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 5, 2013
    7
    I honestly don't see why its got such a low rating, after all its got such Awesome action, fair enough the story line wasn't brilliant and is a bit confusing but its still worth watching just for the gun fights and car chases.
  2. Mar 3, 2013
    2
    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.
  3. Mar 3, 2013
    0
    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.
  4. Mar 2, 2013
    6
    The critics are totally exaggerating with their overly negative reviews. This is a solid action flick with a lot of cheap one-liners and a few sizable plot holes, but it has excellent action and a great John McLane, and that's all that it takes in this case to enjoy your 90 minutes.
  5. Mar 2, 2013
    3
    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 committing 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
  6. Mar 1, 2013
    8
    I looked at the reviews of both "professional" critics and users alike, and have found the same problem. People are complaining about what has made the Die Hard series popular, the action. People claim that it is SO AWFUL that the film makes no sense, but that is what Die Hard has always been known for. If you hate that so much, why do you watch the Die Hard series and why do you watch action movies but when it has action, you complain? Expand
  7. Mar 1, 2013
    2
    This film was not necessary. Jai Courtney's character was a let down. I would have liked it more if Courtney's character died in this movie rather than Spartacus. No Plot, No Good Villain, Very muddled action. For those that want to see a good die hard movie go on Netflix and watch the original.
  8. Mar 1, 2013
    2
    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
  9. Feb 28, 2013
    6
    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
  10. Feb 28, 2013
    6
    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
  11. Feb 28, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's interesting to make a movie without obviously having any script. In A Good Day to Die Hard" you have got 100 minutes of pure destruction and action. Bruce Willis gives his best to play John McClane once more and his "opponent" Sebastian Koch as Komarov also did very well but the other actors are just not good enough. The cinematography is partially quite interesting but sometimes too bad to look at. Expand
  12. Feb 27, 2013
    6
    I am a huge fan of die hard,but i am not really satisfied with the second part of die hard,the first part was really better than second.although its trying to show a love of a father towards his son but still its not able to connect it in a proper way.
  13. Feb 27, 2013
    9
    I thought this movie was great and have no idea why it has such a bad rating. I thought it was really funny, it had a lot of action and a decent story which is all a Die Hard movie needs.
  14. Feb 26, 2013
    5
    The Movie will leave you questioning if this movie was good or bad and for the first time a die hard film is not about our title character instead most of the story follows his son on their adventure in moscow while the plot is easy to follow and the action is not bad i felt the writing was good for bruce willis as he had a good performance and was funny from time to time while everybody else just tried to follow in his footsteps and try to give good performances Expand
  15. Feb 26, 2013
    0
    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'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.
  16. pxl
    Feb 25, 2013
    9
    I liked it, I don't understand peoples problems with this film, I enjoyed it and it's what I expected for a Die Hard film, the gags and the explosions..
  17. Feb 24, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Review A good day to Die Hard
    Bearded Russian (Nijinsky that what John McClane calls him later) is playing chess in a glass cell, obviously very intellectual, well he is playing chess on his own, is threatened by another Russian in a really smart suit. Young tough looking Russian or so you think, goes into night club, shots and wounds this guy who is a friend of the Intellect. He gets caught and does a deal with dodgy looking secret service Russian guy, the one you think is Russian. He ends up on same trail as the Intellect, in the meantime John McClane has a very detailed conversion with a guy from the FBI after shooting load of bullets into paper. Turns out the Russian guy who shoots the Intellect's friend is his son Jack McClane and they don’t get on.
    So off we go Moscow, lots of tension as people who look dangerous talk over various devices and cars are checked for bombs. Court room blows up and John can’t believe it happens again where ever he goes there is trouble. His son escapes with Intellect, and just as he tries to get away John is there in front of his getaway van. “Hey why don’t you write” and that type of thing which causes a problem for him, as he is secretly working for CIA and is not a Russian hood (didn’t see that coming). Nasty people are really shooting a lot of bullets at then by the way, but John wants to talk, by the way who is you friend (the Russian Intellect).
    Then a fantastic car chase through Moscow, cars and a good bit of the city motorway infrastructure are really damaged. Innocent Russian city drivers having the crap knocked out of them by this massive armoured truck. One guy had only popped out to get some Then John gets up and shouts at the evil guy who has been chasing him and his son separately in the massive armoured truck, and teases him (not really called for). Son has a change of heart and goes back to help John get out of car he has totalled and after he has been rude to evil Russian gun man.
    They now run to the safe house which the evil people know about and shoot it all up. They all manage to escape and get the Intellect to meet up with daughter in an empty classy restaurant but it’s a trap, she double crosses her dad, the Intellect. The evil guy that John Mclean was rude to gets his own back on him by doing some dancing and hits John and his son. They get out of this, don’t want to spoil it by telling you, and suffice to say it keeps you on a knife edge. Lots of glass falling as well. Then they jump out of a building and slide down the shute that builders use to throw rubble down, that’s looks like fun (I could see that as a ride at one of the Disney parks). Luckily missing shots being fired from a helicopter, God the tension!
    Then there is great line of dialogue, o yeah there is dialogue as well, John gets Chernobyl mixed up with Grenoble in Switzerland, deliberately, makes Jack (John’s son) smile, but he really wants to laugh. You know how dads can sometime just be so silly and crazy.
    They all turn up at Grenbolbe sorry Chernobyl, it was just a cracking line, can’t seem to let it go. John and Jack aren’t worried about radiation, whilst the evil people are all dolled up in protective clothing, really sissies. Turns out the daughter and the Intellect have a triple bluff and have been working together all the time, and he is also evil, God you just don’t know who to trust. Anyway big shot up everyone dies except John and Jack, and those words you have been waiting for throughout the film are finally uttered by Jack “Dad, wherefore art thou”, they just fell into an old swimming pool. You see he keeps calling him John throughout the movie which is very disrespectful to your father, especially if his name isn’t John, you could confuse your dad with things like that.
    Final scene they land at a small airport and John’s daughter there to meet him and Jack can’t hear what they say, but I imagine it is very deep and meaningful. About the times he regrets killing scum bags but making the world safer, probably best if we didn’t hear this dialogue because it would just have become to wordy like Lincoln.
    Expand
  18. Feb 24, 2013
    10
    I really liked this flix if you have watch from its beginings you understand what is happening besides being a loyal WILLIS fan it was fun to watch!!
  19. Feb 24, 2013
    0
    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 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
  20. Feb 24, 2013
    9
    I don't see why people about this movie, it got all a Die Hard movie could want, Explosions, cheesy lines, action packed, and some really fun moments also "Need a hug?" xD made me laugh.

    What else do you want, beside maybe a better villain, like Hans from Die Hard 1.

    well i was all around pleased when i left the cinema, i wasen't dissapointed, like when i saw Wreck it Ralph, (damn
    don't ever see that movie) Expand
  21. Feb 23, 2013
    5
    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 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
  22. Feb 23, 2013
    5
    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.
  23. Feb 22, 2013
    6
    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
  24. Feb 22, 2013
    3
    I was at first angry and outraged and rightly so with the decision to hack the said material to shreds and produce a 12a certificate but even without comparison and heavy scrutiny, a good day to die hard just doesn't even work as a stand alone action film. These executive commercial decisions for financial gain are becoming all too frequent.
    Despite one or two in-jokes, Bruce Willis's
    everyman tough guy may aswell have been called John Major or any other name, such has the iconic role of John MClane and what he stands for has seemingly slipped away. What remains is a questionably stylish old man with a gun and a few half-hearted one liners.
    So why two and a half stars you may ask?(the chase sequence gets a star all on its own). In the confines of an action movie there has and will be worse. You just have to look at the bargain bins in your local supermarkets to see all the Seagal and Lundgren films to know that. The action, though sillier and less plausible as it goes on, is well handled and a 15 minute vehicular car chase is brilliantly spectacular and a raid by the woeful bad guys on a safehouse provides an injection of tension and jeapordy but is extremely shortlived. It is what surrounds these brief moments of entertainment that lacks engagement with the audience. The father son bonding is crass, predictable and cringe-worthy and the main bad dude makes Die Hard 4's cyber terrorist look like Hitler. Despite the ood moment of fun this just lacks the principles that made the others, especially the first three, more than just action movies. Better than being caught with your pants down right?...no, not really!
    Expand
  25. Feb 22, 2013
    7
    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
    Collapse
  26. Feb 22, 2013
    5
    Unfortunately the film fails to deliver. From Die Hard you expect McLane in a bloody tank top being kicked and mauled and still moving on and kicking ass, whereas here the kicking is replaced by fancy scenes with lots of effects and not much substance, it doesn't deliver the classic badassery that we've got used to, you know, like him walking in the toilet and pulling glasses out of his feet, wrap them up and get back in the game, Willis is probably just getting too old for it.

    It also fails with all the father son issue, there are nice gags, it's a nice excuse to get him into Moscow, but aside from that there is no depth to it.

    I still believe is worth the cinema ticket and the popcorn, especially if for any reason you haven't watched the older ones that won't disappoint you, but as an old fan of the franchise this film made me sad.
    Expand
  27. Feb 22, 2013
    6
    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. 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
  28. Feb 22, 2013
    2
    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 bad measure. I expected very little, and was STILL disappointed, although for comedic purposes, it's brilliant.
  29. Feb 20, 2013
    4
    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 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
  30. Feb 18, 2013
    4
    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
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.