Die Hard

User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 598 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. Mar 2, 2016
    5
    Many people love Die Hard. I, however, am not one of those people. Packed to the brim with bad ideology (anti-European and sexist) and action genre cliches, Die Hard is boring, derivative, and just generally predictable. Bruce Willis is entertaining in the lead role, but beat-for-beat, I have seen this movie before many many times and that is excluding releases since 1988. The directionMany people love Die Hard. I, however, am not one of those people. Packed to the brim with bad ideology (anti-European and sexist) and action genre cliches, Die Hard is boring, derivative, and just generally predictable. Bruce Willis is entertaining in the lead role, but beat-for-beat, I have seen this movie before many many times and that is excluding releases since 1988. The direction from John McTiernan is uninspired and he is practically invisible while his movie falls apart thanks to unrealistic sequences and being overlong. Honestly, this whole movie is pretty damn unrealistic. That being said, there are positives. Willis is charming, Alan Rickman is phenomenal, and the action is appropriately thrilling and largely well-directed. Those positives are enough for me to say Die Hard is middle of the road, but I do not really understand the acclaim. Expand
  2. Aug 28, 2014
    6
    The ultimate Bruce Willis action-flick straight out of the 1980s. Die Hard is no doubt a roller coaster of thrills, but it is all a bit familiar. Nevertheless, Alan Rickman's villainous portrayal will long be remembered.
  3. Oct 25, 2014
    6
    This movie launched a whole new perspective on the hard hitting action hero. It's not pulsing with muscle like Arnold or Stallone. It's not suave and tact like James Bond. It is sloppy, gritty, and wise-cracking. Bruce Willis opens out a stage all his own with his role as John McClane. A normal NYPD cop visiting his wife in LA runs into a problem when a some bloodthirsty thieves break intoThis movie launched a whole new perspective on the hard hitting action hero. It's not pulsing with muscle like Arnold or Stallone. It's not suave and tact like James Bond. It is sloppy, gritty, and wise-cracking. Bruce Willis opens out a stage all his own with his role as John McClane. A normal NYPD cop visiting his wife in LA runs into a problem when a some bloodthirsty thieves break into the Nakatomi building (Mrs. McClane's work building and headquarters of the entire company) Lead by German master mind Hans, they take over the building with dozens of hostages including John inside while they plan to steal the company's wealth. He's just one man. And he looks pretty ordinary, but he quickly proves to be a problem for the bad guys. Bloody shootouts, hard nosed fight scenes, and clever Willis commentary. Any person who likes action films has to respect what has been done here. Simple as that. Due to the excessive blood, gore, and swears, the score has to be a little low. I also felt some of the hand to hand and gun fights were a bit choppy and chaotic more so than they needed to be. The local chief of police also seemed pretty stupid. That was kind of the point, but I think they made him a little too stupid and ignorant. But don't get me wrong, this is one of the best action movies on record. John McClane is one of my all-time favorite action heroes. Takes the genre to new levels. Props. Expand
  4. PatC.
    Jan 13, 2004
    6
    Willis really does bring a crazy angst to the stereotypical role of Officer Doomsday Machine. Accepting that such action films must have an undercurrent of inept unreality, this one's OK entertainment.
Metascore
70

Generally favorable reviews - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 13
  2. Negative: 0 out of 13
  1. 100
    Not only is it a thrill-a-minute ride, but it has one of the best film villains in recent memory, a hero everyone can relate to, dialogue that crackles with wit, and a lot of very impressive pyrotechnics.
  2. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Peter Stack
    75
    Slick, glossy, overblown, implausible. [15 July 1988, Daily Notebook, p.E1]
  3. A triumph of slick direction and lowbrow thrills, marred but not spoiled by a sour aftertaste.