User Score
4.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 454 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. 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
  2. Jul 27, 2013
    7
    A well shot die hard movie. The story was a little unbelievable, and at first I didn't like the actor who played his son. The guy seemed wooden. As for the action sequences, they were really good. I like Bruce Willis, and it is hard for me to bash anything he is in. They all promise to be entertaining, and this movie was that.
  3. 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 LiveWhy? 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
  4. 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
    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
  5. Jul 4, 2013
    6
    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.
  6. 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.
  7. Jun 23, 2013
    7
    Very Enjoyable :)

    Starts of rather comedic as a tribute to the franchise perhaps.. this then escalates to a full blown action movie Yippee Ka Yeh~!
  8. 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.
  9. Jun 11, 2013
    6
    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
  10. Jun 6, 2013
    7
    John didn't seem his clumsy laugh at killing bad guys self. Almost like they subdued his character to make room for his son.

    Another bad guy thrown off a roof, another copter crash, stuff we've already seen. Not the best Die Hard movie but it did have some good action parts like the chase. Just ignore the part about the SUV pushing a 30 ton armored vehicle off the road...
  11. Jun 4, 2013
    5
    "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
  12. 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
  13. 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 utterlyMaking 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
  14. May 25, 2013
    6
    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 butI 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
  15. May 23, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 7/10 just for the charismatic characters, chase through Moscow and a bunch of helicopters.The movie is terrible on errors. Who will miss the Maybach on the border of Russia and Ukraine without documents from our driver and passenger.? You did not know that the Pripyat in Ukraine? Apparently in the U.S. are idiots and can not look at a map? What kind of idiotic gas shut-off radiation? In such nonsense even kids will not believe! As radiation from the storage of uranium is not found in the bank all these years?Guys you had the original gold script and you ruined it! Only the big chase does not allow to cast aside the director's tomatoes! Expand
  16. May 22, 2013
    10
    I don't know why people hate this movie it's enjoyable. It's action packed, what else do you want from a Die Hard movie. I only recommend for Die Hard fans.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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 withWhat 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
  20. 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 cyberI 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
  21. 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 goodFor 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
  22. Apr 22, 2013
    5
    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 atI 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
  23. 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.
  24. Apr 9, 2013
    5
    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 the first filmleft
  25. Apr 9, 2013
    7
    This movie is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination and has nothing on its predecessors, but it is one of the most fun movies I have seen in a long time, with it's combination of massive, over the top action sequences dominating the majority if the movie and McClane's dry humour weaved in-between huge explosions, results in a highly entertaining movie.
  26. Apr 7, 2013
    10
    I go to seen in the movie. I was expect borce wilton but some dumb bald in this garpage. i get up and leave. then i come back because i pay molny for tocket here is the score 2/10

    Your good frons,

    SteVAN
  27. Apr 7, 2013
    10
    Worst movie I've seen in a long time. No characterization worth mentioning, the characters' choices are non-sensical, and the action is lame. I don't recommend it. 2/10 stars.
  28. Apr 7, 2013
    8
    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'sThis 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
  29. 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
    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
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.