User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 419 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 26, 2014
    1
    Willis literally threw away the franchise - with the help of a director (John Moore) who hasn't had a movie above 37% on RT (Lifetime average: 24%)...
  2. Feb 2, 2014
    3
    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.
  3. Jan 17, 2014
    1
    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
  4. Jan 5, 2014
    1
    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 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.
  5. Dec 30, 2013
    2
    Awfully directionless and frustratingly lacking basic fundamental film elements. The film seriously damages the character John McClane. Where were all the Russian cops following all the destruction of the first scene? When did it become acceptable for an American Cop to turn up in Moscow and kill hundreds of innocent bystanders just because he wanted to track his son? There was little emotion in the film other than the pathetically forced father and son scene at the end. There was no peak in the film, just a boring, flat story with forced action drivel. Expand
  6. Dec 24, 2013
    0
    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
  7. Dec 17, 2013
    2
    'Like father like son' The Idea was good to bring John Mclane's Son in the movie, but it lacked story and I was completely disappointed. The movie sure did Died Hard.
    Overall 3/10
    Acting 5/10
    Storyline 2/10
  8. Nov 4, 2013
    4
    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.
  9. Oct 27, 2013
    0
    One of the most stupidest movie ever made! Amount of mistakes made in this movie is way above of any reasonable limit. Its even more offensively that it was another part of a good sequel, it wasn't McClane, it was Bruce Willis acting some guy in absurd universe.
  10. Oct 12, 2013
    3
    If you watch it with friends (like I did) then it's hilarious but otherwise it's a piece of crap and shouldn't be viewed by anyone for any reason. Should've been called Fail Hard (sorry I couldn't resist)
  11. Oct 8, 2013
    3
    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.
  12. Aug 13, 2013
    2
    Unnecessarily vulgar. The script was lacking in variety and frankly, childish. A bad script ultimately leads to poor acting. With big names and a promising promo, this film really let its audience down.
  13. Aug 12, 2013
    3
    this is more like a Bad Day to Die Easy. This is a film so choppy, so poorly edited, so poorly paced, and so horribly unnecessary that its a crime to watch. Now, I was looking forward to this movie before it came out. I am a relative fan of Die Hard so it was no surprise that I was excited for this one. However, the movie feels like the writer had watched the Bourne Supremacy and Hitman too much (he actually wrote hitman) and felt that Moscow needed more explosions and John Mclane. I have no clue why Fox had this guy right the fifth die hard movie. IT DOESN'T EVEN FEEL LIKE A DIE HARD MOVIE. The only thing that comes close is the soundtrack and Mclane's famous catch fraze. A good day to die hard lacks a huge element-John Mclane. He has no reason being there whatsoever in this pointless and confusing plot. I mean HOW??? How could Fox do this to a franchise? I mean i could understand if this franchise was like the Resident Evil series and they pumped out a lackluster action thriller, but this is DIE HARD. The villain sucks in this movie, you never really find out what their motives are or their cause all you get is them shooting up buildings and chasing some russian scientist. The action is tensionless, a lot of explodes and cars fly but you don't care really. In the end A good day to die hard is a waste of time, money and potiential. I'm sure this seals the funeral for the franchise. Shame. Mclane deserved more. Expand
  14. Aug 3, 2013
    2
    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.'
  15. Jul 29, 2013
    1
    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 5 dollars for just to hear the commentary. sad so sad
  16. Jul 21, 2013
    2
    Why? That's a legit question. Why? One of the biggest movies to come out in the 80s was Die Hard, then along came Die Hard 2, then Die Hard With A Vengeance in the 90s, then Live Free Or Die Hard most recently. After this, I honestly don't know if this franchise could be saved. Its fallen from one of the most beloved action franchises, to has-been action franchise. The PG-13 label on Live Free Or Die Hard was an experiment from what I read, so, naturally, they take this one and slap the R rating back on it. So what do you get? You get the star Bruce Willis saving his son from the Russians in a crazily, sometimes unnecessary, violent mashed together pile of crap. If, for some reason, Fox decides to make another Die Hard film, call it Die Hard 3 & get an actual story, director, and supporting actors to rally around Bruce Willis, so maybe, MAYBE the franchise won't seem as bad anymore. Expand
  17. Jul 14, 2013
    3
    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 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
  18. Jul 2, 2013
    1
    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.
  19. Jun 21, 2013
    2
    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.
  20. Jun 4, 2013
    0
    I watched this on premiere in Belgrade... I'm pretty big fan of Mr. Willis and Die Hard genre... But i must say that this was one of the worst movies EVER! I mean.. maybe i'm too judgemental cause i really like Die Hard and this was bad No story.. no nothing... Whole movie is created around few lines like "Oh my God" or "I'm on vacation" etc...

    Anyhow.. big big disappointment
  21. May 28, 2013
    3
    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. 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
  22. May 19, 2013
    2
    A Good Day to Die Hard is a colossal disappointment. Fans of the franchise would surely agree that the fifth entry in this action-packed series pissed all over its four outstanding predecessors out of it's sheer awfulness.
  23. May 6, 2013
    2
    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
  24. Apr 29, 2013
    1
    What an absolute piece of GARBAGE! This is one of the worst movies of the year. It is horribly lazy and bad. The dialogue was horrible, the actors didn't look like they cared, and the director was incapable of using a tripod throughout the entire movie. It was a studio cash-in to make money off of the "Die Hard" name. It isn't "Die Hard" anymore. It is just a generic dumb action movie with unlikable characters, bad pacing, confusing action sequences and horribly unfunny jokes. "I'M ON VACATION!" If you are a fan of "Die Hard", don't watch it. If you aren't don't watch it. I could not recommend this film to any human being on the planet. Expand
  25. Apr 25, 2013
    4
    I was pretty dissapointed with this movie. I absolutely loved Die Hard 4.0, and had high hopes that this one would be just as exciting and enjoyable, but it really wasn't. It's missing things that the last movie had like a solid villain, a clear threat, an interesting setting and real stakes to be fighting for. I mean the last movie involved John essentially saving the entire US from cyber terrorists, whereas here they seem to be fighting for an office block in freaking Chernobyl.
    I had no investment in anyone and while one or two action sequences were cool, they don't match up to the ones in 4. Really dissapointing.
    Expand
  26. Apr 23, 2013
    0
    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
  27. Apr 10, 2013
    4
    Action, Action, Action... fun movie nothing unexpected and sort of predictable, yet entertaining. I can truly say that John McClane is living up to the title... This series has yet to Die, hence its title DIE HARD.
  28. Apr 2, 2013
    1
    A Good Day to Fall Asleep During a Crappy Movie..... how bad was it?!?!

    They should not have called this a 'Die Hard' movie..... it was sooooo boring. At least in the first 3 Bruce played a consistent portrayal of John McClane. I think he needs to go back and watch those films again as i did not once feel like i was watching the character John McClane at all! Very little in terms of
    being a cheeky wisecracking guy, and was more yelling out something every 1/2 hour which tried to remind us we were watching McClane.... which backfired. It did not feel like i was watching a jaded NYC cop in Russia.... i felt like i was watching some other old man. My fiances family went with me who are all huge DH fans and not one of them liked it at all.

    On a positive note i could not fault the action but this would have been better served up as 'Expendables 3' than 'Die Hard 5'.... the DH series deserves better..... go back to LA or NY and wrap this story up the way it deserves!
    Expand
  29. Mar 20, 2013
    4
    I wanted so hard to be able to say that I LOVE this one. However, the only thing I do love is the son. The face, the smile, the figure.^-^ What has happened, the fun is still there and the action... They just managed to make 98mins like forever. It just never stop. Die Hard? However about just stop and breath for once.
  30. Mar 19, 2013
    0
    If you dont want to catch cancer, dont watch this movie. It is like watching 2 girls 1 cup 90 minutes and paying for it. But if you you want to hear non stop John Macklane moaning that he is on vacation see "radiation neutralizator" in action ,roadtrip from Moscow to Pripyat in one evening, unnecessary 30 minutes car chase, evil protagonist and neutral antagonist go ahead and watch it.
Metascore
28

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 40
  2. Negative: 24 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Laremy Legel
    Feb 26, 2013
    16
    The entire enterprise is a bewildering mess, put in place only to frustrate and alienate anyone who buys a ticket. Every action scene is telegraphed, and most of the dialogue is irrevocably stupid.
  2. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    Feb 18, 2013
    40
    I hesitate to ask, but did anyone actually tell McClane, before he arrived, that the Cold War is over?
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Morgenstern
    Feb 16, 2013
    10
    For anyone who remembers the "Die Hard" adventures at their vital and exciting best, this film feels like a near-death experience.