Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 14, 2013
4.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 504 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
135
Mixed:
161
Negative:
208
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
6
TVJerryFeb 22, 2013
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. TheBruce 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
TheQuietGamerOct 31, 2013
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, weA 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
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
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
5
ThegodfathersonFeb 14, 2013
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...... NoA 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
7 of 9 users found this helpful72
All this user's reviews
6
Tss5078Feb 22, 2013
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 specialDie 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
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
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
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
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
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
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
5
Movie1997Apr 22, 2013
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. WhenI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
6
quincytheodoreFeb 15, 2013
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 longIt'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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
4
OfficialNov 4, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
survivorfan989Apr 7, 2013
This was a decent action flick and a respectable sequel to add to the four Die Hard films already out there, but at the end of the day it was nothing ground-breaking. Great to still have Bruce in there, and his son Jack is an entertainingThis was a decent action flick and a respectable sequel to add to the four Die Hard films already out there, but at the end of the day it was nothing ground-breaking. Great to still have Bruce in there, and his son Jack is an entertaining character. You are kept both interested and entertained throughout, but the genre itself and the type of film it is can tend to bore me a little so it's not one I will rush to see again, but fans of the first four will probably still love it Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
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
9
oblique15Mar 8, 2014
I don`t understand all the hate for this movie. Even if it was released on Valentines day who expected a romantic movie? It was a fast moving movie, and was full of action just like I expected.
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
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
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
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
3
bfoore90Jan 28, 2016
Another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returns and shines as John McClain, but this time around felt different. It felt as if they they stripped John of his R-rated charm and madeAnother classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returns and shines as John McClain, but this time around felt different. It felt as if they they stripped John of his R-rated charm and made him a shell of his once heroic self that launched Bruce Willis to stardom. The rest of the action is suspect at best, with Jai Courtney as his usual bland, wooden character with no charisma. While is was nice to see Bruce be John again, I just wish there could have been another way to see him then by giving him a brainless, substance-less borefest that isn't even worthy of the Die Hard name. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
analogkid280Feb 17, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews