User reviews

"A Good Day to Die Hard," directed by John Moore, is a flawed yet undeniably enjoyable addition to the Die Hard franchise. Released in 2013, the film offers a solid dose of explosive action and adrenaline-pumping sequences that will keep fans entertained.

Bruce Willis returns as the iconic John McClane, delivering his trademark charisma and dry wit. The film takes McClane to Russia, where he teams up with his estranged son, played by Jai Courtney, in a high-stakes mission. While the father-son dynamic lacks the depth and chemistry of previous films, their onscreen banter adds a touch of humor to the proceedings.

The movie's strengths lie in its relentless action and impressive set pieces. From breathtaking car chases to large-scale shootouts, the film delivers on the high-octane thrills that fans expect. The intense and well-choreographed action sequences showcase Moore's skill as a director, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats.

Despite its flaws, "A Good Day to Die Hard" still manages to entertain. The film's pacing is brisk, never allowing a dull moment to linger. The visual effects and practical stunts are well-executed, enhancing the spectacle of the action.

While the plot may be convoluted and lacks the depth of previous entries, it serves as a vehicle to showcase the explosive action rather than delving into intricate storytelling. As a result, the film's primary focus is on delivering adrenaline-fueled excitement rather than intricate plot twists.

In the end, "A Good Day to Die Hard" may not reach the heights of its predecessors, but it still provides a fun and entertaining action romp. Die Hard fans will appreciate the return of McClane's iconic character, and the film's non-stop action will satisfy those seeking an adrenaline rush. Despite its flaws, "A Good Day to Die Hard" is an enjoyable ride for fans of the franchise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BAD

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

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

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

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

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

THE GOOD

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

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

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

• The action felt more down to Earth.

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

THE FUNNY

Cole Hauser. What the hell???

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Read this blog and others on my Blog : http://www.fameasserlufc.wordpress.com

John McClane is back! And this time he's On Vacation.

Following reading a lot of reviews that dubbed Die Hard 5 as boring and subtitling it "A Bad Day To Die Hard" I wasn't expecting much from the fifth instalment in a series of films which I thought peaked with the third and fell away with an average fourth film.

But I was pleasantly surprised by Willis' latest outing in the white vest.

The story centres around McClane's son, Jack, who is working as an undercover CIA agent who is aiming to stop all out carnage between two men. Naturally John is looking for his son and stumbles across him at the most inconvenient of times, slotting himself slap bang into the middle of the action.

Bruce has still got it. Sure, he's older, but the craziness still exists. There's plenty of comedy to be had mainly revolving around the disfunctionality of McClane's family life, but the film really comes to life during its action sequences which are as good, if not better than they have ever been.

One early sequence involving a huge chase through the streets of Russia is insane and ends awesomely, and TW climax of the film is much more explosive and fun than anything in Die Hard 4.0.

Forget the horrific reviews the critics have given this, go see the film and judge for yourself. Is it the best of the series? No. But it is entertaining and will raise a few chuckles as well as a lot of "Woah!" moments.

Yippie Ki-Yay Mother Russia!

It all depends on expectations...

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Good Day to Die Hard is the 5th installment of the franchise, and it is quite good. This time, it has the feel of a James Bond movie, but done à la John McClane.

In this piece, they explored the relationship between John and his son, and I was surprised by the result. It's not as one-liner riddled as I thought, and it has some nice depth.

Bruce Willis is still true to his character and plays it with the same flair. Jai Courtney give a good performance even if it's a simplistic cookie cutter sample of a basic action hero easily fooled for his goodness.

What I don't understand is that in the version I saw, they cut out the biker chick stripping... Drat. Other than that, it's the blow up the bad guys kind of flick with a few nice twist. If the story had just been a little bit less linear, I would have given a better rating.

The biggest problem, is that even disregarding the impossibility of the action scenes, there's a few of scientific flaws you have to overlook to appreciate the film. It was annoying during the last third of the story, but I got over it.

Expect some good action entertainment, a bunch of quips, and you'll be satisfied.

Well, every single guy out there would find something good about the Die Hard films, i mean they are the ultimate action films out there, and im not any different, as i am a big fan of the franchise. So one would understand my excitement as i started watching this film, unfortunately, as many have already said on here, this one feels rushed and feels like it is missing something, lacks the spark of a Die Hard movie.

The movie is not the worst film ever made, in fact it had some good action scenes, and Willis was excellent as usual, but it just did not feel like a Die Hard film. For starters, i hated how they treated John Mcclain's character here, he was reduced to like a 2ndry character rather than being the main hero, another problem was the lack of chemistry between Willis and Jain Courtney who plays his son, it just did not feel real and i could not feel a real connection between them, and others have mentioned, Jack Mcclain appears like a spoiled brat and i just hated the character.

the other problem was the absence of a well defined and a tough villain that makes for a real challenge to Mcclain. the whole plot lacked the essence of a Die Hard movie, which usually involves an under siege situation, we had a building, an Air port, a City and a whole country under siege in the 4 previous films, here it seemed like a Spy action thriller similar to the Bourne films.

dialog was also below the standards of the franchise.

it still manages to entertain to some level, as i said it is not the worst movie out there, but it is the least of the Die Hard films, definitely the worst in the series, that does not feel like a Die Hard film which would make any Die Hard fan angry. i hope they make a better one and go back to the same formula of the first 4 films when they do the next one !!

It's been more than two decades, and some things just can't change. Bruce Willis became an action icon when the first Die Hard film burst onto the screen in 1988, giving rise to his John McClane character who was always at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and a trouble magnet. Since then, we've followed his adventures out of the Nakatomi Plaza onto the Washington Dulles airport, before going back to New York City and saving his country in the two follow up films, with good old set action sequences balancing his character's wit and sarcasm, plus that unmistakable Yippie-Ki-Yay cheer.

Director John Moore takes over the helm of this Die Hard film, and transports John McClane into an even bigger action adventure outside of his comfort zone of New York City/America, albeit with just a little bit of the fish out of water syndrome. Some would likely point to the fact of Americans poking their noses at other folks' domestic issues, creating a mess and wrecking mass havoc, involving none other than its spy agency and a clueless NYPD cop who's repeatedly telling us he's there on vacation. Yes John, for the umpteenth time, we know! I wonder what had gone into writer Skip Woods' mind when he found it necessary to have John McClane repeatedly try to make a one-liner joke out of his vacation woes, because they fell flat right from the start.

So the trouble with the capital T comes courtesy in the form of a Russian political prisoner Komarov (Sebastian Koch), who has a file that the CIA wants, and wants badly enough to spend years on an operation involving John's estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney) to perform an extraction of sorts. But things are never as they seem, and with John's unexpected visit, and getting in the way, it provides father-son some hasty and necessary male-bonding opportunity amidst the mayhem either of them brought to the table. Making things worst is half of Moscow's thugs looking for Komarov, which provides plenty of opportunity for shoot em ups.

The story's fairly simple despite some twists involved, but nothing you won't see coming. What this installment does is to perhaps set up further adventures with father-and-son, which in a way worked miles better than the Indiana Jones franchise which tried to so the same thing - introduce a descendant, and possibly having him carry on the series. With the Die HArd films, you know it's about the mayhem one, and now two, McClanes can inflict, from large scaled car chases involving a Unimog (brownie points here, since I've driven one for years), to pitch perfect shots blending CG and practical stunts especially those involving the McClanes' retreat to safer haven, done slow-motion style that's action poetry in motion.

But what's more enjoyable in this guilt trip of a franchise that I've followed while growing up, is the little things that flies by unless you're paying close attention, such as little events happening in the background where John puts his street smarts to good use, and those cheeky instances that snuck in unexpectedly. Pay close attention when everything blows up on the screen, and you may call me juvenile, but I chuckle each time John McClane manages to flip the birdie while you're admiring the mass destruction he brings onto screen.

Never had I observed a cheeky car produce placement rivalry since The Peacemaker starring George Clooney, and the Pierce Brosnan Bond series that was a tit-for-tat between Mercedes and BMW. It seemed like this rivalry got ignited again with Mercedes vehicles being shown how sturdy they are, while the beemers get blown to smithereens (as seen in the trailer) fairly easily. One can guess which movie will serve as retaliation for BMW.

This may prove to be my favourite of the series other than the original, and indeed from his children being pawns in an unscrupulous reporter's ambition in the first Die Hard, it's shows how fast time flies when Jai Courtney plays his son Jack, while Mary Elizabeth Winstead returns in a small supporting role as his daughter Lucy. But alas there's an unfortunate thorn here in Singapore (and everywhere else stuck with the international print) for all John McClane's fans. You'll never hear our hero swear, nor complete his Yippee-Ki-Yays, because for the sake of a lower rating, he got unceremoniously muted. And that's utter disrespect both to the character, and the fans.

Just came back from A Good Day to Die Hard. Interesting film. Classic John Mc Clane. I've always wanted them to do a father and son sequel for Die Hard and I finally got to see it 2nite

Overall, kind of short and I expected it to be a bit longer but still a good film.I really wanted to see Matt Farell returned as well in this sequel or at least they could have mentioned his name in there but I hope at least that he and Lucy ended up together after the last film. Not sure if it deserves another sequel, but if they do plan 1, I think they should focus on bringing back Mc Clane's wife into the picture next

Overall,nice film but still nothing much new here

It does not feel like a proper Die hard film but not the total disappointment that I expected from the other comments about the film.

The idea of having John McClane in Russia looking for his son is a pretty good idea and it could of been done well but unfortunately they took the story to a route that made it less of a Die Hard film.

The action and characters was good but it was never clear about who was the main villain like you see in the previous Die Hard films, nothing memorable about them either. (No one can really be as memorable as Alan Rickman and Jeremy Irons from the 1st and 3rd films).

Bruce Willis was as good as ever, he had a few lines that made him more like John McClane than Die Hard 4.0 but this film didn't really help with its surprisingly short time for a Die Hard film (98 minutes) and it's crappy "everything explodes for no reason" style that has suffered in today's action movies since the start of Michael Bay's career. Jai Courtney was alright as his son, the chemistry was okay and he never gets annoying after a while like Justin Long was at times in Die Hard 4.0.

If you love the Die Hard films, you will be disappointed. Without watching it as a Die Hard sequel and just watching it as another Bruce Willis action film, it's not that bad.

On the plus side (if it means anything), the whole of "Yippie Ki-Yay mother f****r" is in there.

Right, every review i have read on this film put me off watching it. I also think they should leave classic films alone. Die hard 1 and 2 were absolute classics. Die Hard 3 not so much. Die Hard 4 don't bother absolutely awful.

So when you hear Die Hard 5 is being made you automatically think "Oh No, Why!". I eventually watched this new film but i decide to wipe my mind of my Die Hard Love and be open minded. And you know what? It wasn't all that bad.

It had Bruce Willis's Catchy one-liners, His son is played by a believable actor, he looks and acts like a mini McClain. The story line was a bit bonkers but not OTT like Die Hard 4 and the Helicopter missile. Guns, Bombs and Action nothing new but still works for me.

I think some people like to moan and slate films before really taking it all in. Its not the Best Die Hard but its worth a watch, its better then half the action films I've seen lately.

7 stars

I finally decided to sit down and watch this final film in the Die Hard franchise and the only real reason I didn't watch it when it originally came out is because I didn't care for the last two. And the bad responses to the film also didn't help. I found this film to be a bland and by the numbers action film with decent action sequences but little else. It felt like Willis was just phoning it in and there is little humor to be found (at least in With a Vengeance Willis had Jackson to play off of). As much as having Russia be the location of the film, it was also bland and generic. I would love for this franchise to be rebooted and go back to the beginning by possibly adapting the graphic novel Die Hard: Year One. Now that would make for a great film or even limited series.

Firstly this is a Die Hard movie, and its a all action in your face movie. OK its not the best story line but it does hold the action together. I will be the first to admit that you do feel like your being pushed, hurriedly through the film. Its not worth thinking about how you got to this point in the movie. You really just have to sit there and not think too much about the story and enjoy the movie for what it is.

Yes the McClane's should have been killed many times through out the bloody massacre of "Scumbags". And the dialogue, what little there is, is made up of one liners that are sprinkled through out the movie.

But don't let all of this put you off! It is still a Die Hard and i for one still want to see more of the aged John McClane blowing the hell out of every one and every thing. Enjoy my friends! "yippee ki yay"

I was so looking forward to this movie ever since I heard the press release that it was being made. I liked some of the action scenes and I am a huge Bruce Willis fan.... and that's about it.

Where to begin? Well, for starters, the story is rather bland. For a Die Hard film, I would rather see the terrorists planning some kind of heist. It makes the story a little bit more interesting. Instead, they are after some file that we don't even know what it is until the third act (apparently its on the bad guy of the film). It reminded me of Home Alone 3 when the bad guys were looking for a computer chip in a toy car. Not only that, but it just looks like they were making it up as they were going along.

The villains were also forgettable. These are the worst villains in the franchise. At least in the previous Die Hard films, they were somewhat dangerous. Hans Gruber was terrifying and made his mark when he shot Tokagi, and that bad guy from the second one crashed planes full of innocent people, and Simon seemingly planted a bomb in a school, and the villain in the fourth film pretty much took control of the world! So what made these villains stand out? Ummmm.... well.... they beat the crap of the McClanes. That's all I can really say. I guess having nukes is bad. Really, they just sucked.

Now this one pains me the worst: John McClane. I know he's this wisecracking hero but he comes off as annoying. For the first half of the movie he just sounded like a spoiled child. He also was the blame why the whole mess happened in the first place. Stopping his son from getting away from the terrorists and then whining the whole way through didn't help much either. To top it off, he really just felt like he was more in the background. I know they wanted to have this father/son story akin to Indiana Jones but like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it just cheapens out lead character who we've been following for four films now.

I really hope they make a Die Hard 6 and give John McClane the film that he deserves. Knowing Hollywood, John will probably be at home barking orders while his kids go out and does all the work. Seriously, I hope the sixth Die Hard is the bow out of the franchise that we need, otherwise I would feel pretty bad for John McClane.

The actions scenes weren't bad, though.

The picture quality and most importantly the sound effect in this movie was awesome. Story line made sense, action at the end was mind-blowing.

There is also an element of twist in the movie that knocks-off any script you've earlier formed in your mind during the course of the movie.

Giving it a rating of 7 out of 10. Movie site ratings (don't know how they come about it) seldom is not always a true reflection of quality of movies.

Saw the rating before the movie, but as a 'die hard' fan, I watched it anyway and I wasn't disappointed one bit.

Go watch it folks. Forget the movie critics rating. You'll thank me later.

Thus spake Alik, the latest in a long (and usually misguided) line of heinous cads to lock horns with Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) in the Die Hard film franchise.

This carrot crunching, hoofer, furthers his impromptu history lesson, whilst holding our heroes at gun point, by adding,"Reagan is dead !" The dastardly mercenary is opining to John McClane's archaic methods of law enforcement. After that as we get back on track and everything started to splinter and shatter again, i had some time to think.

There is a delicious irony here, which was also sniffed at, but not as successfully integrated into the narrative as it could have been, in Die Hard 4.0 as well.

Justin Long asks McClane, in that last installment, "why are you still THAT GUY" ? (i'm paraphrasing), to which McClane retorts that no one else is offering to fill his shoes (or lack thereof, geddit ?).

The irony, to me, being that every ranting review of this film i've cast an eye over this week, is asking the same question from the opposite side of the screen, "why are they still doing this" ?

Maybe for opposite reasons, to the audience, they feel that the better tropes of the series have been allowed to slide, villains, viscera and a good plot. From McClane's point of view, that the people in charge of the world he inhabits refuse to meet the constant threat of scumbags and dirtballs it faces, with the more direct methods he favours.

Yet, there's the question, why still bother, well based on this entry it could be seen to be puzzling (although i would challenge you to offer me any franchise where the fourth sequel is even approaching the quality of the original movie).

The Die Hard films have been with us twenty five years now and the zeitgeist our friend Alik is referring to has shifted, i think in anyone's view, to the wholly different mindset of today and "action films" have changed right along with it.

People will still turn out for this franchise, it would seem from recent box office, but its two feet are planted in different worlds. The makers struggling with past content and modern form.

I feel these issues, as i said, that have been mentioned in passing, could, in the right hands, be the saviour of the series (if a sixth episode is at hand) and what an ironic rescue it would be.

To address these issues, of past versus present, that McClane's ability to "Die Hard" is not just physical (which is far more what the last two films have interpreted it as), but it is also his whole personal ideology.

The first two films tested McClane's principal's and metal, against not only a physical threat, but against redundant bureaucracy. Since then, (particularly in the two recent movies) his only impediments have been physical. Don't struggle with McClane's persona being out of step with the modern world, embrace it, remind the audience (and the villains) why we still need "that guy" in the wrong place at ANY time !

With regards to the present, A Good Day To Die Hard, is loud (whew is it loud), bombastic and fairly brief. There is enjoyment to be had from it, its not as terrible as runaway emotions would have you believe, but its not brilliant either. When U.S. Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson referred to "bang for your buck" he was talking about this movie (i think).

This film is an unashamed cash in, so as long as you bear this in mind you won't be miffed.

Anyhow, it's bish bosh bish bosh, bang wallop..... John McLean is back and it's action and adventure with our lead man wise cracking and kicking butt, but this time he is the wrong father now with his son in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As it's Die Hard, this time the family strife is with his said son and we're on the fast ride again, but this time the action is in Russia with jail breakers, terrorists and nukes!

Unlike the previous film (Die Hard 4.0) this film has decided to not be a diet light version of the original films and has retraced its tough and humorous roots. As long as you leave your brain at the door you'll find this film to be a fun ride. None of the sequels have matched the original and this wasn't trying, but instead was an entertaining throwback to old action movies.

The action is non stop from the beginning, there's the thankfully brief father son confessions stuff, and then there is the good looking kick ass lady. All the cliché boxes are ticked. Throw in simple actors, crazy lines and a short length film, and you know what you're getting. If you want more, then there's the Marvel movies. This is for cashing in on nostalgia and these guys ain't got Iron Man's toys.

Entertaining and enjoyable enough for a throwaway film that just keeps its head above water. Will be on repeat late night TV free to air in a few years.

Keep expectations low and you'll be fine with this.

Really do not know what other reviewers were expecting from this film. Of course it is not as good as 1 or 2 but it is certainly on a par with the others.The film goes along at a good pace, has plenty of action and is all done very tongue in cheek. It entertains, and that is mainly what I want from a movie. Of course the plot is silly, but what action movie is not nowadays. Certainly not much dafter than any of the previous Die Hards. It is a bit on the short side and the way the camera was used during the initial chase was very strange and did not make for great viewing but overall I left the cinema thinking that I had been entertained for 90 minutes or so. Watch with an open mind, do not be put off by the one star reviewers with their witty summary, they probably have not even watched the film, you might even enjoy it!

I went into this film with an opened mind after watching the first four films back to back.I have to say I really had a good time in the theater:I had a lot of good laughs,The action was a lot of fun(Unrealistic can work for me)and it wasn't boring.It does have flaws:Shaky cam,too much dialogue in Russian,and it needed a better villain.Bruce Willis alone is a huge reason I don't hate this film like everyone else does on IMDb.The running time was just right:not too long or too short and to the point.If I am the only defender of this flick then so be it:I enjoyed the film and I can't wait for part 6.I liked it for what it was a fun action film with some heart,and good action.Not the best of the franchise but still enjoyable.