Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 14, 2013
4.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 513 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
136
Mixed:
166
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)
6
nvnickFeb 17, 2013
Lots of action, great special effects, good chase sequences. However, the story seemed unrealistic, has kinda boring characters a lot of the dialogue seems forced. Good to watch if gripping action and special effects is what you're seeking.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
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
0
strapcharlesFeb 26, 2013
Honestly, this is the worst film I've seen in years. It tried way, too, hard. To be an action film. It was an action film, but it didn't feel authentic at all. Just a bunch of fighting. Made me want to go out and be violent. I don'tHonestly, this is the worst film I've seen in years. It tried way, too, hard. To be an action film. It was an action film, but it didn't feel authentic at all. Just a bunch of fighting. Made me want to go out and be violent. I don't want that crap in my brain and I don't want to live in that kind of world. We need anti-violence in cinema. This was disgusting and pointless. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
trigun123478Feb 18, 2013
Don't listen to all the bad reviews,this is still a good movie. In my opinion the Die hard movies have been getting better as they go on. The forth movie they kind of hit a peak, the fifth movie is not really worse or better than the forth.Don't listen to all the bad reviews,this is still a good movie. In my opinion the Die hard movies have been getting better as they go on. The forth movie they kind of hit a peak, the fifth movie is not really worse or better than the forth. Despite not being everything one might want or expect from a die hard film, it is still entertaining. There is still a lot of badass stuff in it, go see it you won't regret it. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
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
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
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
0
MargateExpertMar 3, 2013
Unmitigated garbage. This movie begins with a 20-minute chase scene that lacks a reason, then it goes steeply downhill. I liked the first few Die Hards, which had memorable villains and a McClane whose character hadn't yet become a cliche,Unmitigated garbage. This movie begins with a 20-minute chase scene that lacks a reason, then it goes steeply downhill. I liked the first few Die Hards, which had memorable villains and a McClane whose character hadn't yet become a cliche, but if this one puts the franchise out of its misery it'll be better for us all. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
0
M3chaGr4nFeb 14, 2013
Is there a way of describing something this awful? It is of course worse because it pretends to be Die Hard, but its the movie equivalent of Mocolate. Awful, terrible, horrible, boring, wooden, unoriginal. All I can come up with isIs there a way of describing something this awful? It is of course worse because it pretends to be Die Hard, but its the movie equivalent of Mocolate. Awful, terrible, horrible, boring, wooden, unoriginal. All I can come up with is BAWFURRIBLE. This is Bawfurrible. Never ever watch it, Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
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
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
007Feb 14, 2013
A Bad Film to Watch is Hard.
Avoid this one at all costs! Honestly, watch the original, and forget the rest. The reason that this franchise has gone on for this long(other than money) is beyond me.
9 of 17 users found this helpful98
All this user's reviews
5
vahnFeb 23, 2013
The more I see these official reviews giving bad reviews onto movies and games, then more I avoid them completely: while it's definitely NOT a great movie, it was still ok and at least it wouldn't make me cry in anger unlike anotherThe more I see these official reviews giving bad reviews onto movies and games, then more I avoid them completely: while it's definitely NOT a great movie, it was still ok and at least it wouldn't make me cry in anger unlike another "debatable" movie, who got MUCH BETTER scores but it's much worse in all possible ways, than this ("cough" Twilight Saga"cough"). But I gotta admit, it definitely looks bland: the story is almost non-existant, with a very weak twist in the end and a we barely get much development between the main protagonists, without mentioning that (in my version) there were no subtitles in a lot of the scenes where they talk russian, making me literally wait until it was over (if you had, then don't bother with this statement). While the story and dialogues were bland, the actions scenes however were very good and were enjoyable, even though nothing extreme but still gave a good amount of destruction on screen, with a "good" finisher in the end for the bad guy. Nothing special...but yeah, in comparison to the original movies (although I think Live or Die hard was decent), it was really bland and really forgettable. Would I suggest it? Not really, but if you have nothing better to watch you might enjoy some mindless destruction and action. Skippable, but not terrible either. 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
8
rrangerFeb 17, 2013
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 itIf 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
YuRown92Feb 18, 2013
It's a good movie with a fearless protagonists. Story is bad. In Previous movie it was better. Of course, A good day has many other problems, but It is continues for a 90 minuts. And during this time, the that movie does not have time to get bored.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
Eric_LevengoodFeb 14, 2013
DHINO 2 is an agonizing, painful film to watch.

I was hoping with the R-rating and all that it would go back to the good old days, but what we get is a terrible action movie script that happens to have John McClane in it. The chemistry
DHINO 2 is an agonizing, painful film to watch.

I was hoping with the R-rating and all that it would go back to the good old days, but what we get is a terrible action movie script that happens to have John McClane in it. The chemistry between the father and son was okay, but everything else, including the supporting cast, was a dread to listen to, while there were terrible shots and weak effects as well.
Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
2
Daliman13Feb 22, 2013
I defy anyone to properly explain this plot in any way that makes even a quarter of the things that happen in this film likely. It truly is just 5 or 6 long action scenes, with some weak dialogue and father-son bonding interspersed for badI defy anyone to properly explain this plot in any way that makes even a quarter of the things that happen in this film likely. It truly is just 5 or 6 long action scenes, with some weak dialogue and father-son bonding interspersed for bad measure. I expected very little, and was STILL disappointed, although for comedic purposes, it's brilliant. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
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
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
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
7
Mo-teurFeb 15, 2013
Far from being the best die hard, yet not a bad action movie. Really liked the movie, worth the 8$ spent on ticket. If you have nothing to do one night, go out with some of your buddies and see this movie, action packed and fun.
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
4
jlplattenFeb 18, 2013
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 aIt 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
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
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
0
tmantonymFeb 24, 2013
Waste of money. Poor and cheesy acting, awkward comedy and this worst plot I've witnessed from a film in my life. Do not watch this movie. See Django. It's much better. My cinema didn't have Django available for some reason. It's not a goodWaste of money. Poor and cheesy acting, awkward comedy and this worst plot I've witnessed from a film in my life. Do not watch this movie. See Django. It's much better. My cinema didn't have Django available for some reason. It's not a good cinema. That's probably why. We decided to watch this movie because we traveled far to get to the cinema and didn't want to leave without seeing a movie. Poor decision. Thought the movie would be decent after watching the trailer. Not the case. Stupid plot twists that didn't even make sense. See Django. That's a good movie. 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
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
8
mikefromsaskatoFeb 15, 2013
This movie is a lot of fun. Great action sequences, especially the extensive chase scene on Moscow freeways.

I'm not sure which movie the haters went to see. The story was surprisingly good, there were competent plot surprises. It just
This movie is a lot of fun. Great action sequences, especially the extensive chase scene on Moscow freeways.

I'm not sure which movie the haters went to see. The story was surprisingly good, there were competent plot surprises. It just worked. It was entertaining, and well worth seeing. I will be buying it once it comes out.
Expand
9 of 20 users found this helpful911
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
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