A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
433 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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.
534 out of 612 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
358 out of 463 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
117 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A really not so good day to die hard
TheLittleSongbird4 September 2013
The best of the series is easily the first Die Hard, which is one of the all-time greats of the action genre too. Die Hard 2 and Die Hard with a Vengeance were also very good films, while the fourth film was okay but on the forgettable side too. A Good Day to Die Hard, even when watching with an open mind, was a huge disappointment and the only film of the series that I consider bad. It is not quite as awful as After Earth and Scary MoVie, but if there was an award for the most disappointing film of 2013 A Good Day to Die Hard would not only be a contender but also win the prize. Two or three things stop it from having no redeeming qualities at all, the best thing is easily the exciting car chase through Moscow(Russia was a really good choice of setting for the film). The locations are nice and the special effects are mostly good. The film is also quite well scored, with a good sense of atmosphere and mood and it's not too monotonous, overall it serves the film very well but a tad forgettable at times. The rest of A Good Day to Die Hard was an absolute mess. The photography is inconsistent, it's good and appropriately gritty in the scenes where there's any signs of a story but it's in the action sequences where it takes on a rather chaotic and rushed nature in a way that is not ideal for those suffering with epilepsy or sensitive eyes. John Moore's direction is lazy and pedestrian with very little degrees of subtlety, a lot of the time it lacks cohesion as well. Bruce Willis has never looked or sounded as tired as he does here, maybe John McClane was meant to be world-weary here but Willis has very little to work with apart from some tired one-liners.

He is disadvantaged also by McClane being too much of an almost sidelined sidekick rather than the commanding yet vulnerable lead hero that makes him so iconic in the first place, it just wasn't John McClane and it was really a waste of Willis as well. Jai Courtney is annoying, saddled with a character that doesn't come across as likable in the least bit, and the whole father-son dynamic was very forced. The villain is pretty much a non-entity with an underdeveloped motivation and little if any sense of threat, the worst of the series without a shadow of a doubt. A Good Day to Die Hard suffers the most from being an example of a film with too much action and not enough dialogue or story. Even more of a problem is that neither of them are done particularly well at all. In the action, the only good action sequence is the car chase, the rest are drawn out and nowhere near slick enough with no momentum or excitement, the sense of peril is also very low for stunts as dangerous-looking as these with McClane and Jack often coming out unscathed. They're loud and wannabe-big but that's it, as unsubtle as Moore's direction. The dialogue is rambling and tired, the humour feels very out-of-place and the one-liners are too poorly timed to be properly witty. The story is confusing- even for someone who had no problem understanding films that have often been criticised for this like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy- and emotionally hollow, sagged down even more by too many double crosses to properly keep up with, bad pacing(the first half is rushed and the second half drags) and increasing implausibility. Often too it's too much of an excuse to string along action sequences together, seeing as the action is generally poorly done here that is a problem.

All in all, a mess(the only Die Hard film that actually is so) and the worst of the series. 3/10 Bethany Cox
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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
191 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Here's why it's just so bad ....
andrewsmith1-609-47998015 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.
512 out of 604 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is terrible.
neyoless13 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.
538 out of 653 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
213 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Chris_Mac_2514 March 2020
The first 3 Die Hard movies were incredible. Hans Gruber is one of the greatest cinema bad guys of all time. Die Hard 4 was okay

But this?

What kind of rubbish is this? Jai Courtney's back story and character is piss weak, and Willis just turns up to act bullet proof and crack wise here and there for a juicy paycheque

Mclane is no longer a flawed and physically vulnerable character. He's morphed into an invulnerable bald dude who's ego won't allow him to take any damage

Please stop tarnishing the original trilogy with this rubbish
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Good Day to Kill "Die Hard".
filipemanuelneto9 April 2022
The "Die Hard" franchise has had its moments of glory and helped a lot to consolidate the career of Bruce Willis. The first and third movies were really good and well executed. The second film, not so good, also had moments of merit. And if the fourth film was less positive, and less interesting, I still don't think it was a bad ending for the franchise. Yes, an ending, because the franchise should have ended there. This movie is so bad it shouldn't have been made.

The film's biggest problem is the poor script, along with the incompetence of John Moore's direction. He bets everything on pure action, giving us a film that, almost five or ten minutes after starting, throws the audience between bullets, gunshots and explosions. The feeling I got is that there is no script, but an excuse for an action movie: John McLane goes to Moscow to try to free his son from a heavy penalty, while he offers to help the Russians to arrest a mafia oligarch. If, on the one hand, shooting the film in Russia was a good bet, and it allows us to see environments conducive to such a film, the absence of a cohesive story takes away the solid foundation that this film could have had.

The bad construction of the characters and the bad dialogues didn't help either. After sacrificing all the psychological and moral construction of the characters, the film leaves us figures, faces without will or personality, and the actors are simply invited to give their bodies and voices to each one of them. Bruce Willis is clearly the most outstanding and notable actor in the cast. He's a good actor, but even a good actor fails when he doesn't get good material, and doesn't have a director to help him. Willis shows too many signs of old age in a character who seems to need a cane to, five minutes later, run, jump, shoot and act like he's 20 years old. Jai Courtney does nothing but follow him, but doesn't establish a believable chemistry with Willis' character. Sebastian Koch, Sergey Kolesnikov, Roman Luknár and others limit themselves to doing the basics and the villains are superficial and more tiresome than menacing. For a moment I thought that Yulia Snigir would be Courtney's love interest, but the character took another path and I feel like she's in the movie just to please the male audience.

On a technical level, the only point where the film really does something positive is in the action scenes and in the visual, special and sound effects. The film has action for all tastes and doesn't give the audience much space to think about what they're watching (if you think about it, the film falls apart and becomes stupid and illogical). Even so, the film feels a lot like a noisy video game, and we never felt the danger, threat, tension or emotion the film was supposed to evoke. In addition to the usual clichés (enough bullets to invade Afghanistan, random explosions, the heroes virtually unharmed regardless of the situation etc.), the film offers us a very good opening scene, with a maddening car chase through the avenues of the Russian capital, American-style, this being the best-executed scene in the film. The use of close up or slow motion scenes is exaggerated and reeks of presumption. The choice of filming locations was judicious and very well done, and the cinematography does what it can with them and is generally well executed, although the editing may have gone worse afterwards.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
243 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A horrible follow up that killed Die Hard.
tylerrosin28 August 2021
This is a huge letdown and complete dumpster fire of a sequel. There was not really a lot of positives as this didn't even really feel like a Die Hard movie. The whole direction of the movie and the way it relied on so much green screen really pulls you out as practical effects was a big part of the original movies. Even the plot with his son that really is never referenced in the other movies comes out of nowhere and the Russian setting doesn't fit. There was some decent gunfights and the humor was ok but everything else fell flat.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Good Day to Die Hard has some good moments
tavm24 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.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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 257 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lacking in pretty much every regard
bob the moo26 May 2013
If you can find a clip of it online it is worth trying to see Bruce Willis appearing on BBC1's The One Show to promote this film. Not only is it more entertaining than the film itself, but it also serves as a great piece of self-contained criticism because what you have is a Willis that seems totally fed up and barely able to talk about the film without sighing. Jet lag was the official excuse (as if he flew coach with some kid kicking the back of his seat!) but the reasons seem pretty clear to me now that I've seen Die Hard 5 for myself, because there really is very little here to be excited about.

The writers this time do not even try to make the plot fit into the traditional Die Hard mould; McClane technically has to go to Russia and get involved with bad guys in order to save his son, but it is very tenuous and isn't really the case beyond the one line pitch because after this it is really just a basic action movie. The laziness is evident from the start in the writing as the two McClane's manage to bump into each other in the middle of all the chaos in a way that is simple that it will insult the intelligence of even the most accommodating viewer. From here on it continues in the same way with a plot that doesn't really flow and didn't interest me in the slightest. The dialogue totally lacks spark as well, with nothing funny or clever here. There are some nods to the original film (the Bill Clay moment for example) and "that" line does at least get said but mostly everything is flat.

Of course a massive reason for that could also be the performance from Bruce Willis because I do not think I have ever seen someone so effectively smother a film as he does here – perhaps even if the material did have life it wouldn't have made through him anyway. He can barely raise himself to any moment in the film; there is no urgency to him in the action and even the witty dialogue feels like it is being pulled out of him. He really doesn't have the heart for this – I'm not sure if there were specific tensions during shooting or if it was as simple as him not caring, but the end result is the same. It is even worse if you compare him to his performance in the original film where he convinced and sold the story totally, doing so with real spark; here there is nothing approaching a spark or even a twinkle. This is matched by Courtney, who has massive arms but very little charisma or presence. The rest of the cast are totally forgettable and even the villains are generic – again nobody writing this film appears to have seen a Die Hard movie before because they don't seem to know that it works better with a charismatic lead villain to play off against.

The laziness and lack of energy unfortunately feeds through into the action as well. In terms of bang for buck, there is a lot of money on the screen and a good couple of set pieces that are technically pretty impressive, but mostly the action is poor. The opening car chase is OK but has none of the impact or urgency (or entertainment) of the car chase in Russia in the second Bourne film (for example). The rest of the action is overblown nonsense and you'll never actually care about any of it, far less be thrilled by it. I was surprised by how totally cut off from it I was – I could see explosions happen and hear people delivering lines, but it sort of just happened in front of me, it certainly didn't ever make a connection.

There is a lot wrong with this film and pretty much the only good thing you can say about it is that it is consistent in its shortcomings, because it is lacking in almost every regard. The lack of energy, spark and heart is across the board and the viewer will feel it too. Die Hard 5 is as terrible as you have heard it is and whatever value it may have had as a dumb fun blockbuster is pretty much smothered out by how little effort and energy everyone involved seems to have brought to the project.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bottom of the franchise
Floated27 August 2019
The Die Hard films have become classic action films and have grown in size over the years. This latest and fifth film of the franchise is seemingly the worst. All the spark and magic of the original two is gone. Do not think as highly of this franchise as many fans but can tell the previous films had an entertainment value, and a good sense of comic relief.

However this film (back with an R-rating) is quite dull, bland, generic and confusing at times. Also much complaint about this film is that John McClane (Bruce Willis) role isn't as big, and that his son Jack (Jai Courtney) is really the main focus.

Having just finished watching this film, can't remember too much about the film or it's action sequences. All in all, A Good Day to Die Hard is ultimately forgettable.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Garbage! I hate this movie!!!
NightmareOnElmStreetFan2 January 2020
I don't have this goddamn movie in my collection, I don't have it on VHS, Blu-Ray disc or DVD! I wanted to buy this film from someone on Blu-ray disc, but the seller never responded me back so I did not got it. He responded a weak later with an apology, but I wasn't interested in buying this movie anymore. I have all four films on Blu-ray disc. Die Hard 3 I have also on DVD, I have a poster about the original Die Hard (1988)! This movie I disown I pretend this movie does not exist. It is so awful horrible bland film, I can't stand it!

This is not a Die Hard movie! I don't know what the heck this is but is not a Die Hard movie! I love all 4 Die Hard films this I don't have! I am a Die Hard fan, but I am not a fan of this movie!!! It was not need it, it was cash grab! They are 2 cuts of this film the theatrical cut is so awful that I could not finish the movie. In the opening scene and the finale we see Lucy Gennaro McClane (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) the actress returnd. In the extended cut Lucy Gennaro McClane was cut from this film. I think director John Moore made a mistake or he regret it to put the actress in the film.

Bruce Willis is bald he is not John McClane, he is not the action hero I remember. There is no forgivenes for this movie happening! This movie is more about his son (Jai Courtney) Jack McClane which sucks!

This movie is CGI bland, action sucks!!! This movie sucks the biggest peace a s*** garbage I have ever saw!!!! Bruce Willis grow a hair and start acting like a John McClane. I don't want another Die Hard movie. Live Free or Die Hard movie ended well the franchise. This movie needs to be destroyed and belongs in to the dumpster in the trash with all the rest of garbages. This movie I have not seen in six years since it come out and after that I have not seen this film at all. Btw I couldn't finish the theatrical cut cause it was so horrible made that I quit watching it in the middle of the film. I saw the extended cut, I will never again watch it! Still this movie sucks awful horrible! I hate it! I hate this movie! I hate it!!! I hate it!!!

Where was John McClane we remember in this movie? Well he wasn't!!! A Good Day to Die Hard sucks HARD!!! A better title would A Good Day to Destroy the Franchise or A Good Day to suck HARD!!! They would be much better titles! I never want to see this movie in my intier life ever again!!!!

I am A Nightmare on Elm Street fan I have all the movie son Blu-ray and on DVD even the remake I hate it but I end it likeing it. I have poster of Nightmare on Elm Street 1, 3 and 6 and yes Freddy's Dead is my at least favorite film, but I am still going to watch it. This movie I don't own and I don't want too.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
To say this is the worst film of the franchise is an understatement
estebangonzalez1026 February 2013
¨The things we do for our kids! Yippee Ki-Yay…¨

This is the fifth film in the Die Hard franchise which began way back in 1988 when Bruce Willis still had some hair. That movie helped Willis become an action star and raised the bar for all action movies since. It also received four Oscar nominations. None of the sequels have been able to match that same quality, but at least they had a decent storyline and were overall pretty decent films. A Good Day to Die Hard on the other hand not only does it not live up to the franchise expectations, it kills it once and for all thanks to a terrible script and some senseless action scenes. This film is all noise, but no content. It is the shortest and by far the worse film of the franchise making the 2007 sequel look like a masterpiece next to this one. A lot of things went wrong with this film; first of all it was directed by John Moore (Max Payne, The Omen) who in my opinion hasn't directed a good movie in his entire career. Second, the script written by Skip Woods is absolutely terrible with no story whatsoever or any character development. Woods didn't repeat the success he had with the A-Team film which I found to be pretty funny and entertaining. Third and perhaps the most fatal mistake they took John McClane out of the United States and took him to Russia which is too bad because in the original film New York was more like a character than a simple location. I am just so glad that Nicolas Winding Refn decided not to direct this terrible story. He's a smart man. So far the 2013 releases have been pretty weak and A Good Day to Die Hard wasn't the exception.

For the first time we get to follow our hero, John McClane (Bruce Willis) to a foreign territory as he decides to travel to Russia on vacations in search of his troubled son, Jack (Jai Courtney) with whom he hasn't been in contact with in over three years. Jack happens to be on trial for murder, but what his father doesn't know is that he is working as an undercover agent for the CIA. Jack is on a mission to prevent a nuclear weapon heist and he is actually on trial to try to free Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch), a political prisoner who claims to have important incriminating evidence in a secret hidden file on a high ranked Russian official named Viktor Chagarin (Sergei Kolesnikov). Jack is trying to free Yuri before the corrupt officials get to Yuri and eliminate him in order to get his hands on the file and prevent a nuclear war. This is when John arrives in Russia and while he is getting to the courthouse to find his son he gets caught in the middle of a gigantic explosion that is being led by Chagarin and his men to try to intercept Yuri before he testifies. Jack manages to rescue Yuri and they escape from the courthouse, but are being followed. John catches up with them while they are being pursued and his son Jack is not too pleased to see him. His father seems to have interfered with his plan to rescue Yuri and the rest of the CIA officials have to cancel the extraction. Now they are forced to work together in order to get Yuri to safety and find the file before Chagarin and his men do.

Like in all other Die Hard films we have plenty of helicopter explosions and a lot of action, but we lack a true story. There is very little dialog in this film and hardly any transition time from one action scene to another. That is why this film is so short, there is no room for character development and the producers don't want us to think too much about the plot. Everything feels so rushed and in my opinion John Moore has completely killed this franchise through this uninspired script that they decided to work with. The film is very disappointing, loud, and full of boring vehicle chases and explosions. Not even Bruce Willis has enough charisma this time to save the film. Unlike in his earlier films where his character, John McClane was a mere mortal who bled and got beat up, here they make him look like a superhero who can't be touched. There is no fun in his character being an immortal, because what we liked about him in the first place was his vulnerability and the courage he had to face danger despite getting hurt. His character lacks personality just like this film does which has been reduced to a bunch of noise and senseless twists. Skip this movie.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What? What? What did he say? Huh?
arshadpahad20 March 2013
So there I was, first in line to see one of my all time favourite bald men.

The Bruce was yet again going to take on some bad guy with some sharp wit, humour, and yes big guns. It was going to be fun and I was going to get up and applaud when the Bruce said yippee-kay-yay mother F**&&^ and opened a giant can of whip-ass on a bad guy who would in turn say something sarcastic before dying.

Isn't that what is supposed to happen? With some plot added in for fun, you know, someone wanting to steal bearer bonds, free a dictator, avenge a brother's death and steal some gold....

No, what I got was big guns, no decent bad guy, no decent reason for the bad guy to exist, and no humour, sarcasm, wit. And let's not forget the Bruce's son. My God, the personality of an accountant with a gun.

And when Yippee-Kay-Yay came along all I heard was "BOOOOOOOOM", "BAAANNNG" and crash. I was bored to death, as I am sure that Russian fellow was too. Russians? Really? It left me cold.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Falls well short of any kind of standard, in what is a series which once stood tall but now seems like all the others.
johnnyboyz23 December 2016
I am somewhat confused. It is widely accepted that the first of the now five "Die Hard" films is the best one – if not, the most renowned and looked upon as the most inspirational. Indeed, if you were told you could only see one of the rather now bloated franchise, it would most likely be John Mctiernan's 1988 effort which kicked the entire series off. Odd, then, that the last two entries seem to draw more from the third in the series than any other – 1995's "Die Hard: With a Vengeance", what with its sense of the sprawling and of the madcap; of driving and of charging around with an accomplice to crack-wise as you aim to avoid yet another pile-up. Do not get me wrong, I have the time for "Vengeance", but this process of throwing action at the screen and hoping that doing nothing with a lot will compensate for your inability to do a lot with very little, is waning.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that "A Good Day to Die Hard" is as bad as it is – a throwaway film with nothing to really mark it out amongst any other action thriller; a terrifically grey film, cold and metallic and arid in character; a film lacking a villain and any sort of real tension. Then again, perhaps it is something else. Perhaps it is the removing of the film from its Christmas setting of the first two, or that Bruce Willis is a quarter of a century older now. Willis reprises the role of John McLane, a veteran NYPD police officer who is established as a decent shot in his taking down of numerous targets at the range – it seems you are expected to come to the film knowing the rest: the tempestuous relationship with his family; the never-say-die-attitude and the ability to handle himself in a crisis. Time has moved on – he was an analogue watch in a digital age in the fourth outing, powerless to stop his now adult daughter dating, and here now finds himself alone firing off rounds at the range under the watchful eye of a portrait of America's first black President.

This entry eventually sees him fly to Moscow, in Russia, where during his visit to meet his son John jr (Jai Courtney), the Central Intelligence Agency breaks out of prison a political prisoner in the mould of an Alexei Navalny or a Mikhail Khodorkovsky named Komarov (Sebastian Koch). In the area at the time for an unrelated reason, and uncovering both that his son was involved and that some especially nasty people want Komarov back, the charge is set for some Die Hard shenanigans as a race against time and for one's life plays out across the Russian capital's road systems and high-rise buildings.

Only, that is not what especially happens - in fact, far from it. The film is cold and detached; the opening hour might just as well be any standardised CIA/FSB/breakout espionage thriller, the difference here lying with the fact one of the most celebrated heroes in cinema (at least, according to those many AFI lists) just happens to be in amongst the thick of what is going on. McLane's son begins the film hating his father – are we sure this will still be the case, once they have had their adventure and Junior gets a taste of what his father has had to go through on all these occasions, by the end?

It has often been the case that a franchise, when it is loose on ideas but high in box office potential, begins to mix father and son relations into sequels. We know this from Indiana Jones (3 and 4) and one or two of "The Mummy" sequels. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is so contrived that one can be forgiven for rolling eyes at it. Admittedly, some of the action sequences are somewhat impressive, with the standout being a long repelling down a tall building, but gone is the sense of danger; of the sense of threat or terror in facing down obstacles with the potential to do you harm.

A later twist involving Komarov and the true reason why most of what's happened in the film has played out as it has done has us feel as if we have seen more than we actually have and has the plot feel more layered that it actually is. Meanwhile, director John Moore, he usually of remakes and video-game adaptations, would be better advised to resist invoking imagery of past entries if he wants his own version here to possess any stand-alone credibility. Anybody with any kind of real awareness about contemporary Hollywood cinema is going to seek out to watch "A Good Day to Day Hard" – purely from a completest perspective; the film is, essentially, 'critic-proof', but that does not stop it being just about the right side of terrible.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not such a "good day" for the Die Hard series.
MovieAddict201612 February 2013
"Die Hard" has been a pretty solid franchise thus far. The original is one of the pinnacles of '80s action cinema, and solidified John McClane as one of the most memorable characters of the genre. Die Hard 2 was a cheeky repeat of the original, fun but lacking substance and originality, and as a result was always the weakest of the series for me - only passable compared to the third and fourth, each successfully breaking free of the 'man trapped in a confined location' premise and trying to do something fresh (the script for DH3 was based off the original screenplay for Lethal Weapon 4, and I thought the cop-buddy-esque dynamic of Willis and Jackson made up for any flaws in the movie; it also gained back a lot of the hard-boiled style of the original thanks to McTiernan returning. And while fans rip on the fourth one because of its PG-13 rating and over-the-top action, I think it's a solid film in its own right, surprisingly well-made and staged, and the action really isn't that much crazier than blowing up a plane with a Zippo or jumping off a building attached to a fire hose -- the stakes simply get raised every decade thanks to advances in technology).

Anyway, that long-winded introduction aside, I will say this: "A Good Day to Die Hard" feels palpably like an attempt to bring the series back to its roots. The score by Marco Beltrami uses more of the classic Die Hard theme than the fourth film did; it's rated R (albeit a very light R); and even the advertising with Ode to Joy is a reference to the older film, something one of the ads for DH4 attempted in '07 but never really embraced.

Unfortunately, everything else is less refreshing. This movie is way worse than DH4. Since John Moore was announced as a director early on, fans were rightfully skeptical; the man is, to be blunt, a complete hack. I enjoyed his work on Behind Enemy Lines, but everything since then has been dross, and he ruined the cinematic potential of Max Payne as a character-and-story-driven film noir and turned it into a dumb shoot-'em-up with a disenfranchised Marky Mark. Anyone holding out hope that he would redeem himself with this film is mistaken. Whether he can be blamed for the frenetic editing is arguable, but he can certainly be faulted for how overall sloppy and mediocre the movie is. The action is often incomprehensibly edited, and the CGI is way worse than anything in the fourth film (which at least managed to look fairly realistic during the over-the-top fighter jet climax). In this film, there's a big showdown at Chernobyl, and the computer effects make it look just like that: something produced by a computer. It is subpar by action film standards, and wholly mind-boggling to see in a Die Hard movie, especially one that otherwise attempts so consciously to revert to the grittier, basic approach of the original trilogy.

Any fans who hated Olpyhant's villain in DH4? Well, get ready, because the baddie in this one is by far the worst of the series. He's a sort of clichéd, underwritten Eurovillain whose motivations are so boring: it involves nukes and WWIII, basically, with a financial twist that just apes the original movie. I wasn't particularly fond of Olyphant in the fourth film, but felt like that was kind of the point: he was supposed to be a weakling hiding behind technology, which was the true villain. Here, the guy doesn't really have an excuse. He's just not memorable, and in a Die Hard film, I feel like the strength of the villains make up a lot of the movie's overall quality. Rickman and Irons were in a whole other league.

The other thing these movies always fall back on is a sort of buddy chemistry. In the original it was Al Powell, the sequel had the guy in the airport to a certain extent (though probably that had the most solo McClane action - perhaps another reason it was the weakest of the sequels), the third had Zeus and the fourth had a surprisingly enjoyable Justin Long.

This one has the guy from Spartacus, Jai Courtney, playing Willis' son. Let's be blunt: he was OK on the show, which I've watched portions of, but utterly lacks charisma here. That may be the fault of Skip Woods' screenplay; I'm not sure, and I feel bad blaming Courtney since he isn't working with much, but this is the second film in a row where he's failed to impress me (the other being Jack Reacher, a far superior film to this).

Overall? It pains me to say, this is the weakest of the Die Hard films by quite a long shot. For all the fan-hate the fourth film gets, at least it was trying something fresh for the series; this feels like way more of a cynical cash-grab, a wink-wink "this is the crap you guys asked for" approach. Maybe it was made based off the recent success of tongue-in-cheek retro '80s actioners like The Expendables; but in a new year that saw Stallone and Ahnuld bomb at the box office, I have to wonder whether this movie would make any money if it didn't have that brand name slapped on top of it. Remove the Die Hard label and some of the McClaneisms, and this could be another generic Bruce Willis action film. Yippee-ki-yay?
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
McClane is Jason Bourne in Russia
SnoopyStyle7 January 2014
John McClane (Bruce Willis) goes to Moscow to help his estranged delinquent son Jack (Jai Courtney) who has been arrested. Then Jack becomes part of a jail break including Komarov, a businessman who may have important evidence against powerful Russian minister Chagarin. It turns out Jack is CIA trying to break Komarov out.

At some point in this franchise, John McClane has turned into Jason Bourne. The political intrigue, and the big time spy stuff are just not really the original McClane. Hans Gruber faked being a terrorist ridiculing the FBI for all the silly political prisoner stuff. John McClane used to be just a simple street smart cop, not superman. The franchise has morphed into something else.

This movie does start with a wild car chase. At least that's a lot of fun. But it's just doesn't feel like the first movie anymore.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Yip- eh, you know the rest. Can I get my paycheck, now?
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews15 February 2013
John(Willis, clearly bored) goes to Russia(see? It's worse than the US! No, we swear it is!) to reconnect with his son, Jack(Courtney, who I do hope to see in more and better... he's probably the best thing about this, giving both some drama and a hero we care about), who he hasn't seen for three years - this process is greatly impaired by both seeming like they're playing off a green-screen, not knowing what the other is doing(in spite of both being game - zero chemistry). Oh, and the fact that the younger of them(because, remember, Bruce is no longer young... he and the other 80's icons are contractually obligated to have jokes about their age in these, their attempts to take back the genre 20 years later) is in prison for murder. But mostly the former. And there are some forgettable villains doing something - and we have our generic, big, dumb(remember when this was about consistent tension? At least the set pieces aren't too repetitive, and they're spaced out fine... pacing's not bad) entry. This was always written to be part of the series, as the only of them. Contradictorily, it doesn't feel like it belongs, at all... this is not McClane, he's not our smart-ass, working class everyman hero, lacking faith in authority(why do you think they took it out of America?) and being the only person who can stop a situation(here, if he wasn't there, things would probably go well...). Any aspect that bears a similarity to those of the classic trilogy(yeah, the fourth wasn't... no), living or dead, whilst not purely coincidental, are clearly put in just to be able to attach the words Die and Hard to the title(no, it's not because someone converts to Klingon). Skip Woods did the same with Hit-man - he doesn't appreciate why these trademarks are popular. And yes, he butchered Swordfish and X-Men: Origins Wolverine, as well(not The A-Team, mind you), but there's less similarity between those and this. John Moore brings all of the vacuum of talent that he did to Max Payne, albeit the slow-motion is less grating. While the action can be well-choreographed(and unsurvivable... for good *and* bad guys alike), the poor cinematography(albeit it's not as bad hand-held as I expected... it did not give me a headache, and it's even the Paul Greengrass approach, of every shot done like that, even conversations) and terrible cutting(worst I've seen on a silver screen in living memory) keep you from following it, losing track of where people are in relation to each other(the worst case of this is the car chase, and that's easily the way to suck the excitement out of such a sequence), and the impeccably poor continuity. I'm not a stickler for that, however, here, it keeps breaking the illusion, being almost impossible to ignore on the half a dozen or more instances of it. It reeks of the editor not checking his own work, seeing if one clip works with the next. This lacks memorable characters(using quirk in place of development, or humor - and take a shot whenever our senior lead complains about "vacation"(or whines how he should have been there as a father... you can't go this sentimental, and not so suddenly)), in fact, our villains are forgotten before they go off the screen. At 92 minutes sans credits, this does go by without being awful(unlike a Michael Bay flick, for example), if also without being remarkable in any positive way. There is a little strong language, bloody violence and brief gore in this, barely earning that R. I recommend this to those looking for something passable, particularly if they don't care or know if it's anything like the exploits in Nakatomi Plaza, Dulles and New York. 4/10
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
90 minutes of Hell
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki30 March 2013
I snuck in to see this film. I did not pay, as I was certain it was going to suck like hell and treat its audience with nothing but contempt, and, to quote the real John McClane, from Die Hard 2: "I hate it when I'm right."

Here, as in the equally abysmal fourth part, John McClane no longer bears any resemblance to the original character created by Roderick Thorp in his original novel, or the film character created by Jeb Stuart and Steven DeSouza, in the original Die Hard. Here, we have a bald, grumpy old man, who does very little, except complain.

A brief opening scene with an Obama lookalike leads nowhere and could have been edited out completely, and its absence wouldn't even be noticed. Ditto Winstead's character's obligatory cameo in the next scene. Ditto, again, the Moscow taxi driver's scene. Then from out of nowhere, bombs go off, explosions and gunfire begin, McClane joins in a lengthy car chase to save his obligatorily estranged son, but we don't know who is chasing who, or why, or where they're trying to get to.

We later learn his obligatory estranged son is really an undercover CIA agent on assignment. His assignment was never fully explained, or perhaps it was just unintelligible, due to terrible cinematography and editing. The quick-cut editing was so jarring, and the shaky cam was so dizzying, I had to close my eyes, or look away from the screen at times. The extreme colour tinting (red in some scenes, green in others, yellow at the climax) coupled with the high contrast made this look like an Asylum release.

There are really only four lengthy sequences in this film (20 minutes long car chase, 10 minutes in a safehouse, 10 or 15 minutes in some sort of ballroom, and 30 minutes in Chernobyl) along with a couple of short scenes connecting one to the other, and that is the extent of the film.

As McClane's obligatorily estranged relative, Jai Courtney is so unlikeable and angry that it is impossible to care what happens to him, and HE is the main character in this film, not John McClane. This is a Jai Courtney movie, not a Bruce Willis movie. McClane has absolutely no one-liners, nor is there even a fight scene with him. In fact, there were no fight scene at all in this entire movie, just endless car crashes and shooting. (Bruce Willis publicly mentioned that there was talk of bringing the character of his son into the fourth film, but Willis didn't want to do it because he thought it would be too distracting, but he changed his mind and did this mess of a movie, probably without even reading a screenplay, if there even was a screenplay, considering this film is attributed to the fictitious "Skip Woods")

The exchange, "Do you need a hug?", "We're not a hugging family", "Damn straight!" was awful, as McClane understandably hugged his wife tightly, when reunited with her at the end of parts one and two. I doubt the people who made this had even watched the original trilogy.

Short run-time makes it possible to get more showings in cinemas per day; and the film's 90 minutes long runtime could have been 8 - 10 minutes shorter without the slow motion scenes and closing credits, and a further 15 minutes shorter without the car chase. But I didn't even make it to the end, when they started talking about, "We're driving to Chernobyl, in *Ukrainia*", I walked out. It was the first time in my life that I walked out of a movie, but I just didn't care any longer. This movie is an insult to the fans, it's an insult to the original Die Hard, it even manages to be an insult to Die Hard 4 (which I also thought was an insult to the fans, and an insult to the original Die Hard)

But this is probably all just a set up for Die Hard 6, which Bruce Willis will doubtlessly say is "Better than the first!" and "Die Hard 6 is the first *real* sequel to Die Hard, which was really the only good one!" which is exactly what Willis said about parts three, and four. He'll probably claim that Die Hard 6 will be "An apology to the fans for a bad fifth movie." Bruce Willis needs to just go bald and go away already, and considering the fact this film is currently sitting at a 9% rating on rotten tomatoes shows people have (I hope) earnt their lesson from the previous film, and are over Die Hard sequels.

Die Hard remains a trilogy, it ended With A Vengeance.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed