Featured Audience Ratings

• Phil H

  
  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… More
  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!'

• Stuart B

  
  Shite

• Al S

  
  An adrenaline-drenched and spectacular edge of your seat action-packed thriller. A slam-bang, pulse-quickening and relentlessly enjoyable roller-coaster ride that you wont want to get out of. It delivers some of the best action yet, showing some great gun battles, insane explosions… More
  An adrenaline-drenched and spectacular edge of your seat action-packed thriller. A slam-bang, pulse-quickening and relentlessly enjoyable roller-coaster ride that you wont want to get out of. It delivers some of the best action yet, showing some great gun battles, insane explosions and including one of the best car chase sequences ever filmed. It's nothing but a non-stop joy-ride of an action movie. A mind-blowing and eye-popping ride that's jammed with explosive action and heart-pounding suspense. Bruce Willis is back, giving a strong performance and showing his character has regret and vulnerability but still knows how to kick-ass and save the day. Jai Courtney is terrific. Courtney and Willis have great chemistry and standby one another perfectly in their performances and in the action scenes. They have some great moments to add some meat to their characters. I loved this flick, it has alot to offer and makes some great references to the original film. From the start to it's satisfying and explosive conclusion, this movie just rocks.

• Nick D

  
  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… More
  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.

• Thomas B

  
  Action aside, there's nothing new, exciting or enjoyable here. Full review later.

• Chris M

  
  A "Die Hard" movie that is completely devoid of why we love Die Hard in the first place. Overall: Avoid.

• Manu G

  
  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… More
  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.

• Jeff "

  
  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… More
  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.

• Liam G

  
  A stupid movie for stupid people.

• E.J. B

  
  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… More
  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.

• Kase V

  
  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… More
  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 R

  
  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… More
  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

• Mister C

  
  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… More
  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.

• JY S

  
  John Moore's <i>A Good Day to Die Hard</i> delivers the goods in explosions and destruction.</p><p>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… More
  John Moore's <i>A Good Day to Die Hard</i> delivers the goods in explosions and destruction.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><i>A Good Day to Die Hard</i> delivers enough where it counts to make up for its shortcomings.</p>

• Jason S

  
  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… More
  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.

• Matt G

  
  As a Die Hard movie, it gets a 1/5. As an action movie with Willis, 4/5. Badass, balls to the wall action. Terrible story, yet so enjoyable. Please, if you're a guy not looking for intellectuality, then it may just be A Good Day to Die Hard.

• Kevin K

  
  Grade: F (35%) "A Good Day to Die Hard" is the fifth installment in the action franchise that, over the past five years, have reached unlimited amount of destruction and violence. With "Live Free or Die Hard," the fourth film, John McClane is brought back into… More
  Grade: F (35%) "A Good Day to Die Hard" is the fifth installment in the action franchise that, over the past five years, have reached unlimited amount of destruction and violence. With "Live Free or Die Hard," the fourth film, John McClane is brought back into movie theaters after 12 years of hibernation. While some thought a "Die Hard" trilogy was enough, many, including myself, loved and welcomed "Live Free" with its over-the-top action and Bruce Willis' clever and humorous catch phrases. However, I cannot say the same for "A Good Day to Die Hard," for it is the weakest entry in the series. John McClane (Willis) is on vacation when he is told that his son Jack (Jai Courtney) is being held in prison in Moscow for murder. Once he enters Russia, he finds himself once again in the middle of a terrorist plot when the courtroom is completely destroyed leaving Jack and another inmate, and target, Komarov. After a great car chase, John realizes that his son is apart of the CIA and must bring back Komarov for the United States. The story is probably the weakest and most out-of-place when compared to the previous four films. Unlike "Good Day," the other films weren't necessarily complex but they had subplots and didn't rush in order to finish the film as quickly as possible. With "Good Day" it seems that this story was just put together at the last minute and it shows not only in its uninspired script but also its runtime. The other "Die Hard" films usually hit the two hour mark or just over it. But "Good Day" is without question the shortest film running just over 90 minutes. It doesn't take too long for explosions to start coming. While many action fans will love that it only takes seven minutes for the bullets and explosions to start, many true "Die Hard" fans will find that the story is too forced and doesn't actually feel like a "Die Hard" film. "Live Free" showed John McClane as sort of a superhero (blowing up jets, shooting himself, etc.) but "Good Day" just overdoes it. While it is awesome to see McClane blow stuff up and shoot one-liners constantly, his acts are more CGI than anything else. While "Live Free" had this, it is so much easier to find the CGI in this film. John McClane nearly comes off as a video game character jumping out of windows on the top floor of various building to fall into pools and whatnot. The action itself is loud and constant but the overuse of the CGI destroys all the tension that could be possibly built. John Moore (Max Payne), the director of the film, does a bad job with shooting such action sequences. The camera is shaky and sometimes unfocused that destroys the maximum entertainment that could be shown. Even when there is no action (might be two to three scenes of such calmness) the camera shakes and zooms in and out when there is no need for it. The father and son relationship does no justice mainly because of the uninspired script written by Skip Woods (The A-Team). Even though Bruce Willis is great and Jai Courtney tries even he can, the script is overdone with too many cliches that actually destroys whatever relationship they are trying to create. The writing also doesn't work in many scenes. For example, John might yell out "I'm on (explicit) vacation" and it would be used over and over again in scenes where dialogue is not even needed. The script is sloppy and even with Willis trying everything he can to bring the wise cracks to life, it's not enough. "A Good Day to Die Hard" is the weakest entry to the "Die Hard" series. From the sloppy writing to shaky direction, the film just fails to bring about its full potential. While the action sequences are great, one cannot get over such problems that the movie fails at. Because of these problems, "Good Day" isn't a true "Die Hard" film . . . it is now just an average action film. Even the real (excuse the pun) die-hard fans will think "Good Day" is a huge misstep in the series."Live Free or Die Hard" was a great installment to what many thought was just a trilogy, but "Good Day" is a huge misstep. The "Die Hard" franchise either needs to reposition itself back to what made the other films great or (and this is where many of us think it should go) "A Good Day to Die Hard" should be the last film in the series.

• Pierluigi P

  
  A charmless and far-fetched mess that brings down the raw, blue collar cop, fish out of the water, ordinary John McClane we all know and love to make him a laughable grandpa superhero with a witless son. John Moore is an absolute disgrace as a filmmaker, I wonder why he keeps getting… More
  A charmless and far-fetched mess that brings down the raw, blue collar cop, fish out of the water, ordinary John McClane we all know and love to make him a laughable grandpa superhero with a witless son. John Moore is an absolute disgrace as a filmmaker, I wonder why he keeps getting decent jobs in the medium, his use of slow motion and zooms is irritating. Completely forgettable.

• Nate Z

  
  A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth entry in the series, is clearly, on all fronts, the worst movie in the franchise. I suppose this shouldn't come as that big of a surprise. Most fifth movies are not seen as peaks in creative achievement (I will go to my grave singing the praises… More
  A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth entry in the series, is clearly, on all fronts, the worst movie in the franchise. I suppose this shouldn't come as that big of a surprise. Most fifth movies are not seen as peaks in creative achievement (I will go to my grave singing the praises of Saw 6, one of the few late sequel successes). I'm sad to report but Die Hard 5 is just a lousy action movie trying to get by on the good will of its famous heritage. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is visiting Russia to find and help his estranged son, Jack (Jai Courtney). Dad thinks his boy is in trouble with the law but really Jack is a CIA agent working undercover to prevent a nuclear arms sale. A Russian political figure is promising to go public with his findings of corruption, and the man falls under the protection of John and Jack McClane. Father and son must dodge all sorts of danger and maybe, just maybe, they'll bond over the experience of shared peril. All of the story and character problems would have been forgivable, or at least mitigated, if this movie actually delivered the goods when it came to its action sequences. Sadly, Die Hard 5 is just thundering mediocre from start to finish. No, I take that back. In the last five minutes of the movie, it has one action development that is unexpected and interesting and different, and that's when Willis drives a truck out of the back of a helicopter to drag down the chopper. I repeat, this lone moment of action interest occurs with about five minutes left until the end credits roll. That's a whole lot of gristle to get to something good. Until this point, Die Hard 5 is replete with car crashes and explosions and noisy exchanges of gunfire, but what does it all add up to? It's like it has familiar action elements we'd expect in this sort of adventure, but it never seems to know what to do with them. Great action takes advantage of geography, moves the story forward, and escalates with natural complications. Most of Die Hard 5 is repetitious fights or shootouts in lazy locations (oh look, another warehouse-type building!). There's a car chase through the streets of Moscow that should be exiting, but instead it just stays the same as it began. It's two cars smashing into others. The final action takes place at the Chernobyl nuclear site, and yet it could have been just any other unwatched warehouse. I never thought I'd ever go to a movie with "Die Hard" in its title and be bored... by the action. Here's the deal: if you're going to produce action sequences that don't just stretch believability, they throttle it, then you better produce some memorable material. I long for the simply days of Die Hard where John McClane was a mere crafty mortal, confined to one location, using his wits, training, and stealth to turn the tables on the bad guys. He was an ordinary cop and that made him even easier to root for. Now he's graduated to the Tables of Indestructible Action Stars, men who can survive any scrape with barely a scratch no matter how improbably or death defying. I accept this change, but if you're going to present larger-than-life action, you have an obligation as a filmmaker to make it entertaining. Die Harder had the man ejecting himself out an exploding airplane, and that was cool. Live Free or Die Hard had McClane driving an 18-wheeler along a collapsing highway, finally jumping onto a downed fighter jet. It's completely over-the-top but it's memorable and entertaining and, yes, cool. The more I think back, the better 2007's Live Free or Die Hard looks. It worked surprisingly well, well enough that I claim it as my favorite Die Hard sequel. First off, that movie had memorable action exchanges; I can still recount four or five sequences off the top of my head years later. Even if it was a standard fight between two characters, it found ways to make it interesting, like a fight between McClane and Maggie Q that extended into an elevator shaft and a falling auto. While Timothy Olyphant (TV's Justified) couldn't hold a candle to Alan Rickman (Harry Potter franchise) as far as movie villainy, the man was tremendously better than the pitiful bad guys in Die Hard 5. You have to let your villains have opportunities to be villainous, but they also have to be competent at what they do or else the movie is too obviously one-sided. Look we all know the hero will prevail but we like to see an even match for most of the running time. The Russian bad guys in this movie just suck. They suck and characters and they suck as bad guys and throwing twisty double-crosses and triple-crosses, just to keep an audience awake, make their master plan seem even more convoluted and implausible. All of this chaos is over a file whose possession, if I'm not mistaken by the needless confusion of the twists, resides with the villains for a good period of time. Why are they still going through this whole charade? Also, they suck. The idea of tagging McClane with his son seems like a weak attempt to extend the franchise beyond the ownership of an aging Willis. I don't care about John McClane's kid. This isn't Roots. I don't come to these movies to check up on the guy's brood of feisty kids, which by the way, Die Hard 4 did this same storyline much better with his daughter, Lucy (Mary Elizabeth-Winstead). Jack McClane is a thickheaded dolt of a son, and as far as a charismatic action figure capable of taking over a franchise, don't hold your breath. The father/son dynamic is so poorly developed. They mostly just grunt at one another and we call it characterization. Pairing McClane up with a sidekick has worked before but only when the characters are vastly different from the central man of action, like Samuel L. Jackson and Justin Long's more comedic characters. They provided contrast and conflict and brought out different sides of the John McClane character. When you pair John McClane up with his son, who happens to be a younger version of his dad, you get nothing. I already got one John McClane onscreen; I didn't need a watered-down, charisma-free clone. If they're going to continue the franchise with one of John McClane's kids, I pray that it's the more assertive and capable Lucy. A Good Day to Die Hard is just not a good movie at all, and it's an even worse sequel. The fact that I endured 97 minutes of a Die Hard movie and had to scramble for anything positive to say about the action should say more than the problems with logic, plot, character, pacing, and overall production. Willis doesn't even look like he's enjoying himself any more. The film never grabs you, never bothers to show you something different, and after a while it simply just beats you into submission with its video game-like artificiality and redundancy. I demand more attention and care put toward my action sequences rather than treating them like a tossed salad. Sure the right elements are there but they've been given no thought or care. I was literally battling sleep during long portions of this awful movie. For fans of the series and Willis, it's hard to settle on any other conclusion but one of disappointment. The story is muddled and generic, the villains are muddled and generic, the action is muddled and generic. You get the idea, and Die Hard 5 is routine to the point of autopilot, a soulless cartoon of careening bodies and speeding bullets. The only reasonable excuse I can give for seeing this movie, lowered expectations and all, is just to see how low the Die Hard franchise has fallen. Nate's Grade: C-

• KJ P

  
  Today is a good day for filmmaker around the world to consider whether or not the series really needs any more films. "A Good Day To Die Hard" is the fifth instalment in the very successful "Die Hard" franchise, and probably the weakest one as well. It has very… More
  Today is a good day for filmmaker around the world to consider whether or not the series really needs any more films. "A Good Day To Die Hard" is the fifth instalment in the very successful "Die Hard" franchise, and probably the weakest one as well. It has very little story to tell and a much too short running time for the material that was missed, due to overlong action sequences. The editing is far too quick, the direction is very messy, the camerawork is all over the place, and the secondary actors are laughable, but the action, albeit a little long, does have quite a bit of entertainment value to it. Bruce Willis is likeable as always and his son, played by Jai Courtney is a very likeable up-and-coming movie star. This film is not good in any way, but it can be pretty entertaining and some of the dialogue is true-to-life, which was a nice touch, in the midst of a bunch of chaos. It's a fine movie to watch, but nothing to scream about. See it or don't see it, won't make much of a difference!

Read all 20 featured audience ratings