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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 it still is a decent action film.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 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

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.

I think this is how the concept of the movie was developed: "hey guys we need a shoot-em up action movie for some quick cash. Let's just make a ton of guns and explosions, make some nukes and uranium, have bruce willis play a guy from a good movie, and call it Die Hard". No thought was put in the story. In fact, there pretty much was no story. It has nothing to with the other previous and decent movies of the same name. However, the action was alright and the movie didn't drag so it is passable.… Expand

To be completely honest I thought this movie would be awful but it was okay overall. A lot of random explosines and some bull moments, but it had a good story and was well paced but also a little too fast but overall was a okay movie. A Good day to Die Hard 6.4/10

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

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.

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 commitmmitting 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.… Collapse

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

Unfortunately worse than it's prequel, this iteration of the Die Hard series just serves to show how far the series has fallen. Courtney was a surprise, in not being as bad as expected, but the rest of the movie was nonsensical to the extreme and badly acted. The story was passable at best (save perhaps for a twist round the middle of the movie, which is disappointingly resolved) and the action pieces were over-the-top when they should have been subtle and slow when they should have been over-the-top. All-in-all, I felt like I would have felt better about the franchise not having seen this last entry.… Expand

I was expecting this movie just like any other die hard series, but unfortunately it's a complete let down and it's incredibly nothing like the others. Fresh idea for die hard series that will make this rubbish a memorable one for me.

I won't lie that the explosions and the FXs were good, but the storyline was lame and somehow boring!

I wasted my money to watch this on the big screen without checking the viewer ratings, it's my fault. On the other hand, i took the risk to watch "The Host" even though i knew the ratings was bad, but i found it much more enjoyable than die hard 5.… Expand

So I went to an all day Die Hard Movie Marathon and this movie was the last that played. Watching them all back-to-back really put this movie in context and I have to say it does not disappoint. John McClain is just a unlucky individual who's entire life involves getting into highly unlikely situations facing insane terrorists. Nothing in this movie I can really point at and say was awful, in fact the action sequences were actually better than the fourth movie. The characters were solid with an interesting villain backstory. This isn't high brow theater and I have no idea what people were expecting from a diehard movie, but this fits in nicely with the others.… Expand

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

I did enjoy A good day to Die Hard much more than the second Die Hard movie. This is not the best but it's more than watchable, it is good. It's an action movie what did you expect? Critics sometimes are highly overrated. If you like Die Hard and 80's action movie. You'll like it for sure. I hope they do another one.