There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

No idea why Bruce Willis would agree to reprise his role as John McClane in this way. This is NOT a Die Hard movie. It's Bruce Willis playing some dude with the same name. That's it. If you wanted to put him on vacation, why not do it in Hawaii? OR in El Paso and he and his son accidentally get mixed up with a cartel and cross the border. THAT I could believe. But this? In Russia? I hope the next movie in the franchise is an ACTUAL Die Hard film. Ugh.

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) is boring as hell. I honestly can't remember anything that happened in the movie. Explosions, probably.

Bruce Willis is back in"A Good Day To Die Hard."This may contain spoilers. I'm just going to get right into it, this film is in't very good, I mean I don't hate it, I still like it,I own the DVD but the film is lackluster. For a fifth film in the series they didn't try to make a compelling story, they just focused on the action only.Bruce Willis sort of did this one for the money, he knew they didn't have a good story, but I guess he felt the movie could still work. Story wise no, Action wise yes.The action scenes are good but average at best. I am glad they did this one with an R rating but even with that, that's the only thing that moves the film along there really is no story just action, and a plot device to get john McClane to do battle with terrorists in Russia.Another thing that bothers me with this film is that it's too confusing. What I mean by this, is that who is the villain or more importantly who are the villains and why do they need weapons grad uranium, I know the plot summary on the DVD says a nuclear heist, but why? And the story really just doesn't make any sense, when you really think about it.John McClane goes to Russia to find his estranged son jack, as father and son do battle with terrorists, they must stop them and their nuclear weapons heist.Another thing about this movie is that it's forgettable. It's kind of hard to recall anything if any. I'm series, I can't really remember anything of importance for this review!But having said that, I do still like it, I did see it in theaters with a friend in February 2013, he and I liked it. But he did agree it was forgettable.Overall I give it a 5/10. It's fun, as in a mindless action movie sort of way, but it's underwhelming, forgettable and lackluster. I will say I enjoyed it, and it was one of Director John Moore's better films since that blunder of a movie Max Payne.Hopefully, Die Hard 6 will return the struggling franchise to it's former glory.

A far cry from the original 3 that we all know and love. I urge you to watch this yourself and make up your own mind but don't say I didn't warn you.Why introduce the son? Someone to pass the torch too? Oh dear.The originals were about one man against great odds, who despite his faults got through it with luck, determination and brute force blood and sweat, other than one-time reluctant sidekick Samuel L. Jackson in Die Hard with a Vengeance. Know body wants 2 John McClain's and that is how the son is portrayed. 2 protagonists at odds with each other fighting over the steering wheel thus steering this movie off a cliff.Yippee ki yay melon farmer!