Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 14, 2013
4.5
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 520 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
136
Mixed:
168
Negative:
216
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 characters (5000 max)
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
7
airwindJun 23, 2013
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~!
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
1
manofthemoonJan 1, 2015
Hollywood's worst screenwriter delivers the death knell in a once great series. Willis picks up the cheque and provided as little effort as he did in press interviews. We can only hope that this is the final film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
sonofosamadamsAug 12, 2013
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 ofthis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
LaMagiadeVirueAug 1, 2013
Yes, it's the worst of Die Hard series, but "A Good Day to Die Hard" offers terrific action scenes, car persecutions, and all of Die Hard give to us. Very Good Movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
dyshpoJul 29, 2013
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 5this 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 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
2
film_bugAug 13, 2013
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.
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
0
nooby3DOct 27, 2013
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 someOne 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
travellynMay 25, 2014
disappointing does anyone remember die hard 1 nothing about this is anything like that bruce wilis does not even smoke he just gets chanced and chances back with his son who pulls a gun out of know where in 1 seen but suppose any 5thdisappointing does anyone remember die hard 1 nothing about this is anything like that bruce wilis does not even smoke he just gets chanced and chances back with his son who pulls a gun out of know where in 1 seen but suppose any 5th instalment or the end of a trilogy doesn't end well Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
eagleeyevikingFeb 2, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
Saurabh_reviewDec 17, 2013
'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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
PvtJacksonDec 24, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
andyjee86Dec 30, 2013
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 becomeAwfully 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
bfoore90Jan 28, 2016
I loved all the Die Hard movies, the first one is a classic and the sequels are good movies as well. But Die Hard 5 is more or less another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returnsI loved all the Die Hard movies, the first one is a classic and the sequels are good movies as well. But Die Hard 5 is more or less another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returns as John McClane but it doesn't really seem like he's John McClane, hes more or less just Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis. The story and plot was really poor, the editing was poor and the direction was incredibly poorly done. Bruce Willis is fine but thats because he's more or less playing Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney has the personality of a brick wall, both villians were boring and lacked everything the 4 previous baddies brought to the screen. Nothing about this movie feels authentic or real, it just feels like a movie that was made as a quick cash grab. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
Leo9127Jan 17, 2014
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
AvgassFeb 22, 2015
I didn't know Hollywood could pump out a major action franchise sequel this terrible. I had to stop watching after 45 minutes because of the shear awfulness of this tripe and that has never happened to me before with an action flickI didn't know Hollywood could pump out a major action franchise sequel this terrible. I had to stop watching after 45 minutes because of the shear awfulness of this tripe and that has never happened to me before with an action flick (generally pretty forgiving with this genre). Should be called "The Day Die Hard Died". Woeful plot, rushed pacing, awkward script, no character development, embarrassing acting, poor direction and ridiculous action to summarise just a few of the problems. This makes movies like the Expendables and some of Steven Seagal's later work seem perfectly watchable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
chwJun 28, 2016
This movie is proof that every single movie franchise will include a dud. A Good Day to Die Hard literally ruined the franchise. John McClane is a dick in this movie. He kills innocent people (they aren't important to the story, it's not aThis movie is proof that every single movie franchise will include a dud. A Good Day to Die Hard literally ruined the franchise. John McClane is a dick in this movie. He kills innocent people (they aren't important to the story, it's not a spoiler) for his own gain, which has never happened before, and was one of the reasons that we liked him. Now we don't. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
StahlMar 26, 2014
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%)...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Meth-dudeNov 26, 2017
Despite the medium acting, the way too over the top and unrealistic action sequences, the bad CGI and the lack of great one-liners, the movie's biggest flaw is probably that it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. It feels like another normalDespite the medium acting, the way too over the top and unrealistic action sequences, the bad CGI and the lack of great one-liners, the movie's biggest flaw is probably that it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. It feels like another normal PG-13 action flick. It's not a bad movie, it's just not on par with the previous Die Hard movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
warrenworldMay 4, 2014
Live Free or Die Hard may have been PG-13, but it was still worth watching. If you want to see John McClane at his worst, then this is the movie for you to avoid. This franchise went from completely different to using too much of their oldLive Free or Die Hard may have been PG-13, but it was still worth watching. If you want to see John McClane at his worst, then this is the movie for you to avoid. This franchise went from completely different to using too much of their old tricks. It stoops to the level of Jason Statham's "Parker" and Sylvester Stallone's "Bullet to the Head", both of which make their main actors look like pedestrians. With a title like "A Good Day To Die Hard", no wonder John McClane is ready for euthanization. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
vikesh2206Nov 10, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
BigZSep 2, 2014
This movie was a total train wreck. I don't understand. The other four movies had the recipe down for what works in a Bruce Willis action adventure, they showed that they could hold their own...I mean...what...what in the world happened? IThis movie was a total train wreck. I don't understand. The other four movies had the recipe down for what works in a Bruce Willis action adventure, they showed that they could hold their own...I mean...what...what in the world happened? I watched this and I couldn't believe my eyes. The Die Hard series, one of my most loved series's, has been butchered. Everything that made the other films good had been left behind for no reason at all. In the other Die Hards, Bruce led the charge and was the primary driving force of the action and the plot. He had help yes but there was no mistake that he was the big daddy. Without that you get a movie like this. There is no complex network of evil to figure out and break down, there is no playful, humorous, bantering, no well defined plot, there is just Bruce Willis with a gun yelling things every now and again. No lead acting at all! They give his whiny brat of a son too much screen time as well. Its like Batman and Robin just bickering at each other but you're not even really sure which ones which at times. This was a shot to the face as a fan. Seriously, how could you? This doesn't belong in the Die Hard legacy. Fail. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Jim222001Jun 15, 2017
A lazy 5th film that make all the sequels look as good as the first movie. Instead of having an ingrate daughter who calls her dad John. You have the son Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) who also has daddy issues after his dad was a hero 4 timesA lazy 5th film that make all the sequels look as good as the first movie. Instead of having an ingrate daughter who calls her dad John. You have the son Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) who also has daddy issues after his dad was a hero 4 times in the past. They argue during shoot-outs while Jack also calls his dad by his first name. Will he learn to respect his dad like his sister did in the 4th film ? There's also pretty much all action and very little of a coherent story. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
CameraBounceGodFeb 21, 2015
this movie felt like a half hour long and i felt that the bad guys didn't catch my attention compared to alan rickman and that guy from girl next door.....the whole movie should have ended when they thought jumping out the window and russianthis movie felt like a half hour long and i felt that the bad guys didn't catch my attention compared to alan rickman and that guy from girl next door.....the whole movie should have ended when they thought jumping out the window and russian betrayal or whatever was interesting....also noone even knows what plutonium does...and this should be the last time we hear of it ....so short and so weird how the dad like spies on his daughter or whatever in the beginning....its like they had a helicopter as the grand finale....we've all seen helicopters before..... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
EpicLadySpongeFeb 4, 2016
This unfortunate and unexpected installment is more like... "A Good Day to Kill a Franchise", am I right? Die Hard fans should easily be disappointed with this installment.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews