User Score
4.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 454 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. 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
  2. Mar 8, 2013
    2
    Let me start off by saying I am an action film fanatic. I understand some action films should not be judged like dramas or thrillers. The thing is, The action in this latest Die Hard installment Is completely forgettable, Therefore it must be judged by everything else in the film. It's almost as if Bruce Willis didn't read the script. When I originally read the reviews and saw that theLet me start off by saying I am an action film fanatic. I understand some action films should not be judged like dramas or thrillers. The thing is, The action in this latest Die Hard installment Is completely forgettable, Therefore it must be judged by everything else in the film. It's almost as if Bruce Willis didn't read the script. When I originally read the reviews and saw that the movie was bust with the critics I called BS. "No way can a Die Hard film be THAT bad" I thought to myself. It saddens me to say this, but the critics are right. Hell, Battleship was more entertaining than this film. Now that's SAD! I can only hope Bruce Willis has a Stallone moment, and realizes the mistake of this film and ends it right like Stallone did with Rocky Balboa. I'm patiently waiting... Expand
  3. Mar 8, 2013
    7
    Enjoyed the film for what it was, a popcorn flick that you will probably watch once and forget most of it but is an entertaining way enough to kill 90 mins or so.. I think the expectations are that people want Die Hard 1 but you can't recreate it (and if it hadn't been made until now it would probably be panned in the reviews.). It's not as good as Die Hard 1 or 3 but is better than 4.0..Enjoyed the film for what it was, a popcorn flick that you will probably watch once and forget most of it but is an entertaining way enough to kill 90 mins or so.. I think the expectations are that people want Die Hard 1 but you can't recreate it (and if it hadn't been made until now it would probably be panned in the reviews.). It's not as good as Die Hard 1 or 3 but is better than 4.0.. so it's a start! Expand
  4. Mar 9, 2013
    1
    Director John Moore does what no man can do kill John McClane. The script is horrible, you don't care about one of these characters including McClane, and the CGI action scenes are just a waste of time.
  5. Oct 8, 2013
    3
    Another action movie franchise based on overexploited. Bruce Willis is in his role, it is not surprising. The only surprise is how well he is for his age he has.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. Apr 2, 2013
    1
    A Good Day to Fall Asleep During a Crappy Movie..... how bad was it?!?!

    They should not have called this a 'Die Hard' movie..... it was sooooo boring. At least in the first 3 Bruce played a consistent portrayal of John McClane. I think he needs to go back and watch those films again as i did not once feel like i was watching the character John McClane at all! Very little in terms of
    A Good Day to Fall Asleep During a Crappy Movie..... how bad was it?!?!

    They should not have called this a 'Die Hard' movie..... it was sooooo boring. At least in the first 3 Bruce played a consistent portrayal of John McClane. I think he needs to go back and watch those films again as i did not once feel like i was watching the character John McClane at all! Very little in terms of being a cheeky wisecracking guy, and was more yelling out something every 1/2 hour which tried to remind us we were watching McClane.... which backfired. It did not feel like i was watching a jaded NYC cop in Russia.... i felt like i was watching some other old man. My fiances family went with me who are all huge DH fans and not one of them liked it at all.

    On a positive note i could not fault the action but this would have been better served up as 'Expendables 3' than 'Die Hard 5'.... the DH series deserves better..... go back to LA or NY and wrap this story up the way it deserves!
    Expand
  9. Apr 9, 2013
    7
    This movie is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination and has nothing on its predecessors, but it is one of the most fun movies I have seen in a long time, with it's combination of massive, over the top action sequences dominating the majority if the movie and McClane's dry humour weaved in-between huge explosions, results in a highly entertaining movie.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. May 6, 2013
    2
    They should just stop making die hard movies. Each one seems to be worse than the one before it. I almost fell asleep in the middle of it. Can you imagine that...bruce willis movie..die hard...and i am almost sleeping in the middle of it...just save yourself some time and stay away from it
  15. May 23, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 7/10 just for the charismatic characters, chase through Moscow and a bunch of helicopters.The movie is terrible on errors. Who will miss the Maybach on the border of Russia and Ukraine without documents from our driver and passenger.? You did not know that the Pripyat in Ukraine? Apparently in the U.S. are idiots and can not look at a map? What kind of idiotic gas shut-off radiation? In such nonsense even kids will not believe! As radiation from the storage of uranium is not found in the bank all these years?Guys you had the original gold script and you ruined it! Only the big chase does not allow to cast aside the director's tomatoes! Expand
  16. Jun 4, 2013
    0
    I watched this on premiere in Belgrade... I'm pretty big fan of Mr. Willis and Die Hard genre... But i must say that this was one of the worst movies EVER! I mean.. maybe i'm too judgemental cause i really like Die Hard and this was bad No story.. no nothing... Whole movie is created around few lines like "Oh my God" or "I'm on vacation" etc...

    Anyhow.. big big disappointment
  17. Jun 6, 2013
    7
    John didn't seem his clumsy laugh at killing bad guys self. Almost like they subdued his character to make room for his son.

    Another bad guy thrown off a roof, another copter crash, stuff we've already seen. Not the best Die Hard movie but it did have some good action parts like the chase. Just ignore the part about the SUV pushing a 30 ton armored vehicle off the road...
  18. 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
  19. Jun 23, 2013
    7
    Very Enjoyable :)

    Starts of rather comedic as a tribute to the franchise perhaps.. this then escalates to a full blown action movie Yippee Ka Yeh~!
  20. 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
  21. Aug 12, 2013
    3
    this is more like a Bad Day to Die Easy. This is a film so choppy, so poorly edited, so poorly paced, and so horribly unnecessary that its a crime to watch. Now, I was looking forward to this movie before it came out. I am a relative fan of Die Hard so it was no surprise that I was excited for this one. However, the movie feels like the writer had watched the Bourne Supremacy and Hitmanthis is more like a Bad Day to Die Easy. This is a film so choppy, so poorly edited, so poorly paced, and so horribly unnecessary that its a crime to watch. Now, I was looking forward to this movie before it came out. I am a relative fan of Die Hard so it was no surprise that I was excited for this one. However, the movie feels like the writer had watched the Bourne Supremacy and Hitman too much (he actually wrote hitman) and felt that Moscow needed more explosions and John Mclane. I have no clue why Fox had this guy right the fifth die hard movie. IT DOESN'T EVEN FEEL LIKE A DIE HARD MOVIE. The only thing that comes close is the soundtrack and Mclane's famous catch fraze. A good day to die hard lacks a huge element-John Mclane. He has no reason being there whatsoever in this pointless and confusing plot. I mean HOW??? How could Fox do this to a franchise? I mean i could understand if this franchise was like the Resident Evil series and they pumped out a lackluster action thriller, but this is DIE HARD. The villain sucks in this movie, you never really find out what their motives are or their cause all you get is them shooting up buildings and chasing some russian scientist. The action is tensionless, a lot of explodes and cars fly but you don't care really. In the end A good day to die hard is a waste of time, money and potiential. I'm sure this seals the funeral for the franchise. Shame. Mclane deserved more. Expand
  22. Aug 1, 2013
    8
    Yes, it's the worst of Die Hard series, but "A Good Day to Die Hard" offers terrific action scenes, car persecutions, and all of Die Hard give to us. Very Good Movie.
  23. Jul 29, 2013
    1
    this is why mclane son was never really shown in the other films.predictable sad and missing life. watch it it is wasteful how many minutes they waste on cliches if u get the feeling of deja vu well im with u man this is a movie ill waste 5 dollars for just to hear the commentary. sad so sad
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Aug 13, 2013
    2
    Unnecessarily vulgar. The script was lacking in variety and frankly, childish. A bad script ultimately leads to poor acting. With big names and a promising promo, this film really let its audience down.
  27. Sep 15, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers. 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.
    Collapse
  28. Oct 27, 2013
    0
    One of the most stupidest movie ever made! Amount of mistakes made in this movie is way above of any reasonable limit. Its even more offensively that it was another part of a good sequel, it wasn't McClane, it was Bruce Willis acting some guy in absurd universe.
  29. May 25, 2014
    2
    disappointing does anyone remember die hard 1 nothing about this is anything like that bruce wilis does not even smoke he just gets chanced and chances back with his son who pulls a gun out of know where in 1 seen but suppose any 5th instalment or the end of a trilogy doesn't end well
  30. Feb 2, 2014
    3
    A Good Day to Die Hard boasts huge (though overlong) action sequences but that does not cover up for it's stupid script and forced father son relationship.
  31. 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.
  32. Dec 17, 2013
    2
    'Like father like son' The Idea was good to bring John Mclane's Son in the movie, but it lacked story and I was completely disappointed. The movie sure did Died Hard.
    Overall 3/10
    Acting 5/10
    Storyline 2/10
  33. Dec 24, 2013
    0
    What the heck is this I can't imagine if someone would be happy to spend nearly 1 hour and 40 minutes on this crap. I strongly think that it's high time series "Die Hard" ended for good
  34. Dec 30, 2013
    2
    Awfully directionless and frustratingly lacking basic fundamental film elements. The film seriously damages the character John McClane. Where were all the Russian cops following all the destruction of the first scene? When did it become acceptable for an American Cop to turn up in Moscow and kill hundreds of innocent bystanders just because he wanted to track his son? There was littleAwfully directionless and frustratingly lacking basic fundamental film elements. The film seriously damages the character John McClane. Where were all the Russian cops following all the destruction of the first scene? When did it become acceptable for an American Cop to turn up in Moscow and kill hundreds of innocent bystanders just because he wanted to track his son? There was little emotion in the film other than the pathetically forced father and son scene at the end. There was no peak in the film, just a boring, flat story with forced action drivel. Expand
  35. Jan 17, 2014
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie it's even a bigger insult to the Die Hard franchise, Than the previous horrible sequel, with no charm of the first 3 movies, there is no chemistry between Bruce Willis, and Jai Courtney, no Yipee-Kay-Yay mother *beep* moment, terrible and fake looking CGI action scenes that doesn't hold a candle to the originals, and finally Bruce Willis just acting like a douche, and not John McClane. Expand
  36. chw
    Jul 17, 2014
    3
    What a god awful Die Hard sequel. If I have to watch it a second time I'm going to die hard it was that terrible. I'd say "in my opinion" but I just can't, because millions think the same.
  37. Mar 26, 2014
    1
    Willis literally threw away the franchise - with the help of a director (John Moore) who hasn't had a movie above 37% on RT (Lifetime average: 24%)...
  38. May 4, 2014
    1
    Live Free or Die Hard may have been PG-13, but it was still worth watching. If you want to see John McClane at his worst, then this is the movie for you to avoid. This franchise went from completely different to using too much of their old tricks. It stoops to the level of Jason Statham's "Parker" and Sylvester Stallone's "Bullet to the Head", both of which make their main actors look likeLive Free or Die Hard may have been PG-13, but it was still worth watching. If you want to see John McClane at his worst, then this is the movie for you to avoid. This franchise went from completely different to using too much of their old tricks. It stoops to the level of Jason Statham's "Parker" and Sylvester Stallone's "Bullet to the Head", both of which make their main actors look like pedestrians. With a title like "A Good Day To Die Hard", no wonder John McClane is ready for euthanization. Expand
  39. Nov 10, 2014
    3
    A Good Day to Die Hard boasts huge (though overlong) action sequences but that does not cover up for it's stupid script and forced father son relationship.
  40. Sep 2, 2014
    1
    This movie was a total train wreck. I don't understand. The other four movies had the recipe down for what works in a Bruce Willis action adventure, they showed that they could hold their own...I mean...what...what in the world happened? I watched this and I couldn't believe my eyes. The Die Hard series, one of my most loved series's, has been butchered. Everything that made the otherThis movie was a total train wreck. I don't understand. The other four movies had the recipe down for what works in a Bruce Willis action adventure, they showed that they could hold their own...I mean...what...what in the world happened? I watched this and I couldn't believe my eyes. The Die Hard series, one of my most loved series's, has been butchered. Everything that made the other films good had been left behind for no reason at all. In the other Die Hards, Bruce led the charge and was the primary driving force of the action and the plot. He had help yes but there was no mistake that he was the big daddy. Without that you get a movie like this. There is no complex network of evil to figure out and break down, there is no playful, humorous, bantering, no well defined plot, there is just Bruce Willis with a gun yelling things every now and again. No lead acting at all! They give his whiny brat of a son too much screen time as well. Its like Batman and Robin just bickering at each other but you're not even really sure which ones which at times. This was a shot to the face as a fan. Seriously, how could you? This doesn't belong in the Die Hard legacy. Fail. Expand
  41. Dec 15, 2014
    2
    Yippie-ki-whaaaaa? This movie would still be bad even if it didn't have anything to do with Die Hard. The action was okay but very far fetched at times. Die Hard movies can be very over the top, but this one took it too far. Again, if it wasnt for the name 'Die Hard' attached to the name it would be easy to not be quite as critical of this one, but is still a very poor movie that feelsYippie-ki-whaaaaa? This movie would still be bad even if it didn't have anything to do with Die Hard. The action was okay but very far fetched at times. Die Hard movies can be very over the top, but this one took it too far. Again, if it wasnt for the name 'Die Hard' attached to the name it would be easy to not be quite as critical of this one, but is still a very poor movie that feels like every line is being read directly from que-cards as they are being said. Expand
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.