Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 14, 2013
4.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 512 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
136
Mixed:
165
Negative:
211
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
mapizarroOct 8, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MovieGuysSep 15, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TokyochuchuSep 3, 2013
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 isAlthough 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
NeedForsleepAug 14, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
film_bugAug 13, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
sonofosamadamsAug 12, 2013
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 ofthis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AR3Aug 4, 2013
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...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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
cameronmorewoodAug 3, 2013
Perhaps a better title for this senseless, loud, ridiculous, and tediously preposterous action droll would've been 'A Good Day to Not Go to the Movies.'
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
LaMagiadeVirueAug 1, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
dyshpoJul 29, 2013
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 5this 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 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FullmetalJul 27, 2013
A well shot die hard movie. The story was a little unbelievable, and at first I didn't like the actor who played his son. The guy seemed wooden. As for the action sequences, they were really good. I like Bruce Willis, and it is hard for me toA well shot die hard movie. The story was a little unbelievable, and at first I didn't like the actor who played his son. The guy seemed wooden. As for the action sequences, they were really good. I like Bruce Willis, and it is hard for me to bash anything he is in. They all promise to be entertaining, and this movie was that. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
ClayMerrittJul 21, 2013
Why? That's a legit question. Why? One of the biggest movies to come out in the 80s was Die Hard, then along came Die Hard 2, then Die Hard With A Vengeance in the 90s, then Live Free Or Die Hard most recently. After this, I honestly don'tWhy? That's a legit question. Why? One of the biggest movies to come out in the 80s was Die Hard, then along came Die Hard 2, then Die Hard With A Vengeance in the 90s, then Live Free Or Die Hard most recently. After this, I honestly don't know if this franchise could be saved. Its fallen from one of the most beloved action franchises, to has-been action franchise. The PG-13 label on Live Free Or Die Hard was an experiment from what I read, so, naturally, they take this one and slap the R rating back on it. So what do you get? You get the star Bruce Willis saving his son from the Russians in a crazily, sometimes unnecessary, violent mashed together pile of crap. If, for some reason, Fox decides to make another Die Hard film, call it Die Hard 3 & get an actual story, director, and supporting actors to rally around Bruce Willis, so maybe, MAYBE the franchise won't seem as bad anymore. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
KangarooKurtJul 14, 2013
About a decade ago, Bruce Willis appeared on a late night talk show (Letterman?) and proclaimed that he wasn't doing any more Die Hards because 'there are only so many ways you can run down the street with a gun, screaming.' He really shouldAbout a decade ago, Bruce Willis appeared on a late night talk show (Letterman?) and proclaimed that he wasn't doing any more Die Hards because 'there are only so many ways you can run down the street with a gun, screaming.' He really should have stuck with that.

As much as I love watching Bruce and as much as Die Hard has to offer, there's just nothing left of the original in this one it's as much of a milking-the-box-office exercise as I've ever seen in my life. What a waste.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ICEExMagicJul 4, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
SkipperJul 2, 2013
Far and away the worst die hard movie. The plot is nonsensical, the twists are contrived, and the script seems like it was written by a 12-year-old. This movie is unwatchably bad, even if you're only in it for the action scenes.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
airwindJun 23, 2013
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~!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
nutterjrJun 21, 2013
A disappointment in every level imaginable. It reminded me of the other film Willis made with another on screen son 'Cold Light of Day' only worse. A good day to call it a day.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
Mothman225Jun 11, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CurlyJ49Jun 6, 2013
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
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...
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Forrestgump1Jun 4, 2013
"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"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 Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
el3ctr0Jun 4, 2013
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 NoI 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
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
averyjerryguyMay 31, 2013
epic
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
3
Nesbitt10May 28, 2013
Making a good action movie is challenging because it requires continuity between the storyline with the action scenes--appearing balanced, maximizing the level of excitement while providing some credibility to the plot. Despite using theMaking a good action movie is challenging because it requires continuity between the storyline with the action scenes--appearing balanced, maximizing the level of excitement while providing some credibility to the plot. Despite using the formula that has worked so well time and time again, the end result is truly disappointing--easily the worst installment: loud, mindless, and an utterly uninspiring. The fifth chapter in this on-going franchise is dead on arrival.

Bruce Willis returns to his iconic role, (and mind you, he will again), and this time around, McClane is in the wrong place at the wrong time--again--after traveling to Moscow to help his estranged son Jack. Bruce has no idea that Jack is really a highly trained CIA operative, whose mission is to stop a nuclear weapons heist. With the Russian underworld in pursuit, and battling a countdown to war, the two McLane's discover that their opposing methods make them the ultimate two-person army.

Willis is not the reason this fails so miserably. A weak script written by Skip Woods containing numerous problems, and poor directing and direction by John Moore ("Max Payne" (2008), "The Omen" (2006)). Woods' limited filmography contains nothing surpassing mediocrity, and this display is further proof of just that. To compound the on-going script issues, the very premise in itself doesn't hold a shred of credibility. There are continuous sequences of explosions, carnage, and utter destruction surrounding the Russian capital, and yet there is never any sign of any law enforcement or government involvement what so ever. It's an action film for sheer entertainment purposes--I get it--and people like explosions, but come on.

The chemistry between the characters and story line lacks development due to the limited time to actually speak, and when they do you wish they weren’t. What really takes the cake is when John's nemesis Alik (Rasha Bukvic), talks about how he used to be a pretty good tap dancer whom no one appreciated. Ironically, what passes as John McClane's wise cracks is anything but humorous. Most of McLane's lines are in the context of his father-son relationship with Jack (Jai Courtney), but are hardly witty or engaging. They are also frustratingly repetitive, consisting of John lamenting how Jack rarely shows him any respect as a father, or John lamenting how he had expected no more than a vacation in Moscow.

Despite the frenetic pacing in a compact 97 minutes-the abundance of action is staged so unimaginatively that it fails to even interest, let alone excite you. A missed opportunity to possibly lead the franchise into a new direction: John passing the baton to his son, a CIA operative is never considered. Ultimately, just another big budget action movie dumped into middle of February that will score big in the box office, and as a result "A Good Day To Die Hard" will have another tomorrow.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
dharmaMay 25, 2013
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 wholeI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
GRaFkiyvMay 23, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
DavidJrMay 22, 2013
I don't know why people hate this movie it's enjoyable. It's action packed, what else do you want from a Die Hard movie. I only recommend for Die Hard fans.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
b-radMay 19, 2013
A Good Day to Die Hard is a colossal disappointment. Fans of the franchise would surely agree that the fifth entry in this action-packed series pissed all over its four outstanding predecessors out of it's sheer awfulness.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
2
PimpinpakmanMay 6, 2013
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 ofThey 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 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
RalphsReviewsApr 29, 2013
What an absolute piece of GARBAGE! This is one of the worst movies of the year. It is horribly lazy and bad. The dialogue was horrible, the actors didn't look like they cared, and the director was incapable of using a tripod throughout theWhat an absolute piece of GARBAGE! This is one of the worst movies of the year. It is horribly lazy and bad. The dialogue was horrible, the actors didn't look like they cared, and the director was incapable of using a tripod throughout the entire movie. It was a studio cash-in to make money off of the "Die Hard" name. It isn't "Die Hard" anymore. It is just a generic dumb action movie with unlikable characters, bad pacing, confusing action sequences and horribly unfunny jokes. "I'M ON VACATION!" If you are a fan of "Die Hard", don't watch it. If you aren't don't watch it. I could not recommend this film to any human being on the planet. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
RIKI_JApr 25, 2013
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, aI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews