The 1988 classic, action blockbuster “Die Hard” remains one of the best overall action movies ever made; and in the top 5 all-time watchable-every-year Christmas movies. Bruce Willis’ character is the epitome of American action-hero, from ability to banter well with baddies to never-say-die attitude, John McClane sells the cowboy cop image.

The original movie brought on three more films, none of them as good as the first, but none of them horrible. Though the plots may have had a few holes, and some of the action a bit in defiance of physics, the movies remained worth watching and re-watching.

Roughly a quarter-century later, the fifth installment has arrived: “A Good Day to Die Hard.” And I will say right now, it is probably one of the greatest wastes of film potential I have ever seen.

The movie begins with what is supposed to be, I can only assume, a plot that a group of stoned monkeys approved — my apologies to disparaging the monkeys.

The establishing shots and film style to create the mood and setting are on par with a teenager using their first camera; and the trend continue on through the movie. In action films, using well-worn stereotypes and styles is somewhat excusable because the coming action and banter or even intrigue make well-worn, work.

The new adventure brings forth John McClane’s son, Jack; or John McClane Jr., as you learn at the end. Now, this isn’t the first time the son has appeared. If you watch the original “Die Hard,” at around 5 minutes in you can see John’s wife, Holly Generro-McClane, looking at a family photo where the daughter and the essentially irrelevant son are pictured.

The “Die Hard’ series already used John’s all-grown-up daughter, Lucy McClane, in “Live Free of Die Hard.” That movie first came out with a PG-13 rating because some genius at the movie studio thought it would sell better, or some other such idiocy. Thankfully, an un-rated version came out later and restored John’s full “Yippe-ki-yay” to the version what ends in a well-worn profanity, alongside other improvements to the film.

Then the prodigal son appears. The daughter character felt like she was a child of John McClane. The son was lame. Seriously, the son character was less interesting than a background character killed in an opening scene of any other “Die Hard” movie; and those background characters had more impact.

The banter for the film was another area of utter failure. A newly-formed high school improv troop would have had better dialogue. It was screen-writing 101 and even then the writer was given a C-. Roderick Thorp, the writer of the novel “Nothing Lasts Forever” which the first “Die Hard” movie was inspired by, was associated with the words in that he contributed certain original characters. I can only take that to mean he was asked a couple details and then the script was left to the other writer, Skip Woods.

Woods does not have a stellar run of writing, but his work has not been completely bad, until now. Maybe Woods has never seen a “Die Hard” film, maybe he simply didn’t understand the John McClane character. Whatever it was, the dialogue and plot progression was not worthy of the McClane legacy.

But hey, this was an action movie, right? I mean, action movies can just be kind of funny and maybe slightly witty at times and still be a hit so long as the action is good. Well, OK, no, witty banter is the key, but we will look past that to try and find a silver lining.

Oh wait, no, the action is not even good enough to be spectacular. It isn’t bad action, but it doesn’t make your adrenaline flow and certainly doesn’t come close to any of the previous movies. Even the villains are boring as all-get-out.

Much like Indiana Jones’ reappearance in that series’ fourth installment, the newest McClane adventure came across as forced and past its time. Willis’ acting felt more like a re-emergence of his Hudson Hawk character, from the movie of the same name, than the character of John McClane.

The twist to the plot was not too obvious, but that didn’t make it interesting or original or even terribly helpful to making the movie. I would venture there was never actually a script. Instead there were some notes written on cocktail napkins and then the creators were required to Robo-trip the rest of filming to cobble together some semblance of something to provide for the film’s dailies.

Oh, and just so I make it extremely clear, Robo-tripping is the abuse of dextromethorphan to provide a high. Regular use decreases one’s IQ. And let me tell you bubba, the writing for a “A Good Day to Die Hard” makes “Plan 9 from Outer Space” look like “Citizen Kane.”

There are so many plot flaws and scenes meant to create depth or meaningfulness that aren’t even bad enough to be comical. The script from “Road House” — the movie only ever watched now as a joke drinking game — has more profundity.

The director, John Moore, is equally to blame for trying to turn “Die Hard” into a “Bourne Identity” flick, only failing spectacularly. Also of note that McClane and Bourne are very, very different types of characters and require very, very different types of directing.

All around, “A Good Day to Die Hard” is a waste of your time. It makes me sad to see it included in the McClane legacy. I do not recommend anyone see it in theaters. I do not recommend seeing it on rental. I do not recommending investing the hour and a half necessary to trudge through it at any time unless you have no other option but “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” to watch.

OK, I’m exaggerating some. It isn’t actually as bad as I make it out to be. If it weren’t being sold as a John McClane movie it might be OK to watch on TV some time; some time when you have little desire to pay attention or enjoy what you are watching. Due to its association with the previous films, I am severely disappointed. I refuse to watch it again until the Riff Trax comes out, even then, I might decline.