much more enjoyable than die hard 5.
    Expand
  4. Feb 14, 2013
    5
    A good day to puke hard........ WORST DIE HARD SEQUEL EVER!!!!! IAM sorry to say this mr Moore but your movie sucks like HELLLLL! It starts off and then in 20 min of the film there is no John MacLaine but I gave it time... 40 min...... No John MacLaine and then 50 min in the movie he comes as a cop nobody knows? I mean he's kickass he's not old yet!!!!!!!!? I really hardly think that mrA good day to puke hard........ WORST DIE HARD SEQUEL EVER!!!!! IAM sorry to say this mr Moore but your movie sucks like HELLLLL! It starts off and then in 20 min of the film there is no John MacLaine but I gave it time... 40 min...... No John MacLaine and then 50 min in the movie he comes as a cop nobody knows? I mean he's kickass he's not old yet!!!!!!!!? I really hardly think that mr mctirnan was better at this film. So better. I mean like this cop is nothing it's just Bruce Willis!!!! But 5 is for the action that was balanced throughout the film, I mean Jai countery was good with Sebastian Koch, just those two people kicked ass. I punk ed throughout the father and son so called scenes. Only 5 because of Jai and Sebastian and some of the action. Otherwise 1 or 0 Expand
  5. Feb 18, 2013
    4
    It seems like the concept of the father and son relationship could have worked. However, when you have garbage filmmakers (director, screenwriter, composer, editor, etc.) involved, it's bound to be a mess... I'm a Die Hard fan, and it's a shame they let this happen. Still not on the level of crap as Indy 4 or the Star Wars prequels... but definitely a bad movie. Word of advise if you planIt seems like the concept of the father and son relationship could have worked. However, when you have garbage filmmakers (director, screenwriter, composer, editor, etc.) involved, it's bound to be a mess... I'm a Die Hard fan, and it's a shame they let this happen. Still not on the level of crap as Indy 4 or the Star Wars prequels... but definitely a bad movie. Word of advise if you plan to make another Die Hard film... get a good actor for the villain (i.e. Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Olyphant) that actually has a clearly defined motive. Expand
  6. Feb 22, 2013
    6
    Die Hard was once a great series that featured a loveable charachter facing down the improbable, with great action, in a compelling story. But, the improbable has become the impossible in it's fifth installment, with over the top special effects, a weak storyline, and some very dry acting. I am an action junkie and Bruce Willis is one of my favorite actors, but the essence of John McClaneDie Hard was once a great series that featured a loveable charachter facing down the improbable, with great action, in a compelling story. But, the improbable has become the impossible in it's fifth installment, with over the top special effects, a weak storyline, and some very dry acting. I am an action junkie and Bruce Willis is one of my favorite actors, but the essence of John McClane died a long time ago. Right from the start I could tell that Willis wasn't all that into this and it shows, as McClan goes from being the ultimate tough guy to a man just going through the motions. The story centers around reuniting with his son in a foreign country, which I though was an interesting twist, but the angle as well as any semblance of a story was barely touched upon. Die Hard 5 was just one over the top action scene after another, with very little substance, emotion, or appeal for audiences. The John McClan we knew and loved, the man who saved the Nakatomi building, is long gone, instead he is replaced by an emotionless man who expects this sort of thing to happen to him wherever he goes. Willis was going through the motions for a big pay day, and while there were some good lines and some great action sequences, there isn't much of a story or cast to write about. Die Hard 5 is about making money through special effects, using characters who have long out lived their usefulness. If this is how the series has evolved than I pray that this will be the end of it. If the producers want to milk more money out of the franchise, maybe they can wait ten years or so and have some British hunk remake it, with Willis making a cameo, until then, I must declare the Die Hard series official dead with A Good Day To Die Hard. Expand
  7. Feb 16, 2013
    4
    Let's start off by saying that I am not a huge Die Hard fan but I have always enjoyed the movies and there is something about the character of John Mcclane that is just fun to watch. That was my sole expectation. The only thing I was looking forward to, was action sequences mixed with a great sense of humor. I am an avid movie goer and even found a few things to like about Die Hard 4 butLet's start off by saying that I am not a huge Die Hard fan but I have always enjoyed the movies and there is something about the character of John Mcclane that is just fun to watch. That was my sole expectation. The only thing I was looking forward to, was action sequences mixed with a great sense of humor. I am an avid movie goer and even found a few things to like about Die Hard 4 but this installment is simply a very very bad movie.

    The first third of the movie is a catastrophe, story-telling wise. The editing is confusing and what was meant to bring out a smile from the audience (dialogue in cab) falls flat big time and left everyone cold.
    The action scene involving a car chase and lots of (LOOOOTS OF) crashes fail to impress because the cinematography leaves much to be desired.

    The biggest issue with this movie is, that you never ever care about the action on screen. No one is ever in real peril and everyone is having a fun time,jumping down from buildings and killing lots of dudes. There is nothing inherently wrong with a movie like that but this is Die Hard and Die Hard movies used to be about something, some danger that threatens a building, airport, city etc. There was a threat and Mcclane needed to solve it. That was why we were rooting for him. Before heading to the theater, I read all the negative reviews I thought "doesn't matter, it has action scenes and that is enough for me". Now I know for sure, it definetely isn't enough. It simply isn't worth seeing it on the big screen. Save the money and watch it in a year or two on Netflix, I promise you will not regret it.
    Expand
  8. Feb 16, 2013
    6
    It has the one-liners,guns and action, but it does not feel like die hard to me. Russia as background was pretty boring and father-son comedy was just awkward. No need to watch the film unless you are a true fan of the franchise.
  9. Feb 17, 2013
    5
    I mean: It's still a Die Hard wih mindblowing action and still Bruce Willis, contributing a reasonable performance, but the quality of the film can't satisfy the high expectations of all the fans of the franchise. It is half an hour shorter, much more explosive and senseless than all the other Die Hards. There are no motifs, no emotions or any kind of coolness in there. And the worstI mean: It's still a Die Hard wih mindblowing action and still Bruce Willis, contributing a reasonable performance, but the quality of the film can't satisfy the high expectations of all the fans of the franchise. It is half an hour shorter, much more explosive and senseless than all the other Die Hards. There are no motifs, no emotions or any kind of coolness in there. And the worst thing: it isn't a Bruce-Willis-Show as a Die Hard has to be but a soft Lethal Weapon like collaboration between John and his son Jack, which just makes it feel wrong. Expand
  10. Feb 15, 2013
    6
    You wont waste your money on this one but compared to other Die Hard flicks, it is disappointing. The story is not compelling enough and the villains are not that interesting. So while the action scenes are good, they are a bit pointless.
  11. Feb 16, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As Die Hard fan, I'm truly disappointed with this installment. I don't care with critics said give this underrated.
    I'm still like Mac Clane with his joke, how his way shooting people and so on. But this movie is too short and the other way the closing scene is too long. Maybe Len Wiseman is not good director, but I'm satisfied with him how he directed DH 4. But John Moore is worst director and fail direct this.
    To many replay scenes: Mercy from highway (DH3), bad guy fall from building (DH 1), make this movie not worth to watch.
    As DH fan I'm very sad with this not good movie and don't know how to score it, because I'm still like Mac Clane.
    Not good Yippee Kai Yay Mother****** anymore.
    Expand
  12. Feb 14, 2013
    5
    If you want to have a good memory of the Die Hard franchise, do not watch it. If you want to spend money, go to the theatre. This movie is an ordinary action movie with awesome characters.
  13. Feb 17, 2013
    6
    Lots of action, great special effects, good chase sequences. However, the story seemed unrealistic, has kinda boring characters a lot of the dialogue seems forced. Good to watch if gripping action and special effects is what you're seeking.
  14. Feb 22, 2013
    6
    Bruce Willis is back for the 5th time traveling to Russia, where ends up with him in a mighty battle over nuclear weapons with his son. It goes like this: a few lines of throwaway dialogue, then a flashy fight. Repeat for 97 minutes. The first chase sequence is spectacularly over the top. And it gets bigger from there. The father/son thing provides almost as much conflict as the humdrumBruce Willis is back for the 5th time traveling to Russia, where ends up with him in a mighty battle over nuclear weapons with his son. It goes like this: a few lines of throwaway dialogue, then a flashy fight. Repeat for 97 minutes. The first chase sequence is spectacularly over the top. And it gets bigger from there. The father/son thing provides almost as much conflict as the humdrum villains and Jai Courtney's performance (as the son) is as flat as Willis'. Otherwise, there's lots of firepower with no time for it to drag. Don't expect anything other than big action and you'll be mindlessly entertained. Expand
  15. Feb 15, 2013
    6
    It's funny how John McClane's kids appear just in time for sequels despite barely even existed in the prequels. This particular time, his son participates in a secret ops at Russia and John just picks the right time to reconnect their long lost bond, when seemingly infinite bullets and flyable cars whisk above their heads. Part family reunion, part buddy movie and wholly ludicrous in theIt's funny how John McClane's kids appear just in time for sequels despite barely even existed in the prequels. This particular time, his son participates in a secret ops at Russia and John just picks the right time to reconnect their long lost bond, when seemingly infinite bullets and flyable cars whisk above their heads. Part family reunion, part buddy movie and wholly ludicrous in the plot and action, A Good Day to Die Hard has mayhem oozing from nearly every scenes. That being said, the dialogues are poorly written, lots of crippling plot holes make it less enjoyable than it could have been.

    Its visual is crisp and smooth, having slightly darker color and more vibrant contrast of lighting. It is certainly look the part of a blockbuster movie. However, the plot is paltry as it relies too heavily on coincidences and forced explanations for convenience's sake. Couple that with horribly script for most of the time, it is surprising how many cheesy macho lines that can be churned while being in imminent danger, the product is a movie that's a bit hard to take seriously. The previous Die Hard movies progressively up the ante, from terrorist attack in a building to a national threat, sadly this one doesn't offer that same level of intensity.

    Bruce Willis reprises his iconic role, one that fits him so well. Acting-wise, he's average, though occasionally delivering above average performances. His age actually helps for his father figure as he is displayed as a wiser man, and apparently being old doesn't slow him down much. Jay Courtney as Jack McClane is a newcomer, his previous roles are the antagonist in Jack Reacher and Varro in Spartacus. His appearance suits such action movie, although he's a bit awkward at times. I personally think Bruce Willis had more chemistry with Justin Long from the last movie.

    Sebastian Koch is pretty good as Yuri Kamarov, he provides some intrigue to the movie, as much as the sleazy script allows. Yuliya Snigir as that mandatory hot Russian chick, no point on having Russia as setting without her eye candy babe. She is definitely chosen for the body, because her acting is bordering on creepy, father complex kind of creepiness. The rest are just bad guys line-up who probably could be mistaken from myriad of dozens of movies of the same type.

    The prevailing good news is the action is splendid, no doubt since it's the main appeal. Scenes are shot cleverly, often switching views in bird's eye view, giving the audience good perspective of the scale. The camera also follows the characters closely and quickly, it never loses track while very much delivering adrenaline boosting events. Even though not every one of them was done in real life, but it gives the impression of realistic carnage. It excels amazingly in the department it expected to be.

    While I like the overwhelming abundance of carnage it delivers, the shoddy plot holes and tacky lines are disturbing enough to hamper the experience.
    Expand
  16. Feb 16, 2013
    5
    I think this is how the concept of the movie was developed: "hey guys we need a shoot-em up action movie for some quick cash. Let's just make a ton of guns and explosions, make some nukes and uranium, have bruce willis play a guy from a good movie, and call it Die Hard". No thought was put in the story. In fact, there pretty much was no story. It has nothing to with the other previous andI think this is how the concept of the movie was developed: "hey guys we need a shoot-em up action movie for some quick cash. Let's just make a ton of guns and explosions, make some nukes and uranium, have bruce willis play a guy from a good movie, and call it Die Hard". No thought was put in the story. In fact, there pretty much was no story. It has nothing to with the other previous and decent movies of the same name. However, the action was alright and the movie didn't drag so it is passable. Expand
  17. Feb 16, 2013
    6
    To be completely honest I thought this movie would be awful but it was okay overall. A lot of random explosines and some bull moments, but it had a good story and was well paced but also a little too fast but overall was a okay movie. A Good day to Die Hard 6.4/10
  18. Feb 16, 2013
    6
    well it wasnt the best film in Die Hard franchise. McClane senior had to compete with Junior for audience attention thus he had less dialogues. But that duo gave us adrenaline boosted action sequences which is what we wanted. If only movie was longer than 1,5 h.
  19. Feb 28, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's interesting to make a movie without obviously having any script. In A Good Day to Die Hard" you have got 100 minutes of pure destruction and action. Bruce Willis gives his best to play John McClane once more and his "opponent" Sebastian Koch as Komarov also did very well but the other actors are just not good enough. The cinematography is partially quite interesting but sometimes too bad to look at. Expand
  20. Feb 22, 2013
    5
    Unfortunately the film fails to deliver. From Die Hard you expect McLane in a bloody tank top being kicked and mauled and still moving on and kicking ass, whereas here the kicking is replaced by fancy scenes with lots of effects and not much substance, it doesn't deliver the classic badassery that we've got used to, you know, like him walking in the toilet and pulling glasses out of hisUnfortunately the film fails to deliver. From Die Hard you expect McLane in a bloody tank top being kicked and mauled and still moving on and kicking ass, whereas here the kicking is replaced by fancy scenes with lots of effects and not much substance, it doesn't deliver the classic badassery that we've got used to, you know, like him walking in the toilet and pulling glasses out of his feet, wrap them up and get back in the game, Willis is probably just getting too old for it.

    It also fails with all the father son issue, there are nice gags, it's a nice excuse to get him into Moscow, but aside from that there is no depth to it.

    I still believe is worth the cinema ticket and the popcorn, especially if for any reason you haven't watched the older ones that won't disappoint you, but as an old fan of the franchise this film made me sad.
    Collapse
  21. Feb 26, 2013
    5
    The Movie will leave you questioning if this movie was good or bad and for the first time a die hard film is not about our title character instead most of the story follows his son on their adventure in moscow while the plot is easy to follow and the action is not bad i felt the writing was good for bruce willis as he had a good performance and was funny from time to time while everybodyThe Movie will leave you questioning if this movie was good or bad and for the first time a die hard film is not about our title character instead most of the story follows his son on their adventure in moscow while the plot is easy to follow and the action is not bad i felt the writing was good for bruce willis as he had a good performance and was funny from time to time while everybody else just tried to follow in his footsteps and try to give good performances Expand
  22. Feb 27, 2013
    6
    I am a huge fan of die hard,but i am not really satisfied with the second part of die hard,the first part was really better than second.although its trying to show a love of a father towards his son but still its not able to connect it in a proper way.
  23. Mar 6, 2013
    4
    A Good Day to Die Hard suffers from a slew of problems. Poor pacing, poor camera work at times, a weak dynamic between the two main protagonists, a b-movie plot, and at the end of the day it just simply didn't feel like a Die Hard movie.
  24. Oct 31, 2013
    5
    A fairly mediocre action movie. Some action scenes are nice, but we've all seen better by now. The plot ends up going nowhere and is muddled by constantly shoehorning in lame father-son moments. These two don't have the best relationship, we get it. Needless to say because of this there are a lot of cliches in this movie. I'm also disappointed with Jai Courtney in this. After watching himA fairly mediocre action movie. Some action scenes are nice, but we've all seen better by now. The plot ends up going nowhere and is muddled by constantly shoehorning in lame father-son moments. These two don't have the best relationship, we get it. Needless to say because of this there are a lot of cliches in this movie. I'm also disappointed with Jai Courtney in this. After watching him nail it as Varro in Spartacus: Blood and Sand it's painful to see him barely trying here. Bruce Willis does ok but is still nothing to write home about. It's not terribly bad, but there are a lot of better action movies out there. Expand
  25. Sep 3, 2013
    6
    Although nowhere near the caliber of the original trilogy, A Good Day to Die Hard is still a decent action flick. A few of the action scenes are actually mildly impressive and feel very much like a return to 80's action cheese. Again, this is no classic (and the weakest Die Hard to boot) but I still had some brainless fun.
  26. Feb 23, 2013
    5
    The more I see these official reviews giving bad reviews onto movies and games, then more I avoid them completely: while it's definitely NOT a great movie, it was still ok and at least it wouldn't make me cry in anger unlike another "debatable" movie, who got MUCH BETTER scores but it's much worse in all possible ways, than this ("cough" Twilight Saga"cough"). But I gotta admit, itThe more I see these official reviews giving bad reviews onto movies and games, then more I avoid them completely: while it's definitely NOT a great movie, it was still ok and at least it wouldn't make me cry in anger unlike another "debatable" movie, who got MUCH BETTER scores but it's much worse in all possible ways, than this ("cough" Twilight Saga"cough"). But I gotta admit, it definitely looks bland: the story is almost non-existant, with a very weak twist in the end and a we barely get much development between the main protagonists, without mentioning that (in my version) there were no subtitles in a lot of the scenes where they talk russian, making me literally wait until it was over (if you had, then don't bother with this statement). While the story and dialogues were bland, the actions scenes however were very good and were enjoyable, even though nothing extreme but still gave a good amount of destruction on screen, with a "good" finisher in the end for the bad guy. Nothing special...but yeah, in comparison to the original movies (although I think Live or Die hard was decent), it was really bland and really forgettable. Would I suggest it? Not really, but if you have nothing better to watch you might enjoy some mindless destruction and action. Skippable, but not terrible either. Expand
  27. May 25, 2013
    6
    I was a big fan of the Die Hard series, but face it, it hasn't been that great since the last two installments. Sure, it's much better than the last one, where McClane suddenly become a superman and clinging on harrier jets, but the whole film feels anemic compared with its closest 'competitor', the Fast and Furious series. Another big problem...the story relies on Jack McClane a lot butI was a big fan of the Die Hard series, but face it, it hasn't been that great since the last two installments. Sure, it's much better than the last one, where McClane suddenly become a superman and clinging on harrier jets, but the whole film feels anemic compared with its closest 'competitor', the Fast and Furious series. Another big problem...the story relies on Jack McClane a lot but the actor playing him, Jay Courtney has none of the charisma and wit that made Willis a superstar that he is now. A such, the film felt lopsided...Willis is still good, but he has no one to banter with. The last third of the film was pretty good, but heck...Die Hard simply needs to be better in this day and age. Now, it feels like a relic of the 90's. Expand
  28. Mar 2, 2013
    6
    The critics are totally exaggerating with their overly negative reviews. This is a solid action flick with a lot of cheap one-liners and a few sizable plot holes, but it has excellent action and a great John McLane, and that's all that it takes in this case to enjoy your 90 minutes.
  29. Feb 28, 2013
    6
    The first diehard was the first restricted movie I saw back 87. Now in 2013, married and 3 kids later, I have to admit I low expectations after the reviews came out, but the movie is nowhere near as bad as the critics are saying. Some exellent action, some cheesy cgi, and Bruce on autopilot.

    I am not sure if the problem is the direction or the script....and I suspect both are the weak
    The first diehard was the first restricted movie I saw back 87. Now in 2013, married and 3 kids later, I have to admit I low expectations after the reviews came out, but the movie is nowhere near as bad as the critics are saying. Some exellent action, some cheesy cgi, and Bruce on autopilot.

    I am not sure if the problem is the direction or the script....and I suspect both are the weak links here. The weakest of the diehards, but far from the worst movie I have ever seen (action or otherwise).
    Expand
  30. Nov 4, 2013
    4
    This was horrible. I've not seen any of the previous Die Hard films, but I can tell you that "A Good Day to Die Hard" is simply not good. The whole movie is filled with loud, noisy and underplotted storytelling.
  31. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Why did McClain SR keep on saying he is on vacation?. Worst one liner ever! He was not on vacation he was there to find his son who was supposedly facing live in prison with harry dudes or worse yet the death chamber. If that is a vacation I have some Carnival Cruise tickets I could give him. This movie blows with its feeble attempt to pass on the torch to Jr, and its horrible set pieces. I mean how many times are they going to show the front of the Chernobyl plant with the construction scooper backing up and pulling forward but never actually doing anything. The son falls into a swimming pool under an enclosed roof that has been abandoned for 35 years and guess what, its full of water.. Rain water my ass!!!! This movie is about the quality of the last Indiana Jones film and should bring the franchise to a close with a whimper. Expand
  32. Feb 23, 2013
    5
    Remember to place your expectations appropriately the previous Die Hard films have been released in order of quality. This movie follows its expected design and doesn’t falter in regards to FXs, action, cinematography, or direction. Give this film the same chance and patients as you would a James Bond movie and you’ll be content.
  33. Feb 28, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Recibí lo que esperaba: poco, Un buen día para morir es una película para un público poco exigente que sabe a lo que va, buenos efectos especiales utilizados como nube de humo para esconder personajes poco carismáticos que olvidaremos fácilmente, la química entre los personajes padre e hijo fue cero y acartonada. Bruce Willis hizo lo suyo, al menos lo que pudo a su edad.

    Es una película que entretiene más por sus fuegos artificiales que por sus diálogos, las glorias de años pasados han llegado a su fin. Con algunas inconsistencias en el tiempo y en escenas, la película se centra en la relación de McClane y su hijo, que intentando salvar a un presidiario se envuelve en más enredos de los que esperaban, al final, los malos pierden, los buenos ganan, fueron felices y comieron perdices, no defraudará a los seguidores de la saga ni del género.

    Lo bueno: Escenas de acción bien elaboradas, Sorpresas inesperadas al final, Mucha acción, 97 minutos fue el tiempo perfecto para lo que ocurrio.

    Lo malo: Poco química entre los personajes, McClane quejándose constantemente del fiasco de sus vacaciones, sentimentalismos en los momentos menos indicados, guion y trama débil, personajes secundarios pobremente interpretados.

    Ya se ha confirmado la sexta parte aunque pienso que este es “Un buen día para morir”.
    Expand
  34. Feb 20, 2013
    4
    An excitable mess of violence and action that Die Hard has always been known for, yet poor direction from John Moore (not for the first time) and a meagre plot, coupled with the generic acting of action hero Jai Courtney, make A Good Die to Just Die Altogether little more than an alright action film. Bruce Willis' iconoclast role as John McClane gently pushes the film into the realm ofAn excitable mess of violence and action that Die Hard has always been known for, yet poor direction from John Moore (not for the first time) and a meagre plot, coupled with the generic acting of action hero Jai Courtney, make A Good Die to Just Die Altogether little more than an alright action film. Bruce Willis' iconoclast role as John McClane gently pushes the film into the realm of average, yet without him this film would be very weak, and regardless is already the poorest of the Die Hard franchise. Expand
  35. Mar 7, 2013
    6
    I generally enjoyed going to see Die Hard, although it doesn't have the same feel as all previous installments. Sure, Bruce Willis is there killing bad guys, but it seems as though this one was rather unnecessary. The movie develops almost exactly as you expect it (besides a twist later on in the film). I can't say I regret going to see it, but I can say it probably could have been betterI generally enjoyed going to see Die Hard, although it doesn't have the same feel as all previous installments. Sure, Bruce Willis is there killing bad guys, but it seems as though this one was rather unnecessary. The movie develops almost exactly as you expect it (besides a twist later on in the film). I can't say I regret going to see it, but I can say it probably could have been better in my opinion. Expand
  36. Mar 20, 2013
    4
    I wanted so hard to be able to say that I LOVE this one. However, the only thing I do love is the son. The face, the smile, the figure.^-^ What has happened, the fun is still there and the action... They just managed to make 98mins like forever. It just never stop. Die Hard? However about just stop and breath for once.
  37. Apr 22, 2013
    5
    I really wanted this one to be a great "Die Hard" film. I wanted it to be just like "Live Free or Die Hard". But instead, this is what we get. I'm not saying this movie was pure crap, but I honestly think it could have been done better. When I first heard that John Moore was going to directing, I had to search him up and see if his other movies were good. Turns out they weren't good atI really wanted this one to be a great "Die Hard" film. I wanted it to be just like "Live Free or Die Hard". But instead, this is what we get. I'm not saying this movie was pure crap, but I honestly think it could have been done better. When I first heard that John Moore was going to directing, I had to search him up and see if his other movies were good. Turns out they weren't good at all, but i still decided to give this one a shot. Yet, i was wrong. "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a muffled action movie that just goes all over the place. Bruce Willis doesn't even act like John McClane in this one. John just wasn't in this movie. But the chemistry between Jai (Jack) and Bruce (John) somewhat turned out alright. But with the other distractions like trying to figure out who the real villan was just drove me up a wall. It didn't capture a good villan. It captured too many other villans that it was hard to find the actually villan. I was really expecting something like a good "Alan Rickman" or "Jeremy Irons" or even "Timothy Olyphant". None of that was there. The movie does have some good action though, other than that, the story's just a mess. Overall, it's a dissapointing Die Hard movie. Expand
  38. Apr 9, 2013
    5
    This film simply did not feel like a Die Hard movie... where was John McClain?? all I saw was Bruce Willis walking from explosions in slow motion. Hope they maybe cut down on making Die Hard movies as its killing the action legacy that the first filmleft
  39. Apr 10, 2013
    4
    Action, Action, Action... fun movie nothing unexpected and sort of predictable, yet entertaining. I can truly say that John McClane is living up to the title... This series has yet to Die, hence its title DIE HARD.
  40. Apr 25, 2013
    4
    I was pretty dissapointed with this movie. I absolutely loved Die Hard 4.0, and had high hopes that this one would be just as exciting and enjoyable, but it really wasn't. It's missing things that the last movie had like a solid villain, a clear threat, an interesting setting and real stakes to be fighting for. I mean the last movie involved John essentially saving the entire US from cyberI was pretty dissapointed with this movie. I absolutely loved Die Hard 4.0, and had high hopes that this one would be just as exciting and enjoyable, but it really wasn't. It's missing things that the last movie had like a solid villain, a clear threat, an interesting setting and real stakes to be fighting for. I mean the last movie involved John essentially saving the entire US from cyber terrorists, whereas here they seem to be fighting for an office block in freaking Chernobyl.
    I had no investment in anyone and while one or two action sequences were cool, they don't match up to the ones in 4. Really dissapointing.
    Expand
  41. Jul 4, 2013
    6
    This is a action packed,fun popcorn movie.I agree with people that it doesn't fell like a Die Hard movie.But,I still think it is a fun movie to watch.
  42. Jun 11, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. John McClane is my favorite action hero. He fights dirty, delivers clever one-liners, and maintains the element of an overall likable guy that runs into situations that he even wonders how he got into. McClane has killed 65 people over 4 films, and has sustained more injuries than Tony Stark's Iron Man suit. The man should have died dozens of times ago, but he's that "----ing energizer bunny." In his 5th installment of the Die Hard series, McClane heads to Russia to see his son (Jai Courtney), who has been arrested for murder. Little does McClane know that he is about to walk into a battle, in which he has to protect himself, his son, who is really an undercover CIA operative, and find out the truth as to why he has run into yet another bad day.

    What was successful for the first four Die Hards was the development of the characters, the villains and their witty schemes. While the plot gives us an interesting idea and a smart twist towards the end, the story is relatively flat and rushed. This may be in part to the 98-minute film length, but it is really the screenwriter's fault. Sure, there is plenty of action, CGI, slow motion, shootings, explosions, etc, but the villains are not strong enough to be despicable nor even be understandable in their motives. Even the interaction between McClane and his son is incredibly weak. At least the writer had some decency to throw in the occasional humorous lines that gives the good guys their charm.

    While critics may call this a bad movie, it does not necessarily mean that it is not entertaining. Director John Moore gives the viewer some popcorn loving action sequences that are very well shot, specifically a car chase sequence in which it appears that every other car in Moscow is either wrecked or obliterated. It is worth noting that this is the first Die Hard to be filmed almost entirely hand-held and it gives an impression of a cool action flick. It is never bad to see Bruce Willis on the screening kicking ass either. I cannot say that this is the best Die Hard, but it is not a complete loss either. For my Friday afternoon, it was money well spent.
    Expand
  43. Feb 26, 2015
    5
    There must be a record for the number of cars smashed up in this movie. Lame plot and well, did I mention the cars. Plot twist that doesn't go anywhere except suddenly the movie is over.
  44. Nov 25, 2013
    5
    This is a generic action movie where one impossible situation is followed by another and the name ‘Die Hard’ is used to increase profits. Willis looks tired, the father-son relationship is meaningless (we’ve seen the same thing a thousand times before), the plot is silly and poorly developed (a small war is waged in Moscow but no authorities intervene) and it is unclear who the protagonistThis is a generic action movie where one impossible situation is followed by another and the name ‘Die Hard’ is used to increase profits. Willis looks tired, the father-son relationship is meaningless (we’ve seen the same thing a thousand times before), the plot is silly and poorly developed (a small war is waged in Moscow but no authorities intervene) and it is unclear who the protagonist is, McClane or his son. The action scenes are well-directed though and Yuliya Snigir is beautiful.
    argonautis.eu
    Expand
  45. AR3
    Aug 4, 2013
    6
    Critically speaking, this might sound like a small detail, but I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the music jumped out as so obviously "off" in so many scenes, especially the beginning. Music in a film is not a minor detail... and whoever made some of the final decisions on this one... well... really? Other than that, the movie has a lot going for it if you're not tooCritically speaking, this might sound like a small detail, but I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the music jumped out as so obviously "off" in so many scenes, especially the beginning. Music in a film is not a minor detail... and whoever made some of the final decisions on this one... well... really? Other than that, the movie has a lot going for it if you're not too uptight about a little cheesiness. I get that it isn't quite the writing caliber of the other Die Hards, but it has great action scenes, and plenty of entertainment. Expand
  46. Aug 14, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well this movie deserves a 5 or a six why? it is to short In the first part of the movie they are in Russia then in the later part of the movie they are in a Power plant or something like that why isn't there more locations in the movie like France or japan? and John McClain's son is so unlikable but there is a lot of action in this movie. Expand
  47. Sep 15, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First of all, let me say I am a huge Die Hard fan. I really expected this movie to be good, and thought the trailer was decent enough. So i went and saw it. Big mistake.

    This movie is a not a Die Hard movie. It has no Die Hard qualities to it. The other movies had small, compact spaces; one or two locations (the 3rd one is an exception);cat-and-mouse games;evil villains who added suspense and character to the story; of this movie had none of those things.

    For example, it took place in so many locations. We move from a house to a ballroom to Chernobyl (which McClane and his son get to pretty fast considering they're driving from Moscow to Ukraine). Also, this movie had very little storyline. We go from John Jr. hating his father to loving him in a matter of minutes. And also, why couldn't John call for CIA backup once they were out of harm's way? It doesn't make sense. Plus, a plethora of Bruce Willis/John McClane one liners did not save this movie's script from crashing and burning. "Let's go kill some motherf***ers." Really? Couldn't come up with anything better? On a brighter note, the action was there, but pervasive and shoot-em-up. John Moore, being a typical 21st century quick, fast shot director, decides to have fast frames to the point where we don't even know what's happening. I also liked the plot twist at the climax, and how they brought back some clichés from the first movie **SPOILER** (With the main villain falling from a helicopter, similar to hands Gruber falling from the building) **END SPOILER** and others. But overall, this was a generic action movie that didn't have a well-developed story line or characters. It used action movie clichés and fast shots to show the violence and chases, something not very liked. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was constructed first and then the Die Hard name lent itself to it.
    Expand
  48. Aug 26, 2014
    4
    This movie was borderline disappointing. Of course, there was explosions and car chasing like any typical Bruce Willis movie but I felt that this movie did not live up to it's expectations.
Metascore
28

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 40
  2. Negative: 24 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Laremy Legel
    Feb 26, 2013
    16
    The entire enterprise is a bewildering mess, put in place only to frustrate and alienate anyone who buys a ticket. Every action scene is telegraphed, and most of the dialogue is irrevocably stupid.
  2. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    Feb 18, 2013
    40
    I hesitate to ask, but did anyone actually tell McClane, before he arrived, that the Cold War is over?
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Morgenstern
    Feb 16, 2013
    10
    For anyone who remembers the "Die Hard" adventures at their vital and exciting best, this film feels like a near-death experience.