Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 14, 2013
4.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 502 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
135
Mixed:
159
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 characteres (5000 max)
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
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
5
Wes_BrewerFeb 23, 2013
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. GiveRemember 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Mabel8103Feb 28, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Recibí lo que esperaba: poco, Un buen día para morir es una película para un público poco exigente que sabe a lo que va, buenos efectos especiales utilizados como nube de humo para esconder personajes poco carismáticos que olvidaremos fácilmente, la química entre los personajes padre e hijo fue cero y acartonada. Bruce Willis hizo lo suyo, al menos lo que pudo a su edad.

Es una película que entretiene más por sus fuegos artificiales que por sus diálogos, las glorias de años pasados han llegado a su fin. Con algunas inconsistencias en el tiempo y en escenas, la película se centra en la relación de McClane y su hijo, que intentando salvar a un presidiario se envuelve en más enredos de los que esperaban, al final, los malos pierden, los buenos ganan, fueron felices y comieron perdices, no defraudará a los seguidores de la saga ni del género.

Lo bueno: Escenas de acción bien elaboradas, Sorpresas inesperadas al final, Mucha acción, 97 minutos fue el tiempo perfecto para lo que ocurrio.

Lo malo: Poco química entre los personajes, McClane quejándose constantemente del fiasco de sus vacaciones, sentimentalismos en los momentos menos indicados, guion y trama débil, personajes secundarios pobremente interpretados.

Ya se ha confirmado la sexta parte aunque pienso que este es “Un buen día para morir”.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
rrustyFeb 20, 2013
An excitable mess of violence and action that Die Hard has always been known for, yet poor direction from John Moore (not for the first time) and a meagre plot, coupled with the generic acting of action hero Jai Courtney, make A Good Die toAn excitable mess of violence and action that Die Hard has always been known for, yet poor direction from John Moore (not for the first time) and a meagre plot, coupled with the generic acting of action hero Jai Courtney, make A Good Die to Just Die Altogether little more than an alright action film. Bruce Willis' iconoclast role as John McClane gently pushes the film into the realm of average, yet without him this film would be very weak, and regardless is already the poorest of the Die Hard franchise. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
WarHero373Mar 7, 2013
I generally enjoyed going to see Die Hard, although it doesn't have the same feel as all previous installments. Sure, Bruce Willis is there killing bad guys, but it seems as though this one was rather unnecessary. The movie develops almostI generally enjoyed going to see Die Hard, although it doesn't have the same feel as all previous installments. Sure, Bruce Willis is there killing bad guys, but it seems as though this one was rather unnecessary. The movie develops almost exactly as you expect it (besides a twist later on in the film). I can't say I regret going to see it, but I can say it probably could have been better in my opinion. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
PandoraDDMar 20, 2013
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 likeI 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
5
P4DDDYApr 9, 2013
This film simply did not feel like a Die Hard movie... where was John McClain?? all I saw was Bruce Willis walking from explosions in slow motion. Hope they maybe cut down on making Die Hard movies as its killing the action legacy that theThis film simply did not feel like a Die Hard movie... where was John McClain?? all I saw was Bruce Willis walking from explosions in slow motion. Hope they maybe cut down on making Die Hard movies as its killing the action legacy that the first filmleft Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
KoncensusApr 10, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
RIKI_JApr 25, 2013
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, aI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ICEExMagicJul 4, 2013
This is a action packed,fun popcorn movie.I agree with people that it doesn't fell like a Die Hard movie.But,I still think it is a fun movie to watch.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Mothman225Jun 11, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. John McClane is my favorite action hero. He fights dirty, delivers clever one-liners, and maintains the element of an overall likable guy that runs into situations that he even wonders how he got into. McClane has killed 65 people over 4 films, and has sustained more injuries than Tony Stark's Iron Man suit. The man should have died dozens of times ago, but he's that "----ing energizer bunny." In his 5th installment of the Die Hard series, McClane heads to Russia to see his son (Jai Courtney), who has been arrested for murder. Little does McClane know that he is about to walk into a battle, in which he has to protect himself, his son, who is really an undercover CIA operative, and find out the truth as to why he has run into yet another bad day.

What was successful for the first four Die Hards was the development of the characters, the villains and their witty schemes. While the plot gives us an interesting idea and a smart twist towards the end, the story is relatively flat and rushed. This may be in part to the 98-minute film length, but it is really the screenwriter's fault. Sure, there is plenty of action, CGI, slow motion, shootings, explosions, etc, but the villains are not strong enough to be despicable nor even be understandable in their motives. Even the interaction between McClane and his son is incredibly weak. At least the writer had some decency to throw in the occasional humorous lines that gives the good guys their charm.

While critics may call this a bad movie, it does not necessarily mean that it is not entertaining. Director John Moore gives the viewer some popcorn loving action sequences that are very well shot, specifically a car chase sequence in which it appears that every other car in Moscow is either wrecked or obliterated. It is worth noting that this is the first Die Hard to be filmed almost entirely hand-held and it gives an impression of a cool action flick. It is never bad to see Bruce Willis on the screening kicking ass either. I cannot say that this is the best Die Hard, but it is not a complete loss either. For my Friday afternoon, it was money well spent.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
dougaussieFeb 26, 2015
There must be a record for the number of cars smashed up in this movie. Lame plot and well, did I mention the cars. Plot twist that doesn't go anywhere except suddenly the movie is over.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Dimitris01Nov 25, 2013
This is a generic action movie where one impossible situation is followed by another and the name ‘Die Hard’ is used to increase profits. Willis looks tired, the father-son relationship is meaningless (we’ve seen the same thing a thousandThis is a generic action movie where one impossible situation is followed by another and the name ‘Die Hard’ is used to increase profits. Willis looks tired, the father-son relationship is meaningless (we’ve seen the same thing a thousand times before), the plot is silly and poorly developed (a small war is waged in Moscow but no authorities intervene) and it is unclear who the protagonist is, McClane or his son. The action scenes are well-directed though and Yuliya Snigir is beautiful.
argonautis.eu
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AR3Aug 4, 2013
Critically speaking, this might sound like a small detail, but I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the music jumped out as so obviously "off" in so many scenes, especially the beginning. Music in a film is not a minor detail...Critically speaking, this might sound like a small detail, but I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the music jumped out as so obviously "off" in so many scenes, especially the beginning. Music in a film is not a minor detail... and whoever made some of the final decisions on this one... well... really? Other than that, the movie has a lot going for it if you're not too uptight about a little cheesiness. I get that it isn't quite the writing caliber of the other Die Hards, but it has great action scenes, and plenty of entertainment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
NeedForsleepAug 14, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well this movie deserves a 5 or a six why? it is to short In the first part of the movie they are in Russia then in the later part of the movie they are in a Power plant or something like that why isn't there more locations in the movie like France or japan? and John McClain's son is so unlikable but there is a lot of action in this movie. 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