User Score
4.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 449 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. Sep 2, 2014
    1
    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? 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
  2. Aug 26, 2014
    4
    This movie was borderline disappointing. Of course, there was explosions and car chasing like any typical Bruce Willis movie but I felt that this movie did not live up to it's expectations.
  3. chw
    Jul 17, 2014
    3
    What a god awful Die Hard sequel. If I have to watch it a second time I'm going to die hard it was that terrible. I'd say "in my opinion" but I just can't, because millions think the same.
  4. May 25, 2014
    2
    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 5th instalment or the end of a trilogy doesn't end well
  5. May 4, 2014
    1
    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 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
  6. Mar 26, 2014
    1
    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%)...
  7. Mar 8, 2014
    9
    I don`t understand all the hate for this movie. Even if it was released on Valentines day who expected a romantic movie? It was a fast moving movie, and was full of action just like I expected.
  8. Feb 2, 2014
    3
    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.
  9. Jan 17, 2014
    1
    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
  10. Jan 5, 2014
    1
    A disastrous movie all round. The action isn't Statham-like unrealistic but it's pretty dumb, the story doesn't seem to exist and it's far too short to have any meaning. The occasional bonding between father and son can be credited but for the most part, it's cheesey action and one-liners all the way, with a context and (attempted) storyline that's older than life itself.
  11. Dec 30, 2013
    2
    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 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
  12. Dec 24, 2013
    0
    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
  13. Dec 17, 2013
    2
    '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
  14. Nov 25, 2013
    5
    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 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
    Collapse
  15. Nov 4, 2013
    4
    This was horrible. I've not seen any of the previous Die Hard films, but I can tell you that "A Good Day to Die Hard" is simply not good. The whole movie is filled with loud, noisy and underplotted storytelling.
  16. Oct 31, 2013
    5
    A fairly mediocre action movie. Some action scenes are nice, but we've all seen better by now. The plot ends up going nowhere and is muddled by constantly shoehorning in lame father-son moments. These two don't have the best relationship, we get it. Needless to say because of this there are a lot of cliches in this movie. I'm also disappointed with Jai Courtney in this. After watching him nail it as Varro in Spartacus: Blood and Sand it's painful to see him barely trying here. Bruce Willis does ok but is still nothing to write home about. It's not terribly bad, but there are a lot of better action movies out there. Expand
  17. Oct 27, 2013
    0
    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 some guy in absurd universe.
  18. Oct 12, 2013
    3
    If you watch it with friends (like I did) then it's hilarious but otherwise it's a piece of crap and shouldn't be viewed by anyone for any reason. Should've been called Fail Hard (sorry I couldn't resist)
  19. Oct 8, 2013
    3
    Another action movie franchise based on overexploited. Bruce Willis is in his role, it is not surprising. The only surprise is how well he is for his age he has.
  20. Sep 15, 2013
    5
    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
  21. Sep 3, 2013
    6
    Although nowhere near the caliber of the original trilogy, A Good Day to Die Hard is still a decent action flick. A few of the action scenes are actually mildly impressive and feel very much like a return to 80's action cheese. Again, this is no classic (and the weakest Die Hard to boot) but I still had some brainless fun.
  22. Aug 14, 2013
    6
    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
  23. Aug 13, 2013
    2
    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.
  24. Aug 12, 2013
    3
    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 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
  25. AR3
    Aug 4, 2013
    6
    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
  26. Aug 3, 2013
    2
    Perhaps a better title for this senseless, loud, ridiculous, and tediously preposterous action droll would've been 'A Good Day to Not Go to the Movies.'
  27. Aug 1, 2013
    8
    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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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 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
  31. 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
    it's as much of a milking-the-box-office exercise as I've ever seen in my life. What a waste. Expand
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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~!
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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...
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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 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
  41. 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 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
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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 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
  47. 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 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
  48. 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 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
  49. 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 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
  50. 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.
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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.
  55. 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's not one I will rush to see again, but fans of the first four will probably still love it Expand
  56. 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
    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
  57. Mar 29, 2013
    5
    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
  58. Mar 20, 2013
    4
    I wanted so hard to be able to say that I LOVE this one. However, the only thing I do love is the son. The face, the smile, the figure.^-^ What has happened, the fun is still there and the action... They just managed to make 98mins like forever. It just never stop. Die Hard? However about just stop and breath for once.
  59. Mar 19, 2013
    0
    If you dont want to catch cancer, dont watch this movie. It is like watching 2 girls 1 cup 90 minutes and paying for it. But if you you want to hear non stop John Macklane moaning that he is on vacation see "radiation neutralizator" in action ,roadtrip from Moscow to Pripyat in one evening, unnecessary 30 minutes car chase, evil protagonist and neutral antagonist go ahead and watch it.
  60. Mar 9, 2013
    1
    Director John Moore does what no man can do kill John McClane. The script is horrible, you don't care about one of these characters including McClane, and the CGI action scenes are just a waste of time.
  61. Mar 8, 2013
    7
    Enjoyed the film for what it was, a popcorn flick that you will probably watch once and forget most of it but is an entertaining way enough to kill 90 mins or so.. I think the expectations are that people want Die Hard 1 but you can't recreate it (and if it hadn't been made until now it would probably be panned in the reviews.). It's not as good as Die Hard 1 or 3 but is better than 4.0.. so it's a start! Expand
  62. Mar 8, 2013
    2
    Let me start off by saying I am an action film fanatic. I understand some action films should not be judged like dramas or thrillers. The thing is, The action in this latest Die Hard installment Is completely forgettable, Therefore it must be judged by everything else in the film. It's almost as if Bruce Willis didn't read the script. When I originally read the reviews and saw that the movie was bust with the critics I called BS. "No way can a Die Hard film be THAT bad" I thought to myself. It saddens me to say this, but the critics are right. Hell, Battleship was more entertaining than this film. Now that's SAD! I can only hope Bruce Willis has a Stallone moment, and realizes the mistake of this film and ends it right like Stallone did with Rocky Balboa. I'm patiently waiting... Expand
  63. Mar 7, 2013
    6
    I generally enjoyed going to see Die Hard, although it doesn't have the same feel as all previous installments. Sure, Bruce Willis is there killing bad guys, but it seems as though this one was rather unnecessary. The movie develops almost exactly as you expect it (besides a twist later on in the film). I can't say I regret going to see it, but I can say it probably could have been better in my opinion. Expand
  64. Mar 6, 2013
    4
    A Good Day to Die Hard suffers from a slew of problems. Poor pacing, poor camera work at times, a weak dynamic between the two main protagonists, a b-movie plot, and at the end of the day it just simply didn't feel like a Die Hard movie.
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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.
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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.
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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.
  77. 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.
  78. 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
  79. 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.
  80. 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..
  81. 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
  82. 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!!
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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.
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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
    Expand
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. 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.
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. Feb 18, 2013
    9
    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
  96. Feb 18, 2013
    8
    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.
  97. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    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
  98. Feb 17, 2013
    3
    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
  99. Feb 17, 2013
    5
    I mean: It's still a Die Hard wih mindblowing action and still Bruce Willis, contributing a reasonable performance, but the quality of the film can't satisfy the high expectations of all the fans of the franchise. It is half an hour shorter, much more explosive and senseless than all the other Die Hards. There are no motifs, no emotions or any kind of coolness in there. And the worst thing: it isn't a Bruce-Willis-Show as a Die Hard has to be but a soft Lethal Weapon like collaboration between John and his son Jack, which just makes it feel wrong. 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.