User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 497 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

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

User Reviews

  1. 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 hisUnfortunately 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
  2. 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 everybodyThe 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
  3. Apr 22, 2013
    5
    I really wanted this one to be a great "Die Hard" film. I wanted it to be just like "Live Free or Die Hard". But instead, this is what we get. I'm not saying this movie was pure crap, but I honestly think it could have been done better. When I first heard that John Moore was going to directing, I had to search him up and see if his other movies were good. Turns out they weren't good atI really wanted this one to be a great "Die Hard" film. I wanted it to be just like "Live Free or Die Hard". But instead, this is what we get. I'm not saying this movie was pure crap, but I honestly think it could have been done better. When I first heard that John Moore was going to directing, I had to search him up and see if his other movies were good. Turns out they weren't good at all, but i still decided to give this one a shot. Yet, i was wrong. "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a muffled action movie that just goes all over the place. Bruce Willis doesn't even act like John McClane in this one. John just wasn't in this movie. But the chemistry between Jai (Jack) and Bruce (John) somewhat turned out alright. But with the other distractions like trying to figure out who the real villan was just drove me up a wall. It didn't capture a good villan. It captured too many other villans that it was hard to find the actually villan. I was really expecting something like a good "Alan Rickman" or "Jeremy Irons" or even "Timothy Olyphant". None of that was there. The movie does have some good action though, other than that, the story's just a mess. Overall, it's a dissapointing Die Hard movie. Expand
  4. 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
  5. Feb 26, 2015
    5
    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.
  6. 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 protagonistThis 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
  7. 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
  8. 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 planIt 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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 ofAn 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
  12. Feb 16, 2013
    4
    Let's start off by saying that I am not a huge Die Hard fan but I have always enjoyed the movies and there is something about the character of John Mcclane that is just fun to watch. That was my sole expectation. The only thing I was looking forward to, was action sequences mixed with a great sense of humor. I am an avid movie goer and even found a few things to like about Die Hard 4 butLet's start off by saying that I am not a huge Die Hard fan but I have always enjoyed the movies and there is something about the character of John Mcclane that is just fun to watch. That was my sole expectation. The only thing I was looking forward to, was action sequences mixed with a great sense of humor. I am an avid movie goer and even found a few things to like about Die Hard 4 but this installment is simply a very very bad movie.

    The first third of the movie is a catastrophe, story-telling wise. The editing is confusing and what was meant to bring out a smile from the audience (dialogue in cab) falls flat big time and left everyone cold.
    The action scene involving a car chase and lots of (LOOOOTS OF) crashes fail to impress because the cinematography leaves much to be desired.

    The biggest issue with this movie is, that you never ever care about the action on screen. No one is ever in real peril and everyone is having a fun time,jumping down from buildings and killing lots of dudes. There is nothing inherently wrong with a movie like that but this is Die Hard and Die Hard movies used to be about something, some danger that threatens a building, airport, city etc. There was a threat and Mcclane needed to solve it. That was why we were rooting for him. Before heading to the theater, I read all the negative reviews I thought "doesn't matter, it has action scenes and that is enough for me". Now I know for sure, it definetely isn't enough. It simply isn't worth seeing it on the big screen. Save the money and watch it in a year or two on Netflix, I promise you will not regret it.
    Expand
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Apr 25, 2013
    4
    I was pretty dissapointed with this movie. I absolutely loved Die Hard 4.0, and had high hopes that this one would be just as exciting and enjoyable, but it really wasn't. It's missing things that the last movie had like a solid villain, a clear threat, an interesting setting and real stakes to be fighting for. I mean the last movie involved John essentially saving the entire US from cyberI was pretty dissapointed with this movie. I absolutely loved Die Hard 4.0, and had high hopes that this one would be just as exciting and enjoyable, but it really wasn't. It's missing things that the last movie had like a solid villain, a clear threat, an interesting setting and real stakes to be fighting for. I mean the last movie involved John essentially saving the entire US from cyber terrorists, whereas here they seem to be fighting for an office block in freaking Chernobyl.
    I had no investment in anyone and while one or two action sequences were cool, they don't match up to the ones in 4. Really dissapointing.
    Expand
  18. 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.
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.