User Reviews

The stagnant machinery of a duty-bound explosion: A 2.0-star "pathetic" echo of a dying legacy.2013 (2.0)I watched "A Good Day to Die Hard" in the theater in 2013, and it remains a stagnant 2.0-star record in my archive—a visceral "revelation" of how a high-tension franchise can crumble into rhythmic apathy. I had always perceived the "Die Hard" series as one of those "no-fun" movies my father enjoyed, but I decided to give it a chance, thinking, "Let's just taste it since it's out!!!" While the spectacle provided a 100% mechanical level of amusement, it lacked any "chewy" intellectual depth or the "raw" rebellious soul found in my 5.0-star pillars. The narrative rhythm felt incredibly "stagnant," offering nothing but a "pathetic" reliance on explosions without a "vivid" emotional payoff, leaving me in a state of "silent frustration" rather than "hororong." Seeing Bruce Willis go through the motions **** the fourth wall of my immersion; it felt like a "vivid" but hollow exercise in "raw" noise, making me realize it was just "action for the sake of action." The 95% preservation of my memory is centered on the rhythmic redundancy of the car chases, creating a theatrical encounter that felt more like a "stagnant" obligation than a "sensational" cinematic experience. Unlike the high-tension precision of "The Chaser," this entry was a "pathetic" reminder of franchise fatigue, leaving no permanent, "sensational" scar on my soul, only a "vivid" sense of "Eh, it's just action~~" amidst the high-tension smoke.

A Good Day to Die Hard is by far the worst one I have seen out of the franchise/sequels as everything was very sour to watch.

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) is the weakest entry in the series, losing everything that made Die Hard great in the first place. The plot is thin, the script feels hollow, and the father-son dynamic that should have added some depth comes off as forced. The action is big, but without a strong story or real stakes, it all feels empty. Bruce Willis looks like he is just going through the motions, and the villains are completely forgettable. Instead of feeling like a Die Hard movie, it plays out like a generic action flick that just happens to have John McClane in it. The directing is a mess, with an overuse of shaky cam and quick cuts that make the action frustrating to watch rather than exciting. The cinematography lacks the creativity and tension of previous films, making everything feel flat despite the high production value. The score does its job, but it does not leave an impact, much like the rest of the movie. It is all explosions and gunfire with no heart, making this a disappointing and unnecessary sequel. If there was ever a sign that the franchise should have stopped earlier, this was it.

Bazen fazla zorlamamak gerekir ama yapımcılar anlamaz. Bu da öyle bir yapım. Ortalama ve altı seviyede.

John McClane looks for his son in Russia and squares off against local bad boys in an obvious money grab by the studio. There is shooting, punching and explosions, but no plot in sight. It's a testament to Bruce Willis that the character he created in the first film was so memorable that studio execs think they can shovel this garbage onto a plate and charge for it.

Massiv actiongeladener Teil mit vielen klischeebehafteten Szenen. Dieses mal ist der Humor wesentlich kindlicher. Auch die Geschichte ist nicht so gut wie die der Vorgänger.

Somehow worse than the previous Die Hard. Honestly don't know why this was made or how it wasn't direct to DVD. Everyone involved should feel bad.

This movie **** so hard. One of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through.

No nie... Poniosło ich za bardzo... W sensie scenariusz przegięty. I to delikatnie mówiąc.

The "Die Hard" franchise has had its moments of glory and helped a lot to consolidate the career of Bruce Willis. The first and third movies were really good and well executed. The second film, not so good, also had moments of merit. And if the fourth film was less positive, and less interesting, I still don't think it was a bad ending for the franchise. Yes, an ending, because the franchise should have ended there. This movie is so bad it shouldn't have been made. The film's biggest problem is the poor script, along with the incompetence of John Moore's direction. He bets everything on pure action, giving us a film that, almost five or ten minutes after starting, throws the audience between bullets, gunshots and explosions. The feeling I got is that there is no script, but an excuse for an action movie: John McLane goes to Moscow to try to free his son from a heavy penalty, while he offers to help the Russians to arrest a mafia oligarch. If, on the one hand, shooting the film in Russia was a good bet, and it allows us to see environments conducive to such a film, the absence of a cohesive story takes away the solid foundation that this film could have had. The bad construction of the characters and the bad dialogues didn't help either. After sacrificing all the psychological and moral construction of the characters, the film leaves us figures, faces without will or personality, and the actors are simply invited to give their bodies and voices to each one of them. Bruce Willis is clearly the most outstanding and notable actor in the cast. He's a good actor, but even a good actor fails when he doesn't get good material, and doesn't have a director to help him. Willis shows too many signs of old age in a character who seems to need a cane to, five minutes later, run, jump, shoot and act like he's 20 years old. Jai Courtney does nothing but follow him, but doesn't establish a believable chemistry with Willis' character. Sebastian Koch, Sergey Kolesnikov, Roman Luknár and others limit themselves to doing the basics and the villains are superficial and more tiresome than menacing. For a moment I thought that Yulia Snigir would be Courtney's love interest, but the character took another path and I feel like she's in the movie just to please the male audience. On a technical level, the only point where the film really does something positive is in the action scenes and in the visual, special and sound effects. The film has action for all tastes and doesn't give the audience much space to think about what they're watching (if you think about it, the film falls apart and becomes stupid and illogical). Even so, the film feels a lot like a noisy video game, and we never felt the danger, threat, tension or emotion the film was supposed to evoke. In addition to the usual clichés (enough bullets to invade Afghanistan, random explosions, the heroes virtually unharmed regardless of the situation etc.), the film offers us a very good opening scene, with a maddening car chase through the avenues of the Russian capital, American-style, this being the best-executed scene in the film. The use of close up or slow motion scenes is exaggerated and reeks of presumption. The choice of filming locations was judicious and very well done, and the cinematography does what it can with them and is generally well executed, although the editing may have gone worse afterwards.

Is this movie as much of a pile of garbage as critics say it is? Yes. 100% Yes. At best this movie should have been a straight-to-video release and even then that insults the movies that do so because A Good Day To Die Hard is that freaking bad.

Somewhat entertaining but worst in series. Story ends abruptly and film is disappointing overall.

This is a lazy and preposterous sequel that will leave audiences wondering where John McClane's charisma went, and why this movie was even made in the first place.

A Good Day to Die Hard is the opposite of Die Hard: -It's Summer Vacation instead of Christmas -1 and a half hours instead of 2 hours -Dull villains instead of interesting ones -Lack of enjoyment and enthusiam instead of being filled with it -McClane being annoying and screaming "i'm on vacation" instead of being funny and likable -Even the action isn't that interesting unlike the previous films Hope the 6th one is better

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 normal PG-13 action flick. It's not a bad movie, it's just not on par with the previous Die Hard movies.

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 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.

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 **** 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.

The Die hard saga could be one of the most successful sagas ever. But, like many of them, finishes with a completely piece of rubbish. A good day to die hard tries to continue the sea on a interesting film talking about family and of course, action, war and fantastic thrilling mixed with terrific action. Sadly, the characters aren't the same as the other four films. It's also boring, not-terrific action enough as the originals, and it's like also more about people killing each other ones like monsters, than a good story to tell. It also tries to be a family-friendly film, but the war and not-real action kills the real main idea of the original film of the Die Hard saga.

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.

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 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.

The director of Max Panye continues to destroy beloved franchises, but this time he destroyed the "Die Hard" series and crushed fan's hopes to like "A Good Day to Die Hard". I heard nothing positive for this film, what is there to like about the film? Yes Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, but it **** that I didn't like him enough that **** especially in a die hard film you dig John, he's not John McClane, the film lost his like ability. Screenwriter Skip Woods's script puts no charisma into John McClane, there is some but not enough like the last four films did . Director John Moore gives us unrealistic special effects, we can tell he loves explosion porn, the editing ****! It's edited by the editor of "Max Panye" Dan Zimmerman's editing is lazy it's feels like a video game. The problem with this movie is it's like a video game, for example: John and Jack fell from a building like super heroes and feel and don't have a scratch or a broken ankle. It's a rip off! The only reason why it's going to make a ton of money at the box office is it's a die hard movie. The poster of the film should of said "from the director of 'Max Panye'" if fans saw that poster they won't go see it. The acting is hammy, the dialogue is stupid. Willis did a good job as John McClane, Jai Courtney was awesome go watch them in something else. All the "Die Hard" movies have a memorable villain, but in this movie the villain is a mystery and villain number one is tap dancing and eating a carrot that's telling you something! The villains in the film are so poorly written; yes it's rated R, but that does not mean it's good. Willis and Courtney have good chemistry, it's just they tried and somehow they failed because of the script and it's direction. Grade D-

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.

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 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.

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 **** 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 **** 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 **** like they had a helicopter as the grand ****'ve all seen helicopters before.....

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.

Yippie-ki-whaaaaa? This movie would still be bad even if it didn't have anything to do with Die Hard. The action was okay but very far fetched at times. Die Hard movies can be very over the top, but this one took it too far. Again, if it wasnt for the name 'Die Hard' attached to the name it would be easy to not be quite as critical of this one, but is still a very poor movie that feels like every line is being read directly from que-cards as they are being said.

"A Good Day to Die Hard" 10 Scale Rating: 2.5 (Terrible) ... The Good: Jai Courtney doesn't do a bad job as John McClane's son, Jack. The Bad: Does not feel even remotely like a Die Hard film at all. It is an over-the-top and explosive laden mess. All the charm and wit of the first few films is gone as Willis repeats "I'm on vacation!" a good twenty times as he shoots bad guys and escapes impossible scenarios. McClane is supposed to be difficult to kill and resourceful ... this is what makes past movies so good. However, in this film we see him escape two brutal car crashes in a ten minute span without even limping, falling off of a helicopter, smashing through several stories of flooring, and running from a hail of high powered bullets ... all without needing to go to the ER. It becomes too much and belief can only be suspended so much. The story itself is boring and the film lacks any decent villains ... another staple of past Die Hard films. Please let this series die.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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%)...

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.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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.

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.

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

'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

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. ****

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.

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.

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 **** sequel, it wasn't McClane, it was Bruce Willis acting some guy in absurd universe.

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)

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.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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.

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 **** 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.