A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
524 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
This movie is not a Die Hard movie so where is McClane?
ivo-cobra814 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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!!!
75 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
What on earth have they done to John McClane?!
dvc515914 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.
450 out of 509 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Great action but...
michaelberneman14 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
161 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Here's why it's just so bad ....
Andy Smith15 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.
434 out of 516 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is terrible.
Jaho Koo13 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.
521 out of 631 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A Good Day to Cry Hard
BJBatimdb15 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
74 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
A Good Day For This Franchise to Die Hard
illbebackreviews13 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.
347 out of 441 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
A Good Day To Die Hard is not so Die Hard
movie_star34910 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.
230 out of 289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Shaky Camera ruined it for me
heil_cf216 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.
195 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Bruce Willis does what he does best, but this is quite simply one of the worst days of the 'Die Hard' series
moviexclusive6 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
189 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
A Good Day to Forget They Made This Movie
gogeestar13 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.
187 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Die Already!
Minerva Breanne Meybridge21 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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**!
32 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
I kept an open mind, but so much was left to be desired.
johnnymacbest14 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.
112 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Uninteresting mess
nillerus11 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this 3 stars, as compared to the other movies in the franchise. As a standalone action flick I might stretch it to 6/10.

The Die Hard series is all about violent and bloody mass murder, that is somehow kept fun, because of the characters and dialogue. That's a precarious balance to maintain, and this movie just missed the tone of Die Hard completely.

The world isn't fleshed out at all. There is no feeling of continuity between this and the other movies. Lucy McClane is thrown in for a brief moment, but the otherwise excellent and hilarious relationship between father and daughter that is established in Die Hard 4 is just gone.

The characters are bland and two-dimensional, both on the good and evil side. Perhaps the most grievous exemplar of this is John McClane Junior, who just doesn't bother to act at all. There is absolutely no chemistry between father and son, Junior being actively dislike-able. At one point I was rooting for the marginally more charismatic bad guy to shoot him in the face. Even McClane lacks his hilarious one-liners and quips. You're going to be heartily sick of the phrase "I'm just on vacation" halfway through this movie.

The story lacks any real cohesion, the dialogue is horrible, in parts even nonsensical:

"Who's the smart one now?" "Hey, I'm just here on vacation" (not verbatim).

The best action happens 20 minutes into the movie, the climax being anything but. It does feature an inexplicably half-naked Russian guy with "CCCP" tattooed on his back though, so there is that.

There is just no point to this movie. It's a mediocre action film, with Bruce Willis tacked on.

Stay at home and watch any of the other Die Hard movies.
43 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
"A Good Day To Die Hard" Is A Good Reason To Stay Home.
Matthias Elsdoerfer13 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
36 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
R.I.P. Die Hard
christoph-1417 February 2013
Even for a rookie of the Die Hard's Franchise, this is not a Die Hard : where is the real bad guy, where is the real John Mc Clane, where is the real thrilled plot, where is the impossible action scenes and the bad ass Mc Clane's jokes ? Moore just kill it... The story is so boring that you have the impression that Bruce Willis himself is not having a good time. And the real missing part is those conversations between Mc Clane and the bad guys when John is teasing the bad guy. The editing is to clippy : Moore doesn't take time to install the ambiance. Russia seems to cool for John, no tension, no real danger. And the relationship with his son is just to hollow. In fact, only the name John Mc Clan is the only thing left of the Die Hard's franchise. R.I.P. Die Hard.
50 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Not even funny
inc-1025 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There's loads of downright idiotic errors in logic and geography in American movies, but they still pass more or less usually. Not on this one. My initial reaction was that target audience for this movie must be really, really dumb. After movie continued, I came to conclusion that world cannot really be populated by *that* stupid people, so it was simply written, directed and approved by men who have just received a lobotomy. I think I am right about this one.

Movie starts with embarrassing scene with a taxi driver. I don't know if it was supposed to be an ode to international friendship or try to emulate youthful taxi driver from first of the series, but it sure looked and sounded bad.

Dozen minutes later, you see a UAV Drone flying over Moscow. This instant is clear that you're watching science fiction. Even if you could travel back in time, to 1940's with much less advanced radars and anti- air systems, an American drone wouldn't simply be able fly over Moscow. Much less in 2000's while Moscow is over 700km from nearest NATO member border.

Then, in a capital of police state country that normally has policemen in every street corner and random ID checks are casual thing, next to the courthouse (!) a firefight occurs with no police to be seen, while perpetrators organize family reunions and take long time just wandering around the street, with no one to stop them. Okay...

The movie is jumping between shaky camera action sequences and father- issue drama constantly, while both feel out of place. Especially latter, since violin music and dumb stares feel artificial and forced.

I could go on, but I don't want to drag this review out. From the retarded mind of the writer we will also "learn" that:

* 3000 rounds per minute twin anti-tank machine gun works as 30 rounds per minute if you're shooting at protagonist of the movie.

* Ukraine and Russia have no border, much like the States, so you could easily drive from one to another with a stolen car and trunk full of Canadian guns (stolen from Chechen bandits, go figure).

* You can also fly around in both countries in a military helicopter or shoot up buildings in downtown Moscow, with no army to interfere.

* Car can scale 1000 km from Moscow to Pripyat in more or less same time as a military helicopter.

* Dozens of years of radiation can be easily dispersed with what looks like a leaf blower. Even from metal.

* Rain water doesn't get radiated. You can happily swim in it.

* Russian helicopters have magical power to grow back a tail rotor should you destroy one while crashing into building.

This movie doesn't have factual errors. It *is* a factual error.

John Mclane we knew was humorous, non-aggressive unless provoked, had street smarts and good intuition. In "Good day", it is thrown in only a pinch, to say "we had it too", but it is not the real content of the story in any way. It is quite noticeable here and there.

If you loved previous films, or at least first three, avoid this garbage. Keep the memory happy.
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Annoying pain in the ass, pointless boring movie
krycek1915 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Thats the best way to describe this crap. Jai Courteny has got to be the most annoying actor ever. There is no chemistry between him and Bruce.

Die Hard fans will hate this movie.

There is no script. Bruce seems out of place here despite its suppose to be Die Hard. But it doesn't feel like Die Hard.

Even the action sequences are boring and doesn't add anything to the story. So it seems like the action is there just to satisfy the audiences craving for action. Like the stupid car- chase where McClane totals 100 cars because he must talk to his brain-dead son.

The bad-guys are cardboard characters and cliché.

I was so happy when this movie got an R rating but without a descent script forget it.

Even the fourth movie that got a PG 13 rating was ten times better than this. At least it felt like Die Hard, with good acting, a good script and nice action.

The director John Moore said that people have expectations to a Die Hard movie. That it isn't just any other action movie. Well John you certainly treated Die Hard like any other action movie. I've seen Van Damme movies that are better than this.

The funny thing is that Sam Mendes said the same thing about 007 but he still managed to kill the franchise with the awful Skyfall, just like John Moore did with A Good Day To Die Hard.
65 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Jesus Christ!
robbrock34 July 2013
That's it. Jesus Christ. When you watch it, you'll find out why this review works.

For the sake of actually giving you a proper review, though, I will try to take apart this film. I will spend slightly longer on taking apart this film than the makers spent on putting it together.

My main problem with this movie is in fact this entire movie. Never before have I seen so many plot holes, so many gaps in logic. The laws of physics, biology and, yes, even chemistry are totally ignored for the full 97 minutes. Not to mention the laws of other school subjects such as Geography, Modern Languages and History. Not to mention that they seem to have thrown out all the books on script-writing, cinematography and direction.

It manages to offend/alienate the people of Russia, Ukraine, France and Switzerland in just one scene. That's 262,000,000 people in the space of 5 minutes. Just for the hell of it I worked out that that means they could have offended the entire population of the world in just under 2 hours (119.86 minutes if your interested).

But the film is nowhere near that long. Normally I would complain that it was too short; the 97 minutes contained very little really. But in this case I was really glad to see the credits start rolling.

But at least they probably found some amusement in the offence in the stark refusal of the writers to look at a map. For the rest of us, and especially Die Hard fans (see what I did there) the offence we take from this movie is not at all funny.

As it happens, the movie is not at all funny either. McClane seems to have run out of witty one-liners that make his character so good. The bad guys barely speak, which rules them out, and there's none of the gung-ho funny moments or threatening situations that make the other films great.

There is no sense of desperation for McClane, it all seems far too easy for him. But then he is on vacation I guess, and it's something he seems very keen to share with everyone he sees.

I love Die Hard. I even forgave Die Hard 4 when it CGI'd together a scene from Transformers and and a scene from True Lies to make what I believe is called a terrible error of judgment.

I hate this movie. It gets a 3/10 rating because the acting was actually okay, and some of the action was alright too. But this is just drops in the ocean people.

Some people may like this movie when they see it, but I would not spend any money on it just in case you are disappointed. I bought the box-set of Die Hards 1-4 which they released when this movie came out, and now I am glad I did because I don't know if I would buy a box-set that contained this utterly lazy, poorly conceived and executed, rushed job that it is. I don't want to own it, I don't want to see it again and I don't want it in my house.

A Good Day To Die Hard...Jesus Christ.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
The Rocky 5 of the Die Hard movies
Robgundy1513 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was just horrible. Live free or Die Hard was a good movie with a good story. This movie was a bunch of action scenes with a swiss cheese plot, poor character development and a forceful attempt at humor. The antagonist wasn't remotely threatening at all. They clearly made 1 to many. The movie basically just throws you into the thick of a plot that don't really have an idea of whats going on. Lets not forget all the failed heartwarming attempts at compassion between father and son which like the humor, was terribly forced. John Mcclanes son refuses to call him dad and refers to him just by his first name, how cliché. stay away from this movie its trash
26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
groan!
sparshparimoo13 July 2013
I've got a belly ache. Its THAT bad. Really.....Die Hard and Predator are my all time favorite movies, with McClane and Dutch my all time favorite action heroes.

And look what they've done to McClane. I'm heartbroken.

The music drones on as if the fate of the world was at hand, the camera whirls about like it was under fire, things explode and guns go off every few seconds........ and u Don't GIVE A SH**. Willis looks bored out of his mind, and who can blame him. You sometimes run into a movie so bad, its impossible to review it. This is one of those movies.

God my stomach hurts so bad.....maybe it was the pizza.....but im pretty sure it was this movie....
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
"You got a plan?"
Jan Kalina30 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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A Good Day to Watch something Else
jared martin15 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a Die Hard fan, and this movie was complete, and utter crap. Director John Moore, and writer Skip Woods shouldn't be allowed near any film, let alone Die Hard, a beloved franchise. There's nothing in this movie thats worth writing a full review, so instead I'll just rant, so beware SPOILERS.....as if this movie isn't spoiled enough.

I was a fan of the last Die Hard, especially the unrated cut which restored some of what the theatrical version left out, to achieve the PG 13 rating. Live free or Die Hard had some over the top stuff, but the characters, and story, were interesting enough to make it a worthy addition to the series. The movie was interesting, had a decent antagonist, and Justin Long's character was a perfect side kick for John McClaine, because he didn't over shadow what John McClaine is, the hero.

Long's character was computer savvy but not strong, and the pair worked well together, as they both brought things to the table. An old John McClaine shouldn't have been fun to watch, but oddly it was, and for me that movie wrapped up perfectly, and I even enjoyed it more than the 3rd surprisingly. Now why did I say all that...because the 5th movie does none of this, and feels more like a spoof than an actual sequel.

For crying out loud John McClaine isn't even John McClaine in this one. Instead we just have Bruce Willis phoning it in, and his obnoxious ass clown of a son, that can't act. The apple falls so far from the the tree it's sad. Perhaps this is the biggest problem with this crap fest, there is no character whatsoever. No real villain to speak of, no interesting or memorable action, no pacing, no real humor, not one thing that could pass as Die Hard. Even the yippi ki ya mother#$%&@# line was just randomly thrown in, not even used in a clever way. Just one poorly done throwback to Hans Gruber's death in the first Die Hard, which in this movie was laughable, probably the only part I laughed at, and just shows the lack of creativity of those involved.

Bad directing, and Bad writing will destroy a movie anytime. This should have been titled A Good Day to Kill a Franchise. There's at least a Die Hard quadrilogy and really isn't that enough...yes for me it is.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Pitiful attempt at bringing back the series
Leofwine_draca30 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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews