A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) User Reviews

Great action but...

[michaelberneman · 5/10 · 14 February 2013]

Let me start off by saying that like everyone I had a feeling this could go wrong. You have a terrible writer, Skip Woods(even if I enjoyed The A-Team) and a terrible director, John Moore. The people at Fox must be idiots because John Moore has not made one good film, so to trust him with the Die Hard franchise seemed a bad idea. The film has a lot of action if not too much, there isn't any dialog!!!! At 97 minutes it's the shortest one in the series ans it sure feels that way. Every other film in the franchise were longer, they gave you more time to explore the rest of the film. But this one feels so rushed, like okay let's go there , and then here,... The film has no structure. It's like they said "alright guys were gonna make this as fast as possible" Bruce Willis is fine but it's like he doesn't even talk during the whole movie, his chemistry with Jai Courtney is fine. The plot is okay even if you can see the twist coming after 25 minutes. What makes this film still enjoyable is the action even though it's disturbed by shaky-cam, bad editing and bad CGI effects. If they are gonna make another one they should bring back John Mctiernan and make the movie on a smaller scale. Back to basics!! If they make it on a bigger scale than they should make it as good as With a Vengeance.And another thing: You can't drive from Moscow to Chernobyl in a couple of hours!!!!!!

This is by far the worst entry in the franchise

A Good Day To Die Hard is not so Die Hard

[movie_star349 · 4/10 · 10 February 2013]

First off, I am a huge fan of the three first films, the fourth film was alright, but it didn't feel like a Die Hard movie, sadly, this one doesn't either.

A Good Day To Die Hard is a huge mess. No good plot, bad cgi, rushed scenes etc. Only thing I found good was the action. An R rating didn't help this one at all. It almost seems like they tried to make this PG-13 at first, but then changed it to R later because fans were complaining about Live Free or Die Hard's (Aka Die Hard 4.0)'s rating. The movie has PG-13 / 12A violence, and this is disappointing. John Moore could of done so much more with this film, but instead, he messes it up just like he did with Max Payne. Good action, but no good story or character development.

Jai Courtney (who starred in Jack Reacher earlier this year) did well on his part, and I do hope he returns if they are making a 6th one, but I am begging, please get a good director for the 6th one, since Bruce says it will possibly be the last one. Bring McTiernan back, and let him end the series with a huge bang! I am sorry to say this, but the film was not good at all. Being an hard-core Die Hard fan, I suggest that other fans should just let this one pass.

Shaky Camera ruined it for me

[heil_cf2 · 5/10 · 16 February 2013]

I love Die Hard, but shaky camera ruined it for me this time. I can't see because 35% film use shaky camera, 25% out of focus, blurry and 10% rapid zoom ins. Please STOP using Shaky Camera in Films, PLEASE :I am some of those remaining species, who go to watch feature films in cinemas. I never download a movie for free, I pay to netflix. Just doing my part to save the cinema I love. But, some directors and movie making houses, make stupid moves. One of them is use of unwanted, un-needed, shaky camera. So, I want to get my voice heard. If you are a fan, go see the movie, but if you don't like Shaky Camera, then think twice.

What on earth have they done to John McClane?!

[dvc5159 · 3/10 · 14 February 2013]

I am heartbroken.

It's a sad day to say this, but it has to be said: "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a dud. The fifth instalment in the beloved "Die Hard" saga ends up as the worst of the series so far; it falters thanks to a weak characterization, even weaker screen writing, lack of worthy villains, absurd action sequences and incoherent direction. You can bet this movie will be mentioned in the same sentence with "Rocky V", "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", "Speed 2: Cruise Control", "Die Another Day" and "Batman & Robin". Not even the R-rating and the return of the famous "Yippie ki yay" line in full can save this one.

As much as I love action movies, I like mine with a side of plot and character, of which this film fails at. John McClane, one of my favorite film characters of all time, is given a horrendous treatment no beloved character should ever be given: relegated to a sidekick. This is HIS movie, not his son's! From the start he is inexplicably thrust into Russia with no back story of how the previous films over the years have shaped his character now - a key trait that was visible in the previous four films. He is reduced to a wise-cracking action supercop, and even his wisecracks are weak. However, Bruce Willis, bless him, is still McClane without a doubt, as he dishes out the bad guys with weathered-out cynicism in his eyes. He still has it in him, and in no way it is his fault that this movie turned out to be near-crap.

Rather, writer Skip Woods and director John Moore are to blame. Woods clearly missed the whole point of McClane's essence and likability - he is a vulnerable human - an everyday Joe who only stops the bad guys when "there's no one else that can do it". He is a reluctant hero in the first four films, he can get seriously wounded, as he is up against worthy adversaries that are cool, calculative and almost one step ahead of him. Here, McClane, in the opening car chase, and immediately causes mass vehicular damage just to stop thugs from attacking his son, shows no signs of vulnerability (after TWO major car crashes), and has no qualms about killing the bad guys wherever they pop up here. His son Jack (Jai Courtney), filling in for McClane's sidekick, has certain charisma and shows a few glimpses of character development in McClane but it is cut short by the merciless and absurd action sequences.

A good action movie has to have a good villain. "Die Hard 5" has none. It has three primary villains, all of them forgettable. Nothing with the likes of even Thomas Gabriel or Colonel Stuart (the Gruber Brothers must be smirking right now in hell). They're not intelligent, not menacing, not memorable. They're just dumb, die, and that's it. What was their evil plot? What dastardly deeds do they have? Weapons dealing. Oh the humanity!

The film runs at 97 minutes - the shortest in the series. Why the film was released at this length I don't want to know. Nobody complained about the 2 hour running time for each of the previous four movies. Imagine what a better movie this could've been with those cut scenes added back in.

John Moore directs with the subtlety of a car crash. He smash cuts every scene, puts heavy use of slow motion in the excruciatingly absurd climax, and relies heavily on CGI for most of the action sequences. But like all Die Hard movies, there has to be at least one sensational action sequence, and that is at the film's beginning. The only thing I really enjoyed (in a guilty pleasure sort of way) about the whole movie was a massive, destructive stunt-filled car chase throughout the streets of Moscow. It was an intense and exciting scene. Pity the rest of the movie can't hold up to this sensational chase scene alone, especially the end which essentially turns McClane into The Terminator. If you think the F-35 scene in "Die Hard 4" was absurd, hoo boy, wait until you get a load of this one.

At the very least, there's some competent cinematography from Jonathan Sela and a good, riveting music score from Marco Beltrami, who really knows his stuff when it comes to action, as well as incorporating Michael Kamen's themes into this one. If anything, the music is better than the movie.

There is a 6th (and according to Bruce, final) movie in the works. Here's a no brainer - bring back John McTiernan or Renny Harlin (hell, even Len Wiseman for all I care), and hire a good screenwriter who really delivers the old school action goods. I strongly believe Bruce and McClane can deliver the goods still and ride off into the sunset, instead of falling off his horse here. They just need a better story, better direction, and a more than worthy villain with a respected British actor in the role. The franchise doesn't deserve to die with this. It's too good for that.

Shame on you, John Moore and Skip Woods.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is terrible.

[neyoless · 13 February 2013]

Q: So what did everyone do as soon as they heard John Moore was directing the next Die Hard film?

A: Look up his filmography and see titles like the remake of Omen and Max Payne.

And now, sadly, A Good Day to Die Hard will join his list of notoriously bad films. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I just couldn't; not even as a die hard fan of the franchise.

First, let's look at the selling point. We're promised ONE thing: a larger scale as far as action sequels go. The first Die Hard took place in a building, the second one in an airport and, the third in NYC, and the fourth in the entire nation of the United States. So logically, Die Hard 5 was going to go international.

Well, ironically, A Good Day to Die Hard feels like the smallest film of the five because the stakes feel so low. The action is endless chaos from start to finish; you quickly become numb to it. And unlike previous Die Hard films, the terrorist threats never get carried out. I never felt like John McClane was going to lose.

The one-liners aren't clever. The jokes aren't funny. The bad family relationship story is getting really old, especially when Die Hard 4 primarily focused on the estranged father-daughter relationship. And unlike Lucy who just came off as a spoiled brat, Jack McClane is introduced by pulling a gun on his own father who we have grown to love over four movies.

I can't speak too much about the "villain" (played by Radivoje Bukvić) without spoilers, but all I have to say is that he has little to no part in the movie. The evil Russian comes off as a cliché, and again, he carries out no threat. I'm dying to talk about the story here, but let's just say it has a really brain dead ending.

In an attempt to end the review on a more positive note, I'd like to say that the movie does have some "oh sh*t" moments here and there. However, I'd still stay clear of this one.

A Good Day to Die Hard has some good moments

[tavm · 6/10 · 24 February 2013]

All right, basically all you need to know about this latest "Die Hard" movie is that once again, Bruce Willis plays cop John McClane and he's now in Russia to rescue his grown son who he thinks is in trouble. He's actually a CIA agent sent to take someone out of jail for some files. There's also a very alluring young woman named Irina played by Yuliya Snigir in this movie. Oh, and then there's a ridiculous amount of car crashes that had me just staring in astonishment at how they had the gall to wreck so many vehicles. Still, the story is pretty compelling if one doesn't think too much about it and the length is short enough so on that note, A Good Day to Die Hard is still a pretty entertaining movie.

Here's why it's just so bad ....

[andrewsmith1-609-479980 · 2/10 · 15 February 2013]

As a fan of the Die Hard series I feel the need to warn others - Don't waste 97 minutes of your life on this movie! Yes, it really is that bad.

Here's a concise summary of why it's just so bad:

1) John McClane's role is really as a side-kick. Why do this to the big man .... why?

2) The movie lacks a bad guy. Does the movie have people that are bad - of course, but it lacks that McClane v Super-villain factor.

3) There's very little of the Die Hard humour we've all grown to love.

4) The movie parodies the Hans Gruber death sequence - never - never do this.

5) Jai Courtney is terrible. It's hard to discern if it's the role he's been asked to play or him, but either way he come across as a spoiled brat pretending to be Jason Bourne.

6) There's hardly any script - it's as if the script were sandwiched in post production to fit around the bangs and crashes.

7) It's not in the USA. This sounds trivial but it's not - the film just doesn't work outside of its tried and tested environment.

8) The car chase scene - oh my. If you do choose to watch the movie after reading this the good news is that yes, it does eventually end - although it may not feel this way.

So in summary, go plant a tree, play football, go for a walk, in fact - do anything but for the love of all that you hold dear - don't waste your life on this.

"You got a plan?"

[jan_kalina · 6/10 · 30 March 2013]

That is John McClane's question to his son. "Not really. I kinda thought we would just wing it, you know. Running in, guns blazing! Make it up as we go," says John Mcclane Jr. (who is for reasons unknown called Jack for most of the movie.) That's also probably what the makers of this film were thinking while shooting this latest addition to the beloved Die Hard franchise. The film feels like it doesn't have much of a script, it doesn't have any of the usual one-liners that were one of the reasons that we grew fond of the character of John McClane. Oh, there actually is one. Willis repeats " I'm on vacation" throughout the film. It is funny the first time he says it, but you get tired of it when he says the line for the fifth time.

Another big problem is that this film lacks a villain. All the previous Die Hard films stood on the confrontation between McClane and the main villain. They communicated with walkie-talkies and didn't even meet 'till the finale. But there was this tension and fear from both sides that there is this possibility that one could bring down the other. I can't go on and call that tap dancing, carrot chewing clown a villain.

But I don't want to be all negative. If this film wouldn't have Die Hard in name, it would have been actually good action flick. You get enough explosions and smashed cars, everything you were promised in the trailers. You also get an helicopter smashing through a building, which is one of the things I love the most in action films: destroying helicopters. As an action flick to waste some time with it is OK. It just lacks in the story and characters department.

Bruce Willis doesn't act at all in this film. It's like he goes on autopilot. Plus he doesn't play John McClane, the ordinary man from the streets, who winds up being at the wrong place at the wrong time and has to use his wit and skills to outsmart the bad guys. No, he plays John McClane, the superhero, who never gets hurt and his only objective is to kill all the scumbags. In all the previous films he wasn't looking for trouble, but trouble found him. Here he is looking for trouble.

The Die Hard franchise should have been left alone after the brilliant fourth installment Live Free or Die Hard. I guess you can rent this film when you have got nothing better to do on a rainy afternoon and want to kill some time with a simple action movie.

A Good Day to Cry Hard

[BJBatimdb · 1/10 · 15 February 2013]

It's over folks. This is the death of the Die Hard franchise. Please.

Die Hard has been a guilty pleasure for nearly 20 years, but there's no pleasure in this latest offering.

Loud, unbearably stupid, cartoonishly unbelievable, this movie has the emotional impact of an episode of Thunderbirds, but without the clever plot.

In a nutshell (which is big enough for this plot, with room to spare) Bruce Willis as John McClean tracks down his errant son to Moscow in the usual Hollywood bid to 'reconnect'. There he finds him working as a CIA operative trying to smuggle a vague dissident out of the country. Bruce joins in - as you do. They would have got away, too, if it wasn't for that pesky dissident getting out of the safety of the car and virtually thumbing his nose at the bad guys to make them chase him. There follows a car chase that's so long and stupid that I considered going to get an ice cream. I could have had a three course meal and they'd still have been there, demolition derbying through rush hour. During this chase, a transit van roars through dense traffic jams like a knife through butter, while the armoured car chasing it is forced to bulldoze its way through walls and over cars to keep up, and an RPG rocket is launched at Bruce with the velocity of someone throwing a tennis ball for a dog, giving him plenty of time to steer around it.

Then after many more bullets are dodged - even really fast ones from an Apache helicopter - the pair are captured by a bad guy and about to be executed. Having just slaughtered about two hundred people in half an hour of mindless violence, in this scene the bad guy suddenly slows down and takes time to eat a carrot and emote about a career he might have had in tap dancing, just long enough so that Bruce and Bruce Jr can break free and overwhelm half a dozen heavily armed men with only their distracting giggling and a small knife.

As usual in Die Hard, Bruce remains remains virtually unmarked and limp-free throughout, although his regulation white singlet does get grubbier every time he's blown up/shot at/beaten/thrown off a building/falls through a window. So that, at least, is realistic.

Everything else is not.

Stupid action, stupid dialogue, stupid baddies, stupid plot twists and stupid science. Did you know that radiation that's been 'pooling in here (Chernobyl) for years' can be easily eradicated by a quick squirt of weapons grade Domestos and an iPad? Nor me. Lucky for Bruce, though, as he rushes into the defunct nuclear plant with only his stubble for protection.

Oh, and did I tell you? All this happens in one day - from Bruce's arrival in Moscow, through the mayhem and explosions and the nuclear waste and the drive to Chernobyl, which is apparently in a suburb of Moscow. Oh, and that the drive is made in a car they steal that just happens to have a small arsenal in the boot? Lucky again.

None of it matters, because - surprise surprise - Bruce Jr forgives Bruce for years of neglect and calls him Dad for the first time, and they fly home as heroes in a sunset glow. The fact that they leave Moscow smoking behind them, littered with corpses of innocent bystanders and disappointed film-fans is neither here nor there.

There's a running 'joke' where Bruce keeps yelling 'I'm on vacation!' One can only hope it's a long one.

A good day at the movies or at home.

[PCC0921 · 6/10 · 4 October 2020]

John McClain has grown into an aged character, who calls all the other cops kids. He has managed to take all his demons from his past and use them into making himself a celebrated, although conflicted, legend on the force. This time around he is sent to Russia on the advice of his daughter to find and bring home his son who is in trouble and facing imprisonment there. Unknown to him, his son is actually undercover for the CIA and on a mission to extract a very important witness, who has a file that can incriminate a lot of bad Russians. When John and son meet in a middle of a terrorist attack in Moscow, the fun ensues. What is fun about the later films in the Die Hard series are the situations that John runs into. They are like second nature now and he seems to handle them like we would grocery shopping. What I liked about this film is the film-makers match the serious/comedy quotient that was so good in Die Hard 2. There also is a lot of great slow motion scenes, fun action and the comedy level that made this a good day at the theater.

8.2 (B MyGrade) = 8 IMDB

A Good Day For This Franchise to Die Hard

[illbebackreviews · 2/10 · 13 February 2013]

Now, I'm a fan of the first three movies. I love them really a lot, especially the original but I also love the 3rd installment, mainly due to the chemistry between Jackson and Willis. That was phenomenal. I could not connect with much in the 4th movie as it was a lot of CGI and made John McClane a superhero who seemed invincible. I wasn't setting my standards high for this one at all as I knew what it could turn out to be, but BOY...This movie really is awful

This movie is based around John McClane who travels to Russia to deal with his son's issues. There, a whole lot of crap begins to happen. This movie attempts to have such a complex plot for a Die Hard whereas the other four were so simple that even the dumbest person could tell what was happening. Its like this director, the guy who made the god awful Max Payne thought that the plot had to be complex for an action film like Die Hard As a regular movie, this movie may NOT be that bad but as a Die Hard movie, it is god awful. I couldn't bear to watch the pain that I went through in this film, why? Because, almost nothing in this movie resembled anything about Die Hard. There was no tone, no tension and as a result, it felt nothing like Die Hard. NOTHING!

The characters really are all awful, with the exception of John McClane who still has a bit of relatability to him. Bruce Willis does a fantastic job in the movie but every other member of the cast really didn't appeal to me. The villain was weak, John's son was uninteresting and a lame addition to the franchise, as if he were there to sell action figures. The story was no fun and the action was all messy This movie does absolutely nothing to resemble the Die Hard films and as such, one of the most anticipated movies of 2013 has fallen down a drain with overuse of CGI, lame characters and plot, uninteresting villain with no real intention and another excuse to make more money out of it.

A Good day to Die Hard is a movie that makes you think that this day is a good day for you to die hard. Do not watch it, pointless action movie that does not resemble Die Hard.

Not the Best Die Hard, but It's a Ton of Fun

[griffolyon12 · 8/10 · 20 June 2013]

A Good Day to Die Hard is the fifth installment in the Die Hard franchise, and while it fails to live up to the heights of its predecessors, you could do a whole lot worse than this movie.

The film finds Bruce Willis's John McClane in Russia trying to reconnect with his estranged, CIA agent son, Jack, all the while the two of them are fighting Russian bad guys and saving the day. That's essentially the entire movie, but it works. While there are no memorable villains, set pieces, or gags, it's still a whole lot of fun, and Jai Courtney is believable as McClane's son. Could a spin-off franchise be far behind?

Overall, if you're looking for action and mayhem, all with a good sense of humor to go along with it, A Good Day to Die Hard will delight.

I give A Good Day to Die Hard an 8 out of 10!

It's not that bad...

[v-gyomol · 7/10 · 19 March 2013]

It all depends on expectations...

If you were expecting a continuation of the Die Hard series - search elsewhere.

However, if you like a good action movie and have no high expectations - it may be a good popcorn one.

The story by itself is no big wonder, you've probably seen all the clichés which form an integral part of the story, however there are quite a few twists which you will enjoy.

From the visual side - it's a bit different story. The action sequences are good (a few seconds of which could even be "great"). All the latest gizmos, weapons, luxury cars, etc. But what did you expect? Wrecks? Well you will get some of those too.

The filming locations were good too: an instant switch from the modern Russian capital back to an old city in Ukraine - great stuff.

So - summarized - this Die Hard movie is far from being a Die Hard movie, but still worth a try if you like action movies, especially with a Russian/Ukrainian zest.

This movie is not a Die Hard movie so where is McClane?

[ivo-cobra8 · 1/10 · 14 February 2018]

A Good Day to destroy the franchise! This review will contain spoilers. I love the first four Die Hard movies. I love Die Hard to death, this movie killed the franchise. John Moore please get out of the film business forever because you blow it!! Bruce Wills is bored out of his mind. We see Bruce Wills in this movie but not John McClane we know!!! He is not the main character. He is not the main hero but his son is! Why would I care about his son dammit? Die Hard was about one man army fighting against a team of terrorists. While in this movie he is unlikable sidekick!!! The movie is horrible digitally CGI filmed. The movie is about Russia again. I understand Rambo: First Blood Part II and Rocky IV Stallone films dialed with the Russians been bad guys and they worked that was different it was the 80's but this movie fails to be A Die Hard movie! This movie is painful to watch, it hurt my eyes. John McClane is a sidekick not a main action hero that he is, he is a laughing stuck! I was laughing my ass at Bruce Willis!

Die Hard 2 and Live Free or Die Hard are bashed from fans and critics but you know what they were not that bad at all. I love all 4 films to death all 4 films are great action films. This movie is awful painful to watch and it fails to be a good movie. R rating sucks too in here. No sidekicks anymore! Bruce Wills grove your hair. The movie does not deserve to focus on his children why would I care about his children?! Die Hard With A Vengeance did not need it another 2 sequels!! Live Free or Die Hard was still a good movie in my opinion, but it was not need it. This movie fucking sucks! It is a disaster! Where is McClane in here?! Where are his jokes?! Where is action in this?!

This movie sucks! The worst one in the franchise. From here it well all down hill. Not my favorite in the franchise I don't have it in my collection and I will never have it. This movie doesn't exist. You think how bad Live Free Or Die Hard is? watch this film it will hurt you! Watch the CGI glass falling on McClane and on his stupid son Jai Courtney all fake! They don't bleed they are both animated stupid brainless morons in here. Score 1/10 avoid this film like a plague. Bruce Willis retire and grow your hair already! John Moore and Skip Woods you both are scumbags both of you!! Thanks for killing off the franchise!!!

Bruce Willis does what he does best, but this is quite simply one of the worst days of the 'Die Hard' series

[moviexclusive · 5/10 · 6 February 2013]

Our hearts go out to Bruce Willis. Truly. Six years after successfully restarting the most important character of his entire movie-making career, Willis has to watch it all crash and burn to the ground with this loud, dumb and plain boring fifth chapter, the erroneously-titled 'A Good Day to Live Hard'. Indeed, while its immediate predecessor 'Live Free or Die Hard' banked on a winning formula of old-school heroics with new-age sensibilities, this sequel is firmly stuck in the past – and the worse thing about it is that it would only be passable by the standards of an 80s action movie.

Truth be told, Willis isn't at all the reason why this fails to be a good day for the 'Die Hard' franchise. At the age of 57, the man can still run, carry a mean weapon and kick ass – not to mention his trademark squint and unflappable wisecracking attitude. To put it simply, Willis is still very much the John McClane we've loved in the 80s and 90s and even in the very last movie before this one. But much as Willis tries, he is severely let down by a toxic combination of weak scripting and even weaker directing – the former of which by Skip Woods and the latter by John Moore.

Little in either Woods' or Moore's filmography suggests that they are capable of rising above mediocrity, and this exercise in blandness is proof of that foolish consistency. Let's start with Woods' script, which clearly thinks it can be a 'Mission Impossible' by way of 'Die Hard' – so instead of putting the New York City detective in his home turf, or for that matter, his home country, decides to transport him all the way to the Moscow to wreak havoc. The excuse? To reconnect with his long lost son, Jack, who has apparently turned bad and is now imprisoned in Russia.

Nowhere in the rest of the story does Woods manage to convince us that the change in location is worth the while. Even though we are now well into the 21st century, Woods still seems stuck in the last, so not only are the good guys and bad guys drawn along the lines of Americans and Russians respectively (cue the stereotypes about both nationalities), the plot has something to do with as archaic an institution as Chernobyl. Oh yes, we're back to foiling some nasty Russian's nefarious plan of using the uranium from the site to build weapons of mass destruction.

To make matters worse, Moore is too daft to realise that the very premise in itself strains credibility. How else can you explain why following scene after scene of destruction around the Russian capital, there is no sign of any law and order agency? Are we supposed to believe that the police are too busy or nonchalant to care about some highway chase that decimates pretty much every one of the city's infrastructure it comes across? Or that no authority responds to some helicopter firing round after round after round into a high-rise building? We like that our action movies are escapist, but not when they ignore every shred of common sense simply for expediency.

The fact that we pay attention to these details is in itself telling, for despite a frenetic pace that goes from scene after scene of action, the movie remains a bore. Shots are fired, things get blown up and people get killed from time to time, but at the end of the day, all that action is staged so unimaginatively that it fails to even interest – let alone excite – you. The pacing within each sequence is too monotonous, the sound seems perpetually cranked on loud, and the weaponry – plus an over-used helicopter – just gets tiresome too quickly. As if to compensate for the lack of any genuine thrills, the climax goes over- the-top, but like the rest of the movie, grows so incredulous – especially in slo-mo – that it is just laughable.

Ironically, what passes as John McClane's wise cracks is anything but humorous. Most of McClane'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 nary shows him any respect as a father, or John lamenting how he had expected no more than a vacation in Moscow, or some inane topic like whether they will grow a third hand after stepping into Chernobyl without any protective suit. If John's lines are horrid, the rest of the characters can be no better – and 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.

Even more lamentable is how this instalment, if played right, could have been an exciting new page for the 'Die Hard' series, with John passing the baton to his CIA operative of a son Jack. Yet this fifth chapter is easily the worst 'Die Hard' entry and quite possibly might sound the death knell for the franchise. If John McClane had a penchant for landing in the wrong place at the wrong time, then 'A Good Day to Die Hard' is Bruce Willis' unfortunate mistake of being in the wrong movie with the wrong people.

Did I see the same movie as everyone else?

[eturk-135-690080 · 7/10 · 14 February 2013]

Looking through the user reviews here on IMDb, one would think that this movie is awful. I read through them before I saw the movie and was expecting to be disappointed as the opening sequence played out. The first 20 minutes weren't that bad at all and I began to wonder what the problem was. As soon as the action picked up, I completely forgot about the opinions of others and really began to enjoy it. Strange, right?

Thinking about it, I think I've figured out the number one issue that people have here. This is a fun movie. Ya hear that Die Hard fans? It doesn't just need to be tension and suspense. This sequel amplifies two aspects of the series. The humour, and the action, and let me tell you, it does great in both of those. The action is very over the top, but not in a bad way. The way it's presented is sometimes irritating due to frequent camera cuts, but this was only a real problem during a car chase near the beginning. I never noticed this a second time throughout the movie so I wouldn't put it down as a huge problem. The action is well handled when it comes to gun play and the explosions are fine. Nothing to write home about, but they do their job of being explode-y.

Now let's discuss the humour. This is by far the funniest of the Die Hard series. Now most die hard fans of Die Hard (see what I did there?)will complain that the series isn't supposed to be funny. Well my advice to these folks is to get over it because this movie is hilarious. There's no getting around it, it's really funny. There was only one thing that seemed really forced and somewhat irritating. The fact that our hero, is on vacation. He must use that line six or seven times. We get it John, you're on vacation, get over it. Other than this repeated joke, most of the lines really work. Oh, and don't worry, a certain catchphrase that was cut short in the last movie has its cameo.

Maybe I'm crazy, but all of these other reviewers really seem like they're complaining a bit too much. Of course the only legitimate complaint I've heard is about the villain. Yes, a good villain is something that all Die Hard movies should have, and this really doesn't deliver in that aspect. He's really not on screen for most of the movie and his plan seems kind of clichéd, but ya know what? I found myself not caring as I sat in the theater. The action and humour were enough to make up for any faults this has.

Long story short, see this movie. I have a feeling that fans of the Die Hard series might complain about the new tone of this, but they'll get over it. This is my third favorite of the series (behind the first and third one)and I couldn't be more satisfied with it. Saying that, it does have plenty of faults, so I'll give it 7/10

A Good Day to Forget They Made This Movie

[gogeestar · 3/10 · 13 February 2013]

I gave it a 3 to be nice because i'll always have a huge place in my heart for Die Hard, and just because i am loyal to the franchise i will probably buy this piece of junk on DVD when it comes out. Maybe when it comes out on DVD it'll be the extended edition ( seriously it was barely and hour and an a half long) and it'll actually have a story instead of just long drawn out action scenes, one-liners, and dialogue we can actually hear over the load background noise. I use to rank Die Harder as the worse of the franchise, guess who just moved up a step.

The only thing that this movie benefited the franchise is that John's son at the end actually mentions the fact that his name is actually John McClane Jr. not Jake ( in Die Hard (1988) his kids are named Lucy and John Jr.), But not actually explain the name change in the first place.

Much like when they took Oceans 12 to Europe and twisted Indiana Jones into confusing whirlwind that involved aliens, they should have just stayed in America where John McClane belongs. We got enough problems here he could fight.

Far better than Live Free or Die Hard (NO SPOILER review)

[Dross_Rotzank · 7/10 · 14 February 2013]

The movie certainly suffers from a lot of issues. That was to be expected. However, unlike Liver Free or Die Hard, A Good Day to Die Hard biggest problem wasn't it's director, it was it's script writer, Skip Woods.

Despite the fact that, pretty much like the last movie, McClane is now a bald James Bond instead of an everyday man in extraordinary situations (which is truly what McClane is all about, not "a rebel who defies authority", like Bruce Willis thinks) the R rating does wonders for the character and it's surroundings. The atmosphere of the movie feels a hell of a lot more at home this time around than it did last time.

Grit and intensity, nowhere to be seen in Die Hard 4, is finally back to some (very welcomed) extent. Action is more down to Earth. Moore is by no means a cinematic genius, but we should thank him for this. He's not anyone's first choice to direct anything in this franchise, but his style is undoubtedly more adequate for Die Hard than Wiseman's (whose take felt septic and artificial).

THE BAD

• Dialogue. Cheesy at times. Stupid at others. And it's a God damn shame, because with some thoughtful corrections, the movie could have been far better. I wish they scrapped the part where Lucy calls him on the cellphone. Stupid.

• Terminator McClane: yes people, he's still the insufferable, indestructible, committed super hero he was in Live Free or Die Hard. Don't misunderstand me: Willis moans and even whimpers sometimes, but it feels artificial. Lacked grit. And there was a point when the character was far off of what he truly is (certain dialog should have been given to Jack instead of John, who is supposed to be very reluctant).

• They don't fully take advantage of the R rating. Which was unintelligent. I mean: if they intended this to be an R rated movie, why not go all the way through and put it on the same level the original trilogy is? Perhaps because they expected to make cuts in certain countries. A shame, because there are a couple of kills that are both memorable and (very) brutal.

• Choppy edits. Remember the clips and special featurettes? The scenes they belong to didn't get much better. That's John Moore for you guys. I like to do my homework which is why I knew this was to be expected. It even says so in his IMDb page; "known for his choppy edits".

HOWEVER, I think they heavily cut certain parts to shorten the movie. You remember certain pictures on set of John and Jack fighting against two guys from the Russian mob? Not in the movie.

THE GOOD

• Over the top? Yes. But not as cheesy, cretinistic and ridiculous as the last movie was. Nothing in here is nearly remotely as corny as McClane surfing a jet. Or a Terminator action figure coincidentally hitting a key to detonate a bomb inside a computer, or McClane being saved by two cars conveniently running on opposite direction of a flying vehicle. Or toll boots magically serving as catapults instead of being simple constructions on flat surfaces.

• The villain: far better, far smarter, far more menacing than Thomas Gabriel. People are talking crap about "OMG YOU NEVER KNOW WHO THE VILLAIN IS!". Are they silly? There IS a clear main villain. However, they broke the Die Hard tradition in the sense that while you know who he clearly was from the start in all the previous movies, here is kind of a plot twist at the last 20 minutes. Still far better and definitely more menacing than Thomas Gabriel. And he actually tries to pull a Hans Grüber! To no success, unfortunately... (You'll understand when you see).

• Climatic, at least. Live Free or Die Hard villain death was pretty "meh", gray and boring. Here the delivery is much better. And the kill was brutal. (Both of them).

• The action felt more down to Earth.

• While the true John McClane is still nowhere to be seen (perhaps Willis doesn't have it any more) at least the ghost of him was present in this movie.

THE FUNNY

Cole Hauser. What the hell???

CONCLUSIONS

Can this be considered a worthy successor to the original trilogy? No. But at least is not as alienated to the Die Hard "feeling" as Live Free or Die Hard was. A Good Day to Die Hard is the half-witted brother of the original trilogy, and that dim familiarity makes it enjoyable. It's a guilty pleasure. If Die Hard 1 is Rocky, and Die Hard 2 and 3 are Rocky 2, this movie is the Rocky 4 of the franchise. (Live Free or Die Hard wasn't anything at all).

And it's a bloody shame, because I feel critics are mostly tearing this apart for being the fifth part of a franchise whose most recent take we saw recently. They are being overly sarcastic dicks like they were with Die Hard 3, which is far, far better than Live Free or Die Hard. And that happened simply because the previous movies were too close.

if Live Free or Die Hard was released today, it would have gotten all the bad reputation this movie is having. Period.

I kept an open mind, but so much was left to be desired.

[johnnymacbest · 5/10 · 14 February 2013]

In the early '80s and '90s, the "Die Hard" series of films were all about entertainment. Sure it's not a thought-provoking piece of art, but it's art done with class, integrity and art; these films were made at a time when action films were..actually..action films. They had no quick-style MTV editing that tries to pass itself off as "action", they were done with pure and honest craftsmanship with stunt men willing to put it all out for all to see. And for that aspect alone, they did a commendable job.

So now I look at A Good Day to Die Hard, with all the trappings that action films are known for and ostentatious hijinks that scream Michael Bay-esque action that reeks of his earlier films to date.

Bruce Willis plays McClane to a hilt, but that's all there is. No heartwarming moments, no instances of morality, no deep insights into why he kills his enemies, John McClane is just that. John McClane. A bravado of words and action that homages the earlier films.

The movie at times tries to be gritty and funny at the same time, but with such an inane screenplay and unfunny jokes, it becomes quite apparent that this film was simply not meant to continue the series. To try to adapt an relic of the '80s and '90s into a modern context with current technology, doesn't work anymore. The only exception to this is Rambo, where he was fighting against a brutal regime in Southeast Asia. It worked because the setting was raw in it's brutal intensity; plus Rambo is a timeless hero and much more plausible. John McClane is just a beefed-up Jack Bauer without the hero's legendary outbursts of anger when something goes wrong or impedes him from saving the day. Not once is there a chance for the viewer to root for McClane. He remains lifeless and stiff; the very opposite of his portrayal in the earlier films.

In an attempt to distance itself from its PG-13 predecessor, the film makers decided to make this film rated R. Yet it hardly saved the film from it's mediocre direction. I suspect this was due to the large backlash from audiences of Live Free or Die Hard, a film that was only a Die Hard film in name only, not a "true" Die Hard film, which is evident in the director's inability to handle the material.

I tried to keep an open mind, after the execrable LFODH, but after this, I hope Bruce and co. just hang up the wife beater for the final time. No more. John McClane is a hero of the past and should be left there for all time's sake.

Its a good day to try harder

[benxrichardson · 6/10 · 5 January 2022]

Die Hard 5 was a rushed and lazy attempt of a sequel. The action was good but didnt live up to Die Hard 3 or 4. The movie was short and there was very little development of relationships or character building. It seemed like a quick money grab.

Sending John McLean to Russia just feels wrong. Let the series die.

"A Good Day To Die Hard" Is A Good Reason To Stay Home.

[salbeibier · 4/10 · 13 February 2013]

Very minor spoilers ahead!

Aw man. It's just sad, guys. You know those days when you really wish for something? I mean, really, really hope for something good? I felt like that about the new Die Hard movie. Mind you, I had no great expectations for it - but hopes, yes I had those. It could have been so nice. I thought perhaps they'd have learned from the just-decent 4th one, bring back the swearing, the jokes, the confined spaces, the hide-and-seek. You know, perhaps even a peek of Holly McClane, or TV reporter Dick Thornberg? That would have been so awesome. Instead, "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a weakly written, blue-tinted shaky-cam action flick that takes itself too seriously. Got nothing better to do on a Tuesday night? Yeah, stay home anyway.

Okay, fine. So the swearing is back. Yay, I thought for a moment somewhere in the first third. But then I remembered the ridiculous twenty-ish minutes I'd just sat through. Here's a rough summary of the beginning:

John McClane learns his son is in jail in Russia. He travels there to, I don't know, I guess help him out or talk some sense into him. It's not really explained. But before he goes, his daughter tells him not to make a mess. OOooOOOoo foreshadowing.

We learn the son is actually involved in a plot to help out a political prisoner at a court hearing. I think.

Next thing we know, the whole courtroom explodes. Because a mean politician wants the prisoner dead. Son drags prisoner from the rubble into a van outside but as they're about to take off, McClane jumps out: HE WANTS TO TALK TO HIS SON.

Son shoves gun up father's nose, tells him he's busy and to back off. Consequently, father joins never-ending, ridiculous car chase across Moscow involving explosions, wanton destruction, countless car wrecks and people driving off bridges. You know, BECAUSE HE WANTS TO TALK TO HIS SON.

What the heck did I just walk into?!

No seriously, it doesn't get much better. First, apart from a few well- delivered lines by Willis, there's little to no humour in this movie. It's all straight-faced and serious. McClane's son is a random CIA dude, no special character traits. Their relationship is badly introduced and expanded upon. "I hate you" - bullets bullets bullets bullets - "Okay you know what, I love you. Let's go kill more people."

Secondly, it doesn't look or feel like a "Die Hard" movie in any way. There was an article on Cracked a while ago outlining what it would take, and "Good Day" has none of it. For instance, no confined spaces. No hide-and-seek. No sabotage, no cat-and- mouse. Numerous locations instead: we go from America to Moscow to Chernobyl, and believe me, when they reached the last location, I really really hoped it'd turn into a Die-Hard-1-esque guerilla warfare tour de force. Nope, didn't happen. No kick-ass black guys like in Die Hard 1, 2 and 3 either.

The direction and cinematography are your typical early 21st century mediocre action flick fare. Except for a beautifully designed scene in an empty ballroom, it's desaturated and tinted blue, and not even in a cool "Payback" kind of way. The plethora of action scenes? Mostly nauseating shaky-cam. Oh, and the boobs Willis smiles at in the trailer? Not in the movie. Granted, I didn't miss them either. What I did miss was the excerpt from Beethoven's 9th, 4th movement, "Freude schöner Götterfunken": again, present in the trailer, absent from the movie.

Refreshingly enough, there are some other references to the 1988 classic. We have a deception scene reminiscent of the first encounter between McClane and Hans Gruber. We get a falling-off-a-roof scene, too, served with a little twist. Now, if you think those are lame attempts to copy something that used to be good, well then I guess then you're right. But hey, it's better than nothing.

So, anything redeeming about "A Good Day to Die Hard"? A few things. There were some nicely done plot twists I didn't see coming, and I enjoyed them. Sadly enough, they stick out from the otherwise mediocre writing like Bruce Willis from the rubble around Nakatomi Plaza. Shaky- cam aside, the action scenes were quite well done and if they used CGI, they did it tastefully enough: a lot of that stuff looked gritty and real. I also liked the sound mix. Yeah, the movie sounded really good. But you guessed right: none of that saves it. "A Good Day to Die Hard" didn't make me angry like "Prometheus" did, but it made me sad. Sad like the sad old eyes of Bruce Willis we get to look at for 2 hours. Spare yourselves the trouble, stay home and watch any of the first 3. Or the 4th if you're so inclined. That was decent enough.

I actually liked it.....

[proproductsjim · 8/10 · 17 February 2013]

Hey, I didn't go to this movie to compare it to other Die Hards nor was I looking for a film classic or a work of art. I just wanted some good old fashioned action and was not disappointed. The car chase with the resulting mayhem and destruction was over the top entertaining. Each set of crashes outdid the previous one. They must have destroyed 200 vehicles.

I found the scenes at Chernobyl to be extremely interesting even if they were filmed in Bulgaria. The wasteland that they somehow created was very real looking and certainly made me wonder if it actually was filmed at Chernobyl.

Anyway, maybe I am easily entertained. My gf, who is a big action fan enjoyed it as well.

Fading fast

[centralbeerangi-307-394889 · 6/10 · 13 February 2013]

This installment of the Die Hard series sees John McClane travel to Russia to help his son who has run into trouble with the Russian authorities. I was disappointed with the movie overall--the story lacked tension and real mystery and despite a couple of plot twists it is not as compelling as any of the previous entries in the franchise. I would rank the plot at the same level as the previous movie directed by Len Wiseman. Even at 98 minutes the pacing was sluggish especially in the early going. There are several action set pieces in this film that feature lots of explosions and gunfire but I found them repetitive and boring. In fact in two key action sequences a helicopter is featured and both are similarly structured for the most part while concluding slightly differently. The obligatory automobile chase scene is filmed with shaky cam with so many cuts that last micro-seconds that its dizzying. This is unfortunate because the stunt crew do a fantastic job of destroying cars and trucks and there are genuine thrills to be had if only the editor had held shots longer. The chemistry between Willis and Jai Courtney was not there for me; you will know what I mean when you compare the brief scenes between Willis and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who scintillates in the 2 minutes she is on screen, to the rest of the film. So in the previous three months that has seen releases from Cruise, Stallone and Schwarzenegger, we now have to add an entry from Willis and to my mind here is how I would rank the films: 1. Reacher 2. The Last Stand 3. Tie Bullet to the Head and A Good Day to Die Hard

A final post script: At the screening I attended, the movie was projected digitally at an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 and ALL of the subtitles were completely cut off. According to IMDb, this movie is supposed to be in 1.85:1 ratio. A 1.85:1 ratio film with subtitles when cropped to 2.35:1 would result in the the subtitles being cut off. I don't know if this was a mistake of the projectionist, who by the way tried in vain to fix the problem, or if Fox Studios decided to release the film in 2.35:1 by cropping the original 1.85:1 version. All of the dialog spoken by Russian characters with each other is in Russian and subtitled so if you can't see the subtitles you are likely missing expository dialog. My rating would be unchanged regardless.

Geek Update: The correct aspect ratio for this film is indeed 1.85:1. I went back to the multiplex and confirmed this recently when I watched a few minutes of the film again. This is the first Die Hard film that has not been shot in widescreen. It was shot on film using spherical lenses in the super-35mm format. The director apparently framed the shots for the 1.85:1 ratio (a squarer image than the 2.35:1 ratio) and extracted the image from the exposed super-35mm negative. My experience watching the film in two different aspect ratios illustrates another dissatisfying point of this movie. John Moore's framing has so much "safe-action" in the center of the screen image that even when cropped to 2.35:1, other than the loss of the subtitles there was not one single indication of the director's true intended aspect ratio! By cramming all the relevant detail into the middle of the frame, this means that there is so much irrelevant visual information in the top and the bottom of the 1.85:1 image that after these portions are cropped out there is no real loss of compositional clarity. Why would/should someone pay hard earned cash to see this on the big screen? Save your money, wait for it on cable.

Die Already!

[Minerva_Meybridge · 1/10 · 21 February 2013]

No wonder they gave away free tickets to see this one. Don't get me wrong. I like the other Die Hards, but this one was nothing but special effects. Not one character to give a damn about. Wooden performances. Bad script. Poor direction. And John McClane seemed like a gun happy idiot.

1. John McClane goes to Moscow to search for his son, and finds him in two minutes.

2. Apparently there are no cops in Moscow while guns are blazing and a kajillion cars are being destroyed by John McClane.

3. The bad guys get their hands on an advanced military helicopter exactly how?

4. The CIA plans a three-year mission based on bad information.

5. The Soviet and Russian governments conveniently abandon for decades tons of refined bomb- grade Uranium 235 for anyone to walk away with.

6. McClane, Jr. gets run through by bar steel, but when it's pulled out from his gut, he doesn't even need a bandage.

7. In real life, actor Kevin Smith (Aries in Xena/Hercules) fell off a stage and died from the fall. Here, MeClane and son both jump from a tall building twice with barely a scratch.

8 The bad buy dies the same way Hans Gruber died in Die Hard 1 with the exact same falling shot.

9. And what was up with the back side of the guy to the left of the screen in the opening shot. Bad direction.

10. When it finally ended, my thoughts were, "That's it?" Yep. Two hours of my life gone forever.

Yippee ki yay my a**!

Pitiful attempt at bringing back the series

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 30 June 2013]

While many people slated DIE HARD 4.0, I enjoyed watching it the few times I've seen it since release; I felt like it was a moderately successful way to bring the Bruce Willis-starring franchise slap bang into the 21st century, although of course it wasn't as good as the original trilogy. Inevitably, A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD followed, but the bad news is that it makes the last instalment look like a masterpiece by comparison.

This movie really is that bad, and it's all down to the people who made it. Much of the blame can be laid at the door of director John Moore, who makes even more of a mess with this than he did with MAX PAYNE; he can't even do basics like where to place his actors in their shots, and he manages to screw up every action scene in the movie (and believe me, there are a lot of them).

Still, it's no surprise that the appalling script was written by one Skip Woods, who also handled the equally rubbishy A-TEAM movie. Woods is without a doubt the worst writer currently working in Hollywood and why people still employ him is anybody's guess.

Willis realises he's making a turkey so he makes no effort whatsoever; he sleepwalks through this with a monotonous voice guaranteed to send most moviegoers to sleep. This isn't John McClane, not even the McClane of DIE HARD 4.0; instead it's just some tired old guy who clearly doesn't want to be there. As his son, Jai Courtney is given a one-dimensional character and displays none of the charm he brought to his role as Varro in SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND.

The film meanders from one pointless action scene to the next, and we never get a clear idea of who the bad guys are or what they want; Willis just kind of stumbles into their plans (whatever they are) and goes along with it. The violence is mind-numblingly routine, and despite the explosive special effects the film offers little in the way of entertainment, with an early car chase being the only half-decent part purely for its destructive visuals. The great Sebastian Koch is wasted en route, and the film ends with a CGI-fuelled whimper.

I hope to God I never have to see it again.