Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 14, 2013
4.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 506 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
136
Mixed:
163
Negative:
207
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)
2
EpicLadySpongeFeb 4, 2016
This unfortunate and unexpected installment is more like... "A Good Day to Kill a Franchise", am I right? Die Hard fans should easily be disappointed with this installment.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
BrianMcCriticMar 9, 2013
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
lukechristianscJun 29, 2015
The director of Max Panye continues to destroy beloved franchises, but this time he destroyed the "Die Hard" series and crushed fan's hopes to like "A Good Day to Die Hard". I heard nothing positive for this film, what is there to like aboutThe director of Max Panye continues to destroy beloved franchises, but this time he destroyed the "Die Hard" series and crushed fan's hopes to like "A Good Day to Die Hard". I heard nothing positive for this film, what is there to like about the film? Yes Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, but it sucks that I didn't like him enough that sucks especially in a die hard film you dig John, he's not John McClane, the film lost his like ability. Screenwriter Skip Woods's script puts no charisma into John McClane, there is some but not enough like the last four films did . Director John Moore gives us unrealistic special effects, we can tell he loves explosion porn, the editing sucks! It's edited by the editor of "Max Panye" Dan Zimmerman's editing is lazy it's feels like a video game. The problem with this movie is it's like a video game, for example: John and Jack fell from a building like super heroes and feel and don't have a scratch or a broken ankle. It's a rip off! The only reason why it's going to make a ton of money at the box office is it's a die hard movie. The poster of the film should of said "from the director of 'Max Panye'" if fans saw that poster they won't go see it. The acting is hammy, the dialogue is stupid. Willis did a good job as John McClane, Jai Courtney was awesome go watch them in something else. All the "Die Hard" movies have a memorable villain, but in this movie the villain is a mystery and villain number one is tap dancing and eating a carrot that's telling you something! The villains in the film are so poorly written; yes it's rated R, but that does not mean it's good. Willis and Courtney have good chemistry, it's just they tried and somehow they failed because of the script and it's direction. Grade D- Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
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
3
eagleeyevikingFeb 2, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
StevenFMar 1, 2013
This shouldn't really be included as a Die Hard film, it should really be re-titled as "Bruce Willis goes to Russia and blows stuff up", not John McClane, but Bruce Willis, because this is no longer the John McClane that we knew fromThis shouldn't really be included as a Die Hard film, it should really be re-titled as "Bruce Willis goes to Russia and blows stuff up", not John McClane, but Bruce Willis, because this is no longer the John McClane that we knew from yester-year, he is simply a shadow of his former heroic self, and has been replaced by an indestructible action man, he isn't GI Joe just yet, but he certainly plays that part in this.
So we kick off with the main man heading to Moscow, as his son, Jack (Jai Courtney) is now a"007" type CIA agent who is going to prison after attempting to assassinate corrupt official Chagarin.
Why we are suppose to believe that John was only going over to watch his son go down is questionable, but lets roll with it.
So of course, explosions soon start when an orchestrated attack on the courthouse leads to John teaming with his son and political prisoner Komarov to escape the corrupt man's henchmen.
There are plenty of action packed set-pieces to keep the viewer happy, but not nearly enough of a believable story to back them up, they escape from a massive skyscraper building in one of the worst edited sequences, and end up in a dumpster, they then simply get up, brush off and move on.
It simply doesn't stop.
Bruce Willis delivers in his role as usual, but not in the manner of which we seen in the first entry of the franchise all those years ago, his cheesy quips are there, as are his unrelenting tendencies to succeed, but to what end? We still don't know what he is doing here, an average cop going to help son?
Jai Courtney just comes across as a whining child for the better part of the film, constantly blaming his dad for not being there and so on, and emotional depth is carelessly pumped in by a few speeches about children, but it just doesn't work for the pace of this movie, with character development being virtually non-existant and enough plot holes to make you laugh.
A plot twist in the film was just too little too late, by this point its just unclear who exactly the villain is supposed to be, nobody stands out or is remotely relevant to the plot and I was honestly bored and wanted it to be over at this point.
Gone are the days of the good cop being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we now have an immortal Jason Bourne wannabe seemingly looking for trouble just to cause a few explosions and say some witty quips.
But I still hope they make another, hopefully just to redeem the bumbling mess of this one, to perhaps strip back the superhero part and replace it with the heroic part again. Utterly disappointing.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
2
FuturedirectorMar 11, 2016
The Die hard saga could be one of the most successful sagas ever. But, like many of them, finishes with a completely piece of rubbish. A good day to die hard tries to continue the sea on a interesting film talking about family and of course,The Die hard saga could be one of the most successful sagas ever. But, like many of them, finishes with a completely piece of rubbish. A good day to die hard tries to continue the sea on a interesting film talking about family and of course, action, war and fantastic thrilling mixed with terrific action. Sadly, the characters aren't the same as the other four films. It's also boring, not-terrific action enough as the originals, and it's like also more about people killing each other ones like monsters, than a good story to tell. It also tries to be a family-friendly film, but the war and not-real action kills the real main idea of the original film of the Die Hard saga. Expand
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
0
hoops2448Apr 23, 2013
For those of you that hoped for another rollicking good adventure with longtime friend John McClane it might be a good day to cry hard (trust me, that pun is funnier than anything this movie has to offer and that's the problem). The filmFor those of you that hoped for another rollicking good adventure with longtime friend John McClane it might be a good day to cry hard (trust me, that pun is funnier than anything this movie has to offer and that's the problem). The film follows John McClane as he heads to Russia to repair his relationship with his son only to start blowing stuff up moments after arriving and for no good reason whatsoever. The reason behind this short synopsis is because I didn't want to ruin one of worst plot twists of movie history, its so bad its funny. If you hadn't guessed yet, Die Hard 5 is one of the worst films ever made and that's not even hyperbolic, it just is. The worst part is that everything that made McClane a likable every man hero is gone, his lack of care for human life in this film is staggering from his crushing of a car with a woman still inside it to his flipping of an enemy vehicle into a crowded intersection, both of which take place in the same 10 minute chase sequence that just won't end. Die Hard 4 wasn't McClane's finest hour, although it might be Len Wiseman's best film. In fact McClane hasn't been as good as he was in the original in any of the sequels but he was enough of the man we remember for the films to be fun and enjoyable to watch with a hero you genuinely cared for. In comparison 5 has action so badly edited and literally grey (It's Russia so why not make everything look physically repulsive was probably the logic behind this idiotic decision) that its utterly lifeless and uninteresting. I guess you could put the blame solely on director John Moore, the man responsible for other gems such as Max Payne, a film that offended not just a whole generation of gamers but droves of movie goers too. However the film feels lazy, not just in its direction but in its conception as well suggesting a studio with very little interest in making a good movie. Willis tries to bring McClane to a film devoid of his classic humour and ultimately makes the film worse than Hudson Hawk, an incredibly hard feat. Now I know most people will be asking for Bruce to call it a day but I honestly do hope they make another Die Hard because there is absolutely no way it could be worse than this because die hard 5 makes Die Hard 4 look like fine art and that film was directed by the man who made 2 Underworld films, two abominable films I would watch back to back to avoid watching this again. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
DCEdmondsNov 13, 2014
"A Good Day to Die Hard" 10 Scale Rating: 2.5 (Terrible) ...

The Good: Jai Courtney doesn't do a bad job as John McClane's son, Jack. The Bad: Does not feel even remotely like a Die Hard film at all. It is an over-the-top and explosive
"A Good Day to Die Hard" 10 Scale Rating: 2.5 (Terrible) ...

The Good: Jai Courtney doesn't do a bad job as John McClane's son, Jack.

The Bad: Does not feel even remotely like a Die Hard film at all. It is an over-the-top and explosive laden mess. All the charm and wit of the first few films is gone as Willis repeats "I'm on vacation!" a good twenty times as he shoots bad guys and escapes impossible scenarios. McClane is supposed to be difficult to kill and resourceful ... this is what makes past movies so good. However, in this film we see him escape two brutal car crashes in a ten minute span without even limping, falling off of a helicopter, smashing through several stories of flooring, and running from a hail of high powered bullets ... all without needing to go to the ER. It becomes too much and belief can only be suspended so much. The story itself is boring and the film lacks any decent villains ... another staple of past Die Hard films. Please let this series die.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
LamontRaymondFeb 14, 2013
If there's one thing I can stand, it's when there are great shots or great lines in the trailer, and when you see the movie, those lines aren't in it or the shots didn't make it. Let me cut to the chase. In the trailer, a leathered-upIf there's one thing I can stand, it's when there are great shots or great lines in the trailer, and when you see the movie, those lines aren't in it or the shots didn't make it. Let me cut to the chase. In the trailer, a leathered-up hottie rides her motorcycle into a garage, she unzips her bodysuit, and she she's left with a black bikini-looking thing. IT"S NOT in the MOVIE. That really sucks. And the line where Willis says, "My boy and I are gonna lay a whoopin' on you" isn't in the movie either. Too bad. It's by far the worst Die Hard. Expand
5 of 8 users found this helpful53
All this user's reviews
3
vikesh2206Nov 10, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
chwJun 28, 2016
This movie is proof that every single movie franchise will include a dud. A Good Day to Die Hard literally ruined the franchise. John McClane is a dick in this movie. He kills innocent people (they aren't important to the story, it's not aThis movie is proof that every single movie franchise will include a dud. A Good Day to Die Hard literally ruined the franchise. John McClane is a dick in this movie. He kills innocent people (they aren't important to the story, it's not a spoiler) for his own gain, which has never happened before, and was one of the reasons that we liked him. Now we don't. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
KadeemluvmusicFeb 14, 2013
A Bad Day to Die Hard is what I like to call and as a big fan of Die Hard for so many years, this 5th installment is one of the worst movie of the series. I really don't want a father/son moment, I just want to see more McClane (by himself)A Bad Day to Die Hard is what I like to call and as a big fan of Die Hard for so many years, this 5th installment is one of the worst movie of the series. I really don't want a father/son moment, I just want to see more McClane (by himself) saving people and kick the living hell out of those alienated hostages. Once they'll be a 6th movie, that's it. John MCClane is soon going to be retired from his job not only as a detective, but a fantastic run. But for that, Happy Un-Valentine's Day, Motherf**ker! Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
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
2
bfoore90Jan 28, 2016
I loved all the Die Hard movies, the first one is a classic and the sequels are good movies as well. But Die Hard 5 is more or less another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returnsI loved all the Die Hard movies, the first one is a classic and the sequels are good movies as well. But Die Hard 5 is more or less another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returns as John McClane but it doesn't really seem like he's John McClane, hes more or less just Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis. The story and plot was really poor, the editing was poor and the direction was incredibly poorly done. Bruce Willis is fine but thats because he's more or less playing Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney has the personality of a brick wall, both villians were boring and lacked everything the 4 previous baddies brought to the screen. Nothing about this movie feels authentic or real, it just feels like a movie that was made as a quick cash grab. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
theahsanhaseebMar 2, 2013
Save your time, don’t watch this film. I read a review somewhere that this film is a bad version of Die Hard 4 fan fiction, that means it is even worse than the previous instalment. I have no idea why Bruce Willis keeps doing these actionSave your time, don’t watch this film. I read a review somewhere that this film is a bad version of Die Hard 4 fan fiction, that means it is even worse than the previous instalment. I have no idea why Bruce Willis keeps doing these action roles when especially now, his body doesn’t allow him to do that. Of course, he can do whatever he want but he should, at least, reconsider before committing to roles like these. The film lacks good sense of direction and sufficient characterizaion, the action sequences aren’t so good either. It doesn’t offer that witty writing plot and great characters which Die Hard 1 did. All these factors make this film a waste of time, to some extent. Final Verdict: Never watch it. NEVER!! If you wanna waste your time, then go ahead, nobody’s stopping you. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
mds03Mar 3, 2013
Wow this movie stunk compared to the other ones. The acting was awful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Especially Jai Courtney's acting. Not to mention how corny it is. The stupid storyline was one of the biggest problems though.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
1
CameraBounceGodFeb 21, 2015
this movie felt like a half hour long and i felt that the bad guys didn't catch my attention compared to alan rickman and that guy from girl next door.....the whole movie should have ended when they thought jumping out the window and russianthis movie felt like a half hour long and i felt that the bad guys didn't catch my attention compared to alan rickman and that guy from girl next door.....the whole movie should have ended when they thought jumping out the window and russian betrayal or whatever was interesting....also noone even knows what plutonium does...and this should be the last time we hear of it ....so short and so weird how the dad like spies on his daughter or whatever in the beginning....its like they had a helicopter as the grand finale....we've all seen helicopters before..... Expand
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
1
sinadoomJan 5, 2014
A disastrous movie all round. The action isn't Statham-like unrealistic but it's pretty dumb, the story doesn't seem to exist and it's far too short to have any meaning. The occasional bonding between father and son can be credited but forA disastrous movie all round. The action isn't Statham-like unrealistic but it's pretty dumb, the story doesn't seem to exist and it's far too short to have any meaning. The occasional bonding between father and son can be credited but for the most part, it's cheesey action and one-liners all the way, with a context and (attempted) storyline that's older than life itself. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
SummersausageFeb 16, 2013
I love the die hard movies. They are usually on the cutting edge of new action movies combined with a classic romanticist age character, but this one fell flat. It did not have a good story that didn't really make sense and people just wouldI love the die hard movies. They are usually on the cutting edge of new action movies combined with a classic romanticist age character, but this one fell flat. It did not have a good story that didn't really make sense and people just would die for no reason. It was just... crap. Expand
13 of 13 users found this helpful130
All this user's reviews
1
manofthemoonJan 1, 2015
Hollywood's worst screenwriter delivers the death knell in a once great series. Willis picks up the cheque and provided as little effort as he did in press interviews. We can only hope that this is the final film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
0
PvtJacksonDec 24, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
warrenworldMay 4, 2014
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 oldLive 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
Leo9127Jan 17, 2014
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
BigZSep 2, 2014
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? IThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
OroiaelFeb 17, 2013
Random and wholly unbelievable action sequences strung together by one-liners and a completely out of place father and son story makes for a babbling and incoherent mess. We should take sharp objects and decision making power away from peopleRandom and wholly unbelievable action sequences strung together by one-liners and a completely out of place father and son story makes for a babbling and incoherent mess. We should take sharp objects and decision making power away from people who like this movie. I'm not sure how this movie was top of the box office, our theater was nearly empty and in talking to the theater manager the ticket sales were real low. There is a reason this movie was released in February and not the summer. Mainly that it stunk. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
2
travellynMay 25, 2014
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 5thdisappointing 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 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews