Read User Reviews and Submit your own for A Good Day to Die Hard

0

JackEFlapsAug 19, 2023

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

Nonebody71Apr 29, 2023

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Pan_KrytykAug 12, 2022

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

FilipeNetoApr 9, 2022

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 ifThe "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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

robertoiglesiasJan 5, 2018

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 itA 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… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

0

imthenoobMay 6, 2020

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

TyranianApr 7, 2019

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

ErikTheCriticOct 14, 2018

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Meth-dudeNov 26, 2017

Despite the medium acting, the way too over the top and unrealistic action sequences, the bad CGI and the lack of great one-liners, the movie's biggest flaw is probably that it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. It feels like another normalDespite the medium acting, the way too over the top and unrealistic action sequences, the bad CGI and the lack of great one-liners, the movie's biggest flaw is probably that it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. It feels like another normal PG-13 action flick. It's not a bad movie, it's just not on par with the previous Die Hard movies.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Jim222001Jun 15, 2017

A lazy 5th film that make all the sequels look as good as the first movie. Instead of having an ingrate daughter who calls her dad John. You have the son Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) who also has daddy issues after his dad was a hero 4 timesA lazy 5th film that make all the sequels look as good as the first movie. Instead of having an ingrate daughter who calls her dad John. You have the son Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) who also has daddy issues after his dad was a hero 4 times in the past. They argue during shoot-outs while Jack also calls his dad by his first name. Will he learn to respect his dad like his sister did in the 4th film ? There's also pretty much all action and very little of a coherent story.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

bfoore90Jan 28, 2016

I loved all the Die Hard movies, the first one is a classic and the sequels are good movies as well. But Die Hard 5 is more or less another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returnsI loved all the Die Hard movies, the first one is a classic and the sequels are good movies as well. But Die Hard 5 is more or less another classic case of a classic action action being turned into an classic bore-fest. Bruce Willis returns as John McClane but it doesn't really seem like he's John McClane, hes more or less just Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis. The story and plot was really poor, the editing was poor and the direction was incredibly poorly done. Bruce Willis is fine but thats because he's more or less playing Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney has the personality of a brick wall, both villians were boring and lacked everything the 4 previous baddies brought to the screen. Nothing about this movie feels authentic or real, it just feels like a movie that was made as a quick cash grab.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

chwJun 28, 2016

This movie is proof that every single movie franchise will include a dud. A Good Day to Die Hard literally ruined the franchise. John McClane is a dick in this movie. He kills innocent people (they aren't important to the story, it's not aThis movie is proof that every single movie franchise will include a dud. A Good Day to Die Hard literally ruined the franchise. John McClane is a dick in this movie. He kills innocent people (they aren't important to the story, it's not a spoiler) for his own gain, which has never happened before, and was one of the reasons that we liked him. Now we don't.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

FuturedirectorMar 11, 2016

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,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.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

EpicLadySpongeFeb 4, 2016

This unfortunate and unexpected installment is more like... "A Good Day to Kill a Franchise", am I right? Die Hard fans should easily be disappointed with this installment.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

lukechristianscJun 29, 2015

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 aboutThe 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 sucks that I didn't like him enough that sucks 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 sucks! 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-… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

dougaussieFeb 26, 2015

There must be a record for the number of cars smashed up in this movie. Lame plot and well, did I mention the cars. Plot twist that doesn't go anywhere except suddenly the movie is over.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

AvgassFeb 22, 2015

I didn't know Hollywood could pump out a major action franchise sequel this terrible. I had to stop watching after 45 minutes because of the shear awfulness of this tripe and that has never happened to me before with an action flickI didn't know Hollywood could pump out a major action franchise sequel this terrible. I had to stop watching after 45 minutes because of the shear awfulness of this tripe and that has never happened to me before with an action flick (generally pretty forgiving with this genre). Should be called "The Day Die Hard Died". Woeful plot, rushed pacing, awkward script, no character development, embarrassing acting, poor direction and ridiculous action to summarise just a few of the problems. This makes movies like the Expendables and some of Steven Seagal's later work seem perfectly watchable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

CameraBounceGodFeb 21, 2015

this movie felt like a half hour long and i felt that the bad guys didn't catch my attention compared to alan rickman and that guy from girl next door.....the whole movie should have ended when they thought jumping out the window and russianthis movie felt like a half hour long and i felt that the bad guys didn't catch my attention compared to alan rickman and that guy from girl next door.....the whole movie should have ended when they thought jumping out the window and russian betrayal or whatever was interesting....also noone even knows what plutonium does...and this should be the last time we hear of it ....so short and so weird how the dad like spies on his daughter or whatever in the beginning....its like they had a helicopter as the grand finale....we've all seen helicopters before.....… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

manofthemoonJan 1, 2015

Hollywood's worst screenwriter delivers the death knell in a once great series. Willis picks up the cheque and provided as little effort as he did in press interviews. We can only hope that this is the final film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

StevesitzDec 15, 2014

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 itYippie-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.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

DCEdmondsNov 13, 2014

"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"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.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

vikesh2206Nov 10, 2014

A Good Day to Die Hard boasts huge (though overlong) action sequences but that does not cover up for it's stupid script and forced father son relationship.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

BigZSep 2, 2014

This movie was a total train wreck. I don't understand. The other four movies had the recipe down for what works in a Bruce Willis action adventure, they showed that they could hold their own...I mean...what...what in the world happened? IThis movie was a total train wreck. I don't understand. The other four movies had the recipe down for what works in a Bruce Willis action adventure, they showed that they could hold their own...I mean...what...what in the world happened? I watched this and I couldn't believe my eyes. The Die Hard series, one of my most loved series's, has been butchered. Everything that made the other films good had been left behind for no reason at all. In the other Die Hards, Bruce led the charge and was the primary driving force of the action and the plot. He had help yes but there was no mistake that he was the big daddy. Without that you get a movie like this. There is no complex network of evil to figure out and break down, there is no playful, humorous, bantering, no well defined plot, there is just Bruce Willis with a gun yelling things every now and again. No lead acting at all! They give his whiny brat of a son too much screen time as well. Its like Batman and Robin just bickering at each other but you're not even really sure which ones which at times. This was a shot to the face as a fan. Seriously, how could you? This doesn't belong in the Die Hard legacy. Fail.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

rafingal23Aug 26, 2014

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 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

2

travellynMay 25, 2014

disappointing does anyone remember die hard 1 nothing about this is anything like that bruce wilis does not even smoke he just gets chanced and chances back with his son who pulls a gun out of know where in 1 seen but suppose any 5thdisappointing does anyone remember die hard 1 nothing about this is anything like that bruce wilis does not even smoke he just gets chanced and chances back with his son who pulls a gun out of know where in 1 seen but suppose any 5th instalment or the end of a trilogy doesn't end well… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

warrenworldMay 4, 2014

Live Free or Die Hard may have been PG-13, but it was still worth watching. If you want to see John McClane at his worst, then this is the movie for you to avoid. This franchise went from completely different to using too much of their oldLive Free or Die Hard may have been PG-13, but it was still worth watching. If you want to see John McClane at his worst, then this is the movie for you to avoid. This franchise went from completely different to using too much of their old tricks. It stoops to the level of Jason Statham's "Parker" and Sylvester Stallone's "Bullet to the Head", both of which make their main actors look like pedestrians. With a title like "A Good Day To Die Hard", no wonder John McClane is ready for euthanization.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

StahlMar 26, 2014

Willis literally threw away the franchise - with the help of a director (John Moore) who hasn't had a movie above 37% on RT (Lifetime average: 24%)...

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

oblique15Mar 8, 2014

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

eagleeyevikingFeb 2, 2014

A Good Day to Die Hard boasts huge (though overlong) action sequences but that does not cover up for it's stupid script and forced father son relationship.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

Leo9127Jan 17, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie it's even a bigger insult to the Die Hard franchise, Than the previous horrible sequel, with no charm of the first 3 movies, there is no chemistry between Bruce Willis, and Jai Courtney, no Yipee-Kay-Yay mother *beep* moment, terrible and fake looking CGI action scenes that doesn't hold a candle to the originals, and finally Bruce Willis just acting like a douche, and not John McClane.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

sinadoomJan 5, 2014

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 forA 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.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

andyjee86Dec 30, 2013

Awfully directionless and frustratingly lacking basic fundamental film elements. The film seriously damages the character John McClane. Where were all the Russian cops following all the destruction of the first scene? When did it becomeAwfully directionless and frustratingly lacking basic fundamental film elements. The film seriously damages the character John McClane. Where were all the Russian cops following all the destruction of the first scene? When did it become acceptable for an American Cop to turn up in Moscow and kill hundreds of innocent bystanders just because he wanted to track his son? There was little emotion in the film other than the pathetically forced father and son scene at the end. There was no peak in the film, just a boring, flat story with forced action drivel.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

PvtJacksonDec 24, 2013

What the heck is this I can't imagine if someone would be happy to spend nearly 1 hour and 40 minutes on this crap. I strongly think that it's high time series "Die Hard" ended for good

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

Saurabh_reviewDec 17, 2013

'Like father like son' The Idea was good to bring John Mclane's Son in the movie, but it lacked story and I was completely disappointed. The movie sure did Died Hard.
Overall 3/10
Acting 5/10
Storyline 2/10

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Dimitris01Nov 25, 2013

This is a generic action movie where one impossible situation is followed by another and the name ‘Die Hard’ is used to increase profits. Willis looks tired, the father-son relationship is meaningless (we’ve seen the same thing a thousandThis is a generic action movie where one impossible situation is followed by another and the name ‘Die Hard’ is used to increase profits. Willis looks tired, the father-son relationship is meaningless (we’ve seen the same thing a thousand times before), the plot is silly and poorly developed (a small war is waged in Moscow but no authorities intervene) and it is unclear who the protagonist is, McClane or his son. The action scenes are well-directed though and Yuliya Snigir is beautiful.
argonautis.eu… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

OfficialNov 4, 2013

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TheQuietGamerOct 31, 2013

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, weA 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

nooby3DOct 27, 2013

One of the most stupidest movie ever made! Amount of mistakes made in this movie is way above of any reasonable limit. Its even more offensively that it was another part of a good sequel, it wasn't McClane, it was Bruce Willis acting someOne of the most stupidest movie ever made! Amount of mistakes made in this movie is way above of any reasonable limit. Its even more offensively that it was another part of a good sequel, it wasn't McClane, it was Bruce Willis acting some guy in absurd universe.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

starscream97Oct 12, 2013

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)

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

mapizarroOct 8, 2013

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

MovieGuysSep 15, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First of all, let me say I am a huge Die Hard fan. I really expected this movie to be good, and thought the trailer was decent enough. So i went and saw it. Big mistake.

This movie is a not a Die Hard movie. It has no Die Hard qualities to it. The other movies had small, compact spaces; one or two locations (the 3rd one is an exception);cat-and-mouse games;evil villains who added suspense and character to the story; of this movie had none of those things.

For example, it took place in so many locations. We move from a house to a ballroom to Chernobyl (which McClane and his son get to pretty fast considering they're driving from Moscow to Ukraine). Also, this movie had very little storyline. We go from John Jr. hating his father to loving him in a matter of minutes. And also, why couldn't John call for CIA backup once they were out of harm's way? It doesn't make sense. Plus, a plethora of Bruce Willis/John McClane one liners did not save this movie's script from crashing and burning. "Let's go kill some motherf***ers." Really? Couldn't come up with anything better? On a brighter note, the action was there, but pervasive and shoot-em-up. John Moore, being a typical 21st century quick, fast shot director, decides to have fast frames to the point where we don't even know what's happening. I also liked the plot twist at the climax, and how they brought back some clichés from the first movie **SPOILER** (With the main villain falling from a helicopter, similar to hands Gruber falling from the building) **END SPOILER** and others. But overall, this was a generic action movie that didn't have a well-developed story line or characters. It used action movie clichés and fast shots to show the violence and chases, something not very liked. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was constructed first and then the Die Hard name lent itself to it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TokyochuchuSep 3, 2013

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 isAlthough 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

NeedForsleepAug 14, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well this movie deserves a 5 or a six why? it is to short In the first part of the movie they are in Russia then in the later part of the movie they are in a Power plant or something like that why isn't there more locations in the movie like France or japan? and John McClain's son is so unlikable but there is a lot of action in this movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

film_bugAug 13, 2013

Unnecessarily vulgar. The script was lacking in variety and frankly, childish. A bad script ultimately leads to poor acting. With big names and a promising promo, this film really let its audience down.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

sonofosamadamsAug 12, 2013

this is more like a Bad Day to Die Easy. This is a film so choppy, so poorly edited, so poorly paced, and so horribly unnecessary that its a crime to watch. Now, I was looking forward to this movie before it came out. I am a relative fan ofthis is more like a Bad Day to Die Easy. This is a film so choppy, so poorly edited, so poorly paced, and so horribly unnecessary that its a crime to watch. Now, I was looking forward to this movie before it came out. I am a relative fan of Die Hard so it was no surprise that I was excited for this one. However, the movie feels like the writer had watched the Bourne Supremacy and Hitman too much (he actually wrote hitman) and felt that Moscow needed more explosions and John Mclane. I have no clue why Fox had this guy right the fifth die hard movie. IT DOESN'T EVEN FEEL LIKE A DIE HARD MOVIE. The only thing that comes close is the soundtrack and Mclane's famous catch fraze. A good day to die hard lacks a huge element-John Mclane. He has no reason being there whatsoever in this pointless and confusing plot. I mean HOW??? How could Fox do this to a franchise? I mean i could understand if this franchise was like the Resident Evil series and they pumped out a lackluster action thriller, but this is DIE HARD. The villain sucks in this movie, you never really find out what their motives are or their cause all you get is them shooting up buildings and chasing some russian scientist. The action is tensionless, a lot of explodes and cars fly but you don't care really. In the end A good day to die hard is a waste of time, money and potiential. I'm sure this seals the funeral for the franchise. Shame. Mclane deserved more.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

AR3Aug 4, 2013

Critically speaking, this might sound like a small detail, but I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the music jumped out as so obviously "off" in so many scenes, especially the beginning. Music in a film is not a minor detail...Critically speaking, this might sound like a small detail, but I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the music jumped out as so obviously "off" in so many scenes, especially the beginning. Music in a film is not a minor detail... and whoever made some of the final decisions on this one... well... really? Other than that, the movie has a lot going for it if you're not too uptight about a little cheesiness. I get that it isn't quite the writing caliber of the other Die Hards, but it has great action scenes, and plenty of entertainment.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

cameronmorewoodAug 3, 2013

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.'

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

LaMagiadeVirueAug 1, 2013

Yes, it's the worst of Die Hard series, but "A Good Day to Die Hard" offers terrific action scenes, car persecutions, and all of Die Hard give to us. Very Good Movie.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

1

dyshpoJul 29, 2013

this is why mclane son was never really shown in the other films.predictable sad and missing life. watch it it is wasteful how many minutes they waste on cliches if u get the feeling of deja vu well im with u man this is a movie ill waste 5this is why mclane son was never really shown in the other films.predictable sad and missing life. watch it it is wasteful how many minutes they waste on cliches if u get the feeling of deja vu well im with u man this is a movie ill waste 5 dollars for just to hear the commentary. sad so sad… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

FullmetalJul 27, 2013

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 toA 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

ClayMerrittJul 21, 2013

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'tWhy? 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

KangarooKurtJul 14, 2013

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 shouldAbout 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ICEExMagicJul 4, 2013

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

SkipperJul 2, 2013

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.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

airwindJun 23, 2013

Very Enjoyable :)

Starts of rather comedic as a tribute to the franchise perhaps.. this then escalates to a full blown action movie Yippee Ka Yeh~!

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

nutterjrJun 21, 2013

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.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

Mothman225Jun 11, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. John McClane is my favorite action hero. He fights dirty, delivers clever one-liners, and maintains the element of an overall likable guy that runs into situations that he even wonders how he got into. McClane has killed 65 people over 4 films, and has sustained more injuries than Tony Stark's Iron Man suit. The man should have died dozens of times ago, but he's that "----ing energizer bunny." In his 5th installment of the Die Hard series, McClane heads to Russia to see his son (Jai Courtney), who has been arrested for murder. Little does McClane know that he is about to walk into a battle, in which he has to protect himself, his son, who is really an undercover CIA operative, and find out the truth as to why he has run into yet another bad day.

What was successful for the first four Die Hards was the development of the characters, the villains and their witty schemes. While the plot gives us an interesting idea and a smart twist towards the end, the story is relatively flat and rushed. This may be in part to the 98-minute film length, but it is really the screenwriter's fault. Sure, there is plenty of action, CGI, slow motion, shootings, explosions, etc, but the villains are not strong enough to be despicable nor even be understandable in their motives. Even the interaction between McClane and his son is incredibly weak. At least the writer had some decency to throw in the occasional humorous lines that gives the good guys their charm.

While critics may call this a bad movie, it does not necessarily mean that it is not entertaining. Director John Moore gives the viewer some popcorn loving action sequences that are very well shot, specifically a car chase sequence in which it appears that every other car in Moscow is either wrecked or obliterated. It is worth noting that this is the first Die Hard to be filmed almost entirely hand-held and it gives an impression of a cool action flick. It is never bad to see Bruce Willis on the screening kicking ass either. I cannot say that this is the best Die Hard, but it is not a complete loss either. For my Friday afternoon, it was money well spent.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

CurlyJ49Jun 6, 2013

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 butJohn 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...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Forrestgump1Jun 4, 2013

"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"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… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

el3ctr0Jun 4, 2013

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 NoI 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 … Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

averyjerryguyMay 31, 2013

epic

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

3

Nesbitt10May 28, 2013

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 theMaking 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

dharmaMay 25, 2013

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 wholeI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

GRaFkiyvMay 23, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

10

DavidJrMay 22, 2013

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.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

b-radMay 19, 2013

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.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

2

PimpinpakmanMay 6, 2013

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 ofThey 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… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

RalphsReviewsApr 29, 2013

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 theWhat 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

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

4

RIKI_JApr 25, 2013

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, aI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

hoops2448Apr 23, 2013

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 filmFor 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

Movie1997Apr 22, 2013

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. WhenI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

KoncensusApr 10, 2013

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

P4DDDYApr 9, 2013

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 theThis 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… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Duncan95Apr 9, 2013

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 dominatingThis 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

10

Morton_is_handsApr 7, 2013

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

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

10

dis_staVANApr 7, 2013

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.

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

8

survivorfan989Apr 7, 2013

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 entertainingThis 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

BJD77Apr 2, 2013

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 thinkA 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ivan_terribleMar 29, 2013

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.

II 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

PandoraDDMar 20, 2013

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 likeI 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

MazdarMar 19, 2013

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" inIf 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.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

BrianMcCriticMar 9, 2013

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.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

Modano09Mar 8, 2013

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'tEnjoyed 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

WayneThomas412Mar 8, 2013

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 beLet 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

WarHero373Mar 7, 2013

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 almostI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Mars138Mar 6, 2013

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

charlie1243Mar 5, 2013

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

mds03Mar 3, 2013

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.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

0

MargateExpertMar 3, 2013

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,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.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

CharlieBrown8Mar 2, 2013

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 itThe 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

theahsanhaseebMar 2, 2013

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 actionSave 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

BVGNOfficialMar 1, 2013

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 makesI 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

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

2

tbuxMar 1, 2013

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 aThis 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.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

2

StevenFMar 1, 2013

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 fromThis 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

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

JunghovaFeb 28, 2013

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. SomeThe 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Mabel8103Feb 28, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

SulzercriticFeb 28, 2013

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

rizzFeb 27, 2013

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 aI 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.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

seamzoFeb 27, 2013

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.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

WalkingJ-DogFeb 26, 2013

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 followThe 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews