This is the only one in the series that I would say was just a down right bad movie. The acting was no good at all. The characters did not really interest me at all. The action was really uninspired compared to other movies in the series, and it just felt like this one more than the others were just made to make money. And that is something I just do not like in the modern day industry. When a film is just literally made with the sake of making money and absolutely nothing more.

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!

A Good Day to Die Hard, the latest in the multi-million dollar series, is a deceptive film. It's opening five or so minutes, which see multiple plot threads being set up with Nolanesque aplomb, seduce you into letting your guard down… which is when the film's putrid awfulness strikes. But what is this awfulness? Well, it's not the meagre script, nor is it Bruce Willis' disinterested performance, nor is it the absence of any remotely interesting or intimidating villains, nor is it the fact that this film turns Willis into a bloody sidekick – because obviously the producers thought that what the public wanted to see from in the next Die Hard film is John McClane being made to look a useless twit by his punk kid – no, it's simply the cinematography. Oh, the cinematography. I swear, if you had given the camera to a drunken geriatric with Parkinson's, you would have gotten a better image. Shaky-cam, zoom- ins and shutter-speed are just some examples of the visual savagery Moore employs in this magnum crapus of his. Even the stupid ending can't overshadow the horribly rough look of this film, though by God it tries. I won't spoil it for you, but suffice to say, it makes the Fighter Jet antics of Die Hard 4 look positively Dogme 95 in comparison. Yet that's to be expected when you get the guy who wrote X-Men Origins: Wolverine to do your screenplay. However, if you can get over the aesthetic and intellectual deficits, this film DOES have a lot of explosions.