A Good Day To Die Hard - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

A Good Day To Die Hard Reviews

Page 1 of 305
Super Reviewer
½ October 28, 2012
I cant believe I liked this movie the first time i saw it, probably because i was so excited for another die hard film that i was totally ignoring every little detail that made the movie bad and excepted it, but in the end its escapism but sadly there is no escape from this new chapter in the series, which should be titled Death of a Franchise. It's too fast-paced, the plot is always unclear, Jai Courtney and Bruce Willis have no chemistry what so ever and it feels like a season of 24 with John McClane as a backup character. The most memorable action sequence is near the conclusion and the ending is the only satisfying part of this film. A very rushed piece of work with no plausible villain and just takes a steaming dump of the franchise
Super Reviewer
½ October 13, 2011
Some people felt Live Free or Die Hard was a low point for the series, and that it really didn't fit in with the rest of the films. Who would have thought that it could have gotten worse. For the record, I like the fourth Die Hard film, despite its flaws and ridiculousness.

But yeah, what we have here is the true low point for the series. It's really not even a Die Hard film. Maybe just going by the name and the inclusion of John (and technically, Jack) McClane, but that's about it.

This is basically just a dumb, typical action movie that happens to have John McClane in it. He's not even really the focus.

The film has no real reasons for existing, but the plot our beloved McClane gets shoehorned into sees him going to Moscow to rescue (or so he thinks) his estranged imprisoned son, only to find himself caught up in a CIA mission to thwart terrorists bent on nuclear weapons based domination lead by none other than his own son.

Seriously. That's the plot. There's no reason for the older McClane to be here. He's not a cop in this one, just a tourist who happens to be an ass kicker.

They try to balance the action with a father/son dynamic, but it's not very original or compelling, and even the action is rather blah and uninspired. It's also executed and edited rather choppily, so I had no idea what was going on most of the time.

The film does mark a return to R rated territory, but it feels forced. The action is really just strong PG-13/very light R rated stuff, and yeah, there's some strong language, but it sticks out, and feels like they added just enough swearing to earn this an R rating just to appease fans.

The film's treatment of Russian culture, history, and geography, as well as it's portrayal of how nuclear radiation works (the climax is at Chernobyl), is all very shallow, annoying, and wrong.

Yeah, I basically hated this movie. This is a rare thing for me in general, but especially for something like this. There's really nothing all that spectacular here. Sure, I did enjoy the explosions, but that's just because I always find something to like with every movie I see, even dreadful crap like this.

Here's to hoping they finally end this series already, or at least redeem themselves drastically if they feel the need to make another one.
Super Reviewer
July 14, 2013
They should have stopped officially at 3 but although 4 was enjoyable its annoying directors milk a good idea and make it terrible.
This fifth installment is amusing and explosive but theresnot much to it to make it that awesome Action packed movie it was back in the 80's when the original began!
Super Reviewer
½ June 23, 2013
this is honestly one of the worst films in the history of cinema. there is zero story. the film managed to take one of the most distinct and prominent characters in the history of action films and mute him almost entirely. mcclane stumbles through the film, saying little, doing less, and the film as a whole offers nothing by way of interest. half of moscow was destroyed, with zero clarity as to what was actually going on and why any of it mattered.
Super Reviewer
½ June 22, 2013
John McClane is back, well at least Bruce Willis is, whether he's playing McClane or not is highly debatable, in this run of the mill sub-par action effort. McClane travels to Russia to see his son who turns out to be a CIA agent. Immediately we're thrust into a car chase that has no engagement because we are unaware of certain plot particulars. There's also a section that makes McClane unlikable as he jumps in front of a car, knocks out the understandably angry driver, and then makes a slightly xenophobic comment about not understanding him. Sure it's fast, but due to poor editing and a lack of context I had no idea what was going on or why I should care. This could be applied to the entire plot. There are some excellent moments of father/son dialogue and bonding, with a few laugh out loud humorous quips, but it just isn't enough. McClane was once the action hero everyman. He wasn't an invincible Schwarzenegger or Stallone character, WIllis was best known for his role in a sitcom at the time, so here he's lost everything that made him unique. If you like boring action with no consequence, and twists that are easy to spot, then you may like this. Otherwise you'll be annoyed it has the Die Hard name on it.
Super Reviewer
May 25, 2013
YIPPIE KI...oh wait. McClane is back! again, this time its old man McClane as he's off to Moscow to help his son. Yep it seems the Die Hard franchise has gone the way of the Police Academy franchise, both in sequels, almost, both have finally ended up in Moscow, oh and both were crap.

Right from the start this doesn't feel like a Die Hard film. McClane turns up in Russia much to the disgust of his son and straight away they are bickering at each other, its all very annoying. What surprised me more was the fact the film centres on 'Jack' (McClane Jr.) and makes 'John' seem like a spanner in the works. They make Willis seem like an extra or sidekick, like he's getting in the way. On top of that the constant moaning by his son with that pouting face of his really pissed me off.

The next major major issue here is the entire idea itself. The film has no real plot, its very weak, in the realms of who cares. The whole film is completely driven by set pieces, one huge action sequence after another that get more and more absurd as the film goes on. Right at the start there is a an admittedly impressive and frantic looking car chase sequence, it starts off pretty sensible and grounded but the longer it goes on the more insane it gets. There are cars, vans, trucks flying everywhere, titantic crashes happening every second which will presumably be killing many many innocent people, glass and debris exploding everywhere...yet all the while our heroes cruise along in invincible mode.

This is pretty much what the film is about, its like watching an in-game videogame sequence. In fact its like watching someone play the campaign mode in 'Modern Warfare', the film is on rails moving from one gigantic action sequence to the next, you know the main characters will never die despite what they're going through is so ludicrous and unsurvivable its becomes funny.

The other issue I had was the lack of decent villains and the fact there appeared to be exactly four main villains!, yes four. Of course as you can imagine there is some double crossing/plot twists involved which is why we have four villains but essentially none of them are in the least bit memorable. End of the day they are just Russians, boring sounding, gruff faceless bad guys that you can't enjoy watching. Mind you I didn't give a hoot about McClane's son either, whining little shit.

Some of the moments in this film are really so pathetic. When both of our heroes are caught and facing execution from one of the bad guys, this guy does the 'Bond' thing. Instead of just killing the heroes he just talks and talks...even to the point where the writers make him do a little tap dancing to pass the time!. I mean seriously what the fudge??!! just shut up and shoot them! oh my god so lame. Of course both of the heroes escape, McClane Jr. cuts his plastic ties with a blade (would take a long time wouldn't it?), but I'm still unsure how the hell Willis is suppose to have become magically untied.

They even have the audacity to copy some moments from the original classic. Remember when McClane catches 'Hans Gruber' and he does his little switch into an innocent civvy? well that happens again here with...errr one of the bad guys. We also get another similar 'Hans Gruber' moment when he was dropped off the top of the Nakatomi Plaza building. Plus there seems to be a fixation in this franchise for main bad guys getting killed in helicopters.

So yep McClane is on vacation, as he points out a hundred times, yet I thought he went to Russia to help his son, so when did it become a vacation? who cares. Visually this film is faultless, its glossy and slick as f*ck, you probably won't see any better vehicle stunts and action for quite some time. So yes its entertaining in that mindless popcorn sense but that's it.

Its no proper Die Hard flick in my eyes, just a run of the mill factory line action film drone with such unbelievable unrealistic sequences the main characters should have died at least five times over. Good to look at sure but even if this was an independent action film I would still say the same thing. A good day to end this franchise methinks...zing!.

'I'm on vacation!'
Super Reviewer
½ May 17, 2013
Super Reviewer
April 5, 2013
The Die Hard franchise has always appealed to be because of just how silly and action packed they are, and A Good Day to Die Hard is no exception; the newest addition to the McClane saga differs quite a bit in tone compared to the others, but it suffers no loss. Amazing action, funny dialogue, great chemistry, and some over the top stunts make this good day for Die Hard, and for Bruce Willis, who has yet to lose his charm as John McClane.
Super Reviewer
March 22, 2013
Action aside, there's nothing new, exciting or enjoyable here. Full review later.
Super Reviewer
½ February 9, 2013
A "Die Hard" movie that is completely devoid of why we love Die Hard in the first place. Overall: Avoid.
Super Reviewer
February 23, 2013
Like father. Like son. Like hell!

Good movie but never like the one's before! It is a fun, hectic, sometimes difficult to follow movie which makes for a nice night at the cinema, but is very far removed from its illustrious predecessors. In my opinion is not a movie to see on the big screen, rented and you will feel better if you don't like it.

Iconoclastic, take-no-prisoners cop John McClane, for the first time, finds himself on foreign soil after traveling to Moscow to help his wayward son Jack - unaware that Jack is really a highly-trained CIA operative out to stop a nuclear weapons heist. With the Russian underworld in pursuit, and battling a countdown to war, the two McClanes discover that their opposing methods make them unstoppable heroes.
Super Reviewer
February 22, 2013
After the underrated Live Free or Die Hard, you'd think that it would be a final end to a great series of memorable action films that have been some of the best in the genre. This is a film that had the potential of being a great slice of action cinema. Unfortunately, right off the bat, the premise of it's A Good Day to Die Hard is over the top Ridiculous and not in a good way. What made the movies so good in the past is now stripped way in a cliché riddle movie that fails to truly give action fans what they want in a Die Hard movie. The first car chase which starts about fifteen minutes in is exciting, and could have set the stage for something great. However, that would be short lived as the rest of the film would fail to truly engage the viewer. I was really looking forward to seeing this one; unfortunately this one really let me down. In the long run, this is a film that never should have been made. The direction by director John Moore is sloppy and unimpressive. Also worth mentioning is that this is a generic film that we've seen many times before. This is the worst film in the series, and the sheer lack of originality makes it a film to forget. I absolutely hated the film, and there is no way that the franchise can be salvaged in the future. They should just call it quits because the Die Hard films are in no way salvageable and be made into a great action film. John McClane is invincible and over the top, and it's stupid and cringe worthy. A Good Day to Die Hard fails in every sense of the word.
Super Reviewer
August 9, 2012
A stupid movie for stupid people.
Super Reviewer
February 22, 2013
I think my friend Anna said it best when she perceived A Good Day to Die Hard as the equivalent of Scorcher 6: Global Meltdown. You remember the Scorcher trailer from Ben Stiller's occasionally brilliant Tropic Thunder? Yes, A Good Day to Die Hard marks the point where the Die Hard films have gone the route of dialogue like "Who left the fridge open?" Nothing that made the first three films great is present here aside from star Bruce Willis, who seems like he's just going through the motions.
Die Hard 5 is filled with ridiculously stupid car chases, terrible storytelling, completely implausible and idiotic situations, as well as a villain who is about as interesting as a brick wall. Now there are certainly audiences out there who enjoy this sort of thing. As Phil and Clare Humfrey from Modern Family attested, the bad movie magic happens around a franchise's fifth installment.
So you dear viewer have two choices with regards to Die Hard 5. You can go in with your brain operating at minimal level and enjoy the badness, or you can attest that Die Hard ended as a trilogy (cuz Live Free or Die Hard also sucked) and skip this one altogether.
Super Reviewer
½ February 18, 2013
With a story that's close to non-existant, the fifth Die Hard in the series is a serious fall from grace. Bruce Willis is still a lot of fun in the lead, but a bad script makes the hour and a half runtime feel like two and a half. The special effects are some of the best the series has seen, but it makes no difference in the end. 'A Good Day to Die Hard' feels like any other regurgitating and unoriginal action flick. It only stings more because you come to expect a lot when a name like 'Die Hard' is attached to it.
Markus Emilio Robinson
Super Reviewer
½ February 19, 2013
In the final installment of the elderly male action hero trilogy of early 2013 ( The Last Stand, Bullet to the Head, and now this) Bruce Willis' "A Good Day to Die Hard", undoubtedly the most anticipated of the three, is also sadly the weakest of the lot. And, while "A Good Day to Die Hard" is not as bad as the "Big Momma's House" father/son sequel from a few years ago, this movie has none of the character development, heart or downright likability of the original "Die Hard". But then again, neither did the last four.

The Plot: In this installment John McClane (Bruce Willis) in search of his grown and estranged son, Jack, goes to Russia and fights Russians. That's it! And in turn, since the audience is literally dumped into this far too weak storyline with all of 5 seconds of actual setup, the hope that anyone will have any stake in any of these characters as the film progresses down its action movie checklist, is all but obliterated before the first gun is fired.

But worse than the plot or all around story construction, is the fact that the main character in this "Die Hard" movie isn't even John McClane! It's his son, played by Jai Courtney, who actually gives a better performance than Willis himself. But that isn't saying much, since for much of "A Good Day to Die Hard" Willis seems to be phoning his performance in. That said, Willis is relegated to playing a sort of comic relief side character, which is not at all his forte. So, while he does deliver some watered down one liners such as "I was on vacation" and "I was on vacation", at times the McClane character is written in such a way that fans of these film may wonder if Skip Woods, the writer here, is even familiar with the original source material.

So, why isn't this a one star movie? Well, there are two really well crafted "things go boom" action sequences, which work to keep this entire film from feeling like a Michael Bay movie. That is not to say that there isn't an excessive car chase sequence in the very beginning that goes on for far too long, but I digress. Secondly, the main "bad guy" (for much of this movie) played by Radivoje Bukvic, is played with such fierce flamboyance, that every scene he is in instantaneously becomes quite watchable. But alas, there is far too little of him and far too much of Jai Courtney's character crying about how John McClane missed his tenth birthday, or whatever.

Final Thought: It's not as if "A Good Day to Die Hard" was offensively bad in any way (much like many critics would have you believe) it's just that stripped away of a few impressive explosive sequences, the characters along with their dialogue are lazily manufactured at best, and the storyline is pretty flat and otherwise boring. Basically, the only reason anyone should see this movie, is if you are a diehard fan of the "Die Hard" franchise. Only then do you deserve to be disappointed like this.

Written by Markus Robnson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus
Super Reviewer
February 14, 2013
I'm surprised that the producers of this installment did not bring back the director of the first one John McTiernan. But this was truly one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Bringing on a unknown director(John Moore),a couple of screenwriters who basically conjure up this mess to make a quick buck off a franchise that has been going strong 25 years. I really had high standards for this film. I wish it could have more character development and more extended scenes. But Bruce Willis looks like he is tired of the role that basically made him famous. The new version A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD had no connection between tough New York cop John McClane(Bruce Willis),and his CIA superspy son Jack(Jai Courtney) taking on stereotype Russian baddies over what now??? Like some of you I'm shocked too. I was expecting a lot more from this movie,but this one was awful. The first three films from the DIE HARD franchise were standard classics(with DIE HARD 3 having brilliant chemistry between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson that came out in the summer of 1995),with the fourth installment becoming sucky too. A lot of fans were expecting surprises and twists,not to mention wall to wall non stop action sequences. A complete letdown for DIE HARD fans of Bruce Willis.
Super Reviewer
February 17, 2013
John Moore's A Good Day to Die Hard delivers the goods in explosions and destruction.The 100 minute story is good, but not great. In the end, it serves as a way to force action as needed. There really isn't much buildup and things just seem to happen. That's not to say that the story is a throw away because it does have its moments.The action is on par for what is expected in a movie of this caliber. In fact, the plot gets right to it with a solid and destructive car chase. There is no question where a good portion of the budget was utilized.Bruce Willis comes complete with his wise cracks and cocky dialogue. Everyone else tends to be overshadowed by the presence of Willis. There is also not enough Mary Elizabeth Winstead.A Good Day to Die Hard delivers enough where it counts to make up for its shortcomings.
Super Reviewer
February 17, 2013
A plain jane action film wrapped with a dusty Die Hard wrapper. Willis comes off older in this film than I've ever seen him and that's not a good thing when you want me to believe that he's still John McClane.
There are a lot of plot holes in this flick and over the top action sequences that really took me out of the movie.
Is it terrible? No. It's just not Die Hard. I would have liked it more if it was about a young CIA agent fighting bad guys and you took Willis out all together.
Page 1 of 305