Die Hard was once a great series that featured a loveable charachter facing down the improbable, with great action, in a compelling story. But, the improbable has become the impossible in it's fifth installment, with over the top special effects, a weak storyline, and some very dry acting. I am an action junkie and Bruce Willis is one of my favorite actors, but the essence of John 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

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 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

A good day to puke hard........ WORST DIE HARD SEQUEL EVER!!!!! IAM sorry to say this mr Moore but your movie sucks like HELLLLL! It starts off and then in 20 min of the film there is no John MacLaine but I gave it time... 40 min...... No John MacLaine and then 50 min in the movie he comes as a cop nobody knows? I mean he's kickass he's not old yet!!!!!!!!? I really hardly think that 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

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 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

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 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

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 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 commitmmitting 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

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.

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 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 fifth chapter-this film is dead on arrival. Bruce Willis returns in his most iconic role, (and mind you-he will again), as John McClane the "real" hero with the skills and attitude to always be the last man standing. 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 can punch holes through written by Skip Woods, and poor directing by John Moore ("Max Payne", "The Omen"). Little in either Woods' filmography suggests that his is capable of rising above mediocrity, and this display in blandness is proof of just that. To compound the on-going issues, the very premise in itself doesn't hold a shred of credibility. Continuous sequences of explosions and utter destruction, and ever raising body count in and around Russian capital, and there is never any sign of any law enforcement or government involvement what so ever. It's an action film for sheer entertainment, and people like explosions, but come on. The chemistry between the characters and story line is lacking development due to the limited time available and poor dialogue. John's lines are horrid, the rest of the characters can be no better and 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 nary 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. Sadly, a missed opportunity to possibly lead the franchise into a new direction-John passing the baton to his son, a CIA operative. 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

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

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.

I was a big fan of the Die Hard series, but face it, it hasn't been that great since the last two installments. Sure, it's much better than the last one, where McClane suddenly become a superman and clinging on harrier jets, but the whole film feels anemic compared with its closest 'competitor', the Fast and Furious series. Another big problem...the story relies on Jack McClane a lot 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

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 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

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 would die for no reason. It was just... crap.

I think this is how the concept of the movie was developed: "hey guys we need a shoot-em up action movie for some quick cash. Let's just make a ton of guns and explosions, make some nukes and uranium, have bruce willis play a guy from a good movie, and call it Die Hard". No thought was put in the story. In fact, there pretty much was no story. It has nothing to with the other previous and decent movies of the same name. However, the action was alright and the movie didn't drag so it is passable.… Expand

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

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 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

To be completely honest I thought this movie would be awful but it was okay overall. A lot of random explosines and some bull moments, but it had a good story and was well paced but also a little too fast but overall was a okay movie. A Good day to Die Hard 6.4/10

It's funny how John McClane's kids appear just in time for sequels despite barely even existed in the prequels. This particular time, his son participates in a secret ops at Russia and John just picks the right time to reconnect their long lost bond, when seemingly infinite bullets and flyable cars whisk above their heads. Part family reunion, part buddy movie and wholly ludicrous in 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

What's wrong with you people? I had the exact same thing with 'Bullet to the Head'. This is a 'Die Hard' movie with John McClane doing what he does best, kick ass. I'll agree that it's (arguably) the weakest of the franchise but I knew precisely what I was going to see and that's what I saw, an action packed 'Die Hard' flick. The plot is same ol, same ol but this John McClane vehicle was never about hidden messages within a complex plot. As if!, lol. I'll also agree that using the Russian angle was scraping the story barrel and taking it to a new low but again, do we care too much? You do? Why go to see an action movie with Bruno in it then? The DH franchise did have a chance to breath new life into itself or even go out in dramatic style but I can't bring myself to blame Bruno or even the film itself. I will put some blame on Skip Woods who has written some decent screenplays for the likes of Swordfish, Hit-man and Wolverine but this was a job for a writer made of classier stuff. I don't know who wrote the screenplays (not the book) for the Bourne series but that type of writer. Oh well, I still enjoyed this film because it still had some amazing action sequences with Mr Willis throwing in his usual one liners.

The bottom line is, forget going to see this if you want a deeper meaning in your story, (I hear tell of a film called 'The Master' that might suit you brainy types, lol), but for unadulterated, brainless action then John McClane Son do the job rather nicely.

Recommended

Score: 7/10

N∆V navq@ymail.com… Expand

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-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.… Collapse

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 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

It seems like the concept of the father and son relationship could have worked. However, when you have garbage filmmakers (director, screenwriter, composer, editor, etc.) involved, it's bound to be a mess... I'm a Die Hard fan, and it's a shame they let this happen. Still not on the level of crap as Indy 4 or the Star Wars prequels... but definitely a bad movie. Word of advise if you plan to make another Die Hard film... get a good actor for the villain (i.e. Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Olyphant) that actually has a clearly defined motive.… Expand

I mean: It's still a Die Hard wih mindblowing action and still Bruce Willis, contributing a reasonable performance, but the quality of the film can't satisfy the high expectations of all the fans of the franchise. It is half an hour shorter, much more explosive and senseless than all the other Die Hards. There are no motifs, no emotions or any kind of coolness in there. And the worst thing: it isn't a Bruce-Willis-Show as a Die Hard has to be but a soft Lethal Weapon like collaboration between John and his son Jack, which just makes it feel wrong.… Expand

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

The first diehard was the first restricted movie I saw back 87. Now in 2013, married and 3 kids later, I have to admit I low expectations after the reviews came out, but the movie is nowhere near as bad as the critics are saying. Some exellent action, some cheesy cgi, and Bruce on autopilot.

I am not sure if the problem is the direction or the script....and I suspect both are the weak links here. The weakest of the diehards, but far from the worst movie I have ever seen (action or otherwise).… Expand

This film has received a lot of unnecessary hate. It is a part 5 as opposed to the original. This was still Die Hard and still Bruce Willis. The trailers did not ruin it and they went back to an R. Not the best in the series, but by no means the worst. Still entertaining and still a good pace.

Remember to place your expectations appropriately the previous Die Hard films have been released in order of quality. This movie follows its expected design and doesn’t falter in regards to FXs, action, cinematography, or direction. Give this film the same chance and patients as you would a James Bond movie and you’ll be content.

If you are a die hard fan, you will like this movie. It may not be better than the last one, but it is still fun to watch, with all of the action and humorous dialouge. If you are not a fan, you might find it a bit cliche or corny, but it still is a decent action film.