|
Director: Len Wiseman Starring: Bruce Willis, Timothy Olyphant, Justin Long imdb.com posted:When a criminal plot is in place to take down the entire computer and technological structure that supports the economy of the United States (and the world), it's up to a decidedly "old school" hero, police detective John McClane, to take down the conspiracy, aided by a young hacker. Let me just set one thing straight, this is an action movie, through and through. The only way you will be able to enjoy this movie is if you bring your suspension of disbelief. If you have seen previous movies in the series and enjoyed them, I would imagine this would not be difficult for you to do. As someone in their mid twenties, I did not have any real emotional attachment to John McClane. I was too young to experience the first 3 movies in theaters and my first exposure to the series was on basic cable. These limited viewings gave me a rough outline of what I could expect from the newest installment of the franchise, Live Free or Die Hard. I went in expecting violent shoot-outs, improbable and difficult situations and the good guys winning in the end, battered and bruised but alive to tell the tale. In these things, I was not disappointed. From the trailer, I had an additional set of expectations, a "wacky", younger sidekick who would whine and destroy any satisfaction gained from an improbable explosion or feat, bad CG being thrown left and right to suck you out of the suspense, a neutered main character thanks to a PG-13 rating and a narrow plot focusing in more on his daughter above the safety of the public at large. I was happily mistaken in this regard. My biggest fear in any action movie, particularly in sequels, is the sassy, younger, comedic relief sidekick that gets swept into unlikely situations in order to save the day. They bitch and moan and generally ruin movies for me and I feared that Matt Farrell (Justin Long) would do just that. While 2d and stereotypical in the role of a l337 hax0r, Long was able to make the character at worst mildly annoying and at best fairly convincing. I must also give credit to the writing that allowed McClane to keep him in check, hard. The stunts, many way over the top in a general sense, worked pretty well in the Die Hard universe. I feel that the final chase scene with the fighter jet was a bit much, even for Die Hard, but generally everything else fit in terms of scope within the series. Some people may complain about the characters getting hit by cars and surviving easily but, as I said, this is not unheard of in the Die Hard Universe. I was also impressed by the limited use of CG and the return to live stunts, making the scenes all the more believable. The main villain fit in quite comfortably alongside previous bad guys in the franchise. It even evoked slight nostalgia for James Bond era villains who emphasized cunning and trickery over brute strength. His master plan wasn't exactly air-tight and it was a bit over the top, perfect for a Die Hard movie. You have not seen John McClane (Bruce Willis) until you have seen him on the big screen. Some sequels have the same character played by the same actor, but they are not the same person at all. John McClane in Live Free or Die Hard is the same John McClane in Die Hard I. Of course his character has grown and adapted as any person will over a long stretch of time, but staying true to the core idea of McClane is probably this movie's greatest achievement. As someone in their mid twenties, I did not have any real emotional attachment to John McClane. I was too young to experience the first 3 movies in theaters and my first exposure to the series was on basic cable. I'm now glad I got to experience a Die Hard movie in theaters. Overall, the plot is secondary to the action and pretty much the entire cast even Kevin Smith acted quite comfortably within their roles. The visuals were great, the sound was spot on and it felt like a Die Hard movie. Art cinema it ain't, but I'll be damned if I didn't enjoy watching tons of poo poo blow up. 4/5
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
quote:You have not seen John McClane (Bruce Willis) until you have seen him on the big screen. Some sequels have the same character played by the same actor, but they are not the same person at all. John McClane in Live Free or Die Hard is the same John McClane in Die Hard I. Of course his character has grown and adapted as any person will over a long stretch of time, but staying true to the core idea of McClane is probably this movie's greatest achievement. This is pretty much how I feel. They brought back the lovable badassery of the first movie that was sorely lacking in the second and third; this was free-range McClane at his finest. I had never even seen Die Hard until earlier this year, but even in my limited exposure I'm suitably awed by McClane's complete godliness. Sure, it's over the top, but honestly unless you just can't stand unbelievable "hacking" there's nothing to not enjoy about this movie. I came in fully expecting to HATE Justin Long's character, but even he really wasn't that bad. The cast, as a whole, played their roles very well and I left without a real gripe about them. Olyphant's villain was creepy and very slightly feminine, but it worked great as a counterpoint to McClane's sheer stone-age rear end-kicking. The only thing that matters is that if you even tolerated the first movie, you absolutely must see this one. I feel more masculine after that poo poo than I did when I saw 300, and that's saying something. The way the entire movie feels like McClane is slowly, surely, and calmly closing in on Gabriel, and you can see it in the guy's expression that it's unnerving him that every time McClane talks to him he's just a little bit closer really just sold the whole thing for me. And man, I didn't expect them to top the showdown from the first, but McClane shooting himself with Gabriel's gun through his bullet wound was so badass that I didn't even see it coming. I loved this movie and plan to see it again as soon as possible. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 05:33
|
|
|
The characters and plot were what you expect from a Die Hard movie, and it was more like the first one and than anything else. The cinematography was a little different, but that doesn't make it bad. I enjoyed it. Some scenes, like like the bit with the F-35 are a little goofy, but c'mon it's John McClane. The only plot hole that bothered me was why the power to the eastern grid went out when the West Virginia plant blew up. It's that easy to kill that much power, blowing up one power plant? Why not just do that? I know the villians were talking about restoring everything afterward, but c'mon, it can't be that easy. I stopped caring about 5 minutes later. Something that has been a staple of all Die Hard movies is the radio banter between John and the villian(s). It's always been hilarious, and still is. Another thing that I saw mentioned elsewhere: No stupid lovestory subplot or anything. This movie is about John loving McClane. There is one kinda sappy scene that last maybe two minutes and it's only considered so by me because it doesn't involve people getting shot or yelling. Don't be put off by the PG-13 rating. I didn't notice unless I really paid attention. A few gunshots are just off camera or obscured, not much obscene blood like the elevator scene in Die Hard 3 or anything. As AlbertGator said, "stone-age rear end-kicking." Loved it. Far surpassed what I expected. 5/5 e:Especially so because this is an action movie that doesn't try to shoehorn anything else in. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 28, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 05:45
|
|
|
Ridiculous amount of technobabble and over use of "hack," "hacker," etc. Bruce is great as to be expected, but he's surrounded by lameness. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 07:22
|
|
|
Just got back from it. Bruce Willis is as good as he's ever been in the role and they do a good job of aging his character and acknowledging that he's been in stupid poo poo like this before. His hacker sidekick runs the gamut from annoying to enjoyable but he's almost always believable, so it's hard to really be bothered by it. The plot is about as bogus as plots get. There is a lot of badly devised technotalk that seems almost too arbitrary and the acting from a lot of the villains and FBI fellas had that made-for-TV-movie kind of a feel to them. The main bad guy has some good moments though, but he feels a little too much like a weiner than some of the previous guys. All these things kind of drag the movie a little bit and if you're anything like me, you can stand a bad plot as long as the movie is kind of weak to begin with, and just a vehicle for some other kind of hot poo poo fighting or action or stuff. But the first Die Hard, while the plot wasn't Shakespeare or anything like that, before you understood the sum total of the bad guys' plan, you could at least believe they had a pretty good one that you couldn't figure out. The bad guys in this one have a pretty lovely idea that really doesn't ever get satisfactorily explained in any terms other than they need to be stopped. That said, I did enjoy the movie and there is a lot to like. Bruce Willis alone is worth the ticket. And the action is mostly pretty good smart typical Die Hard action. The final chase scene was the only real offender in this sense; one of the great things about Die Hard style action scenes is that it isn't that McClane is an invincible superman or a nonpareil marksman or anything like that, he's just a cop, and his real gift is thinking on his feet, coming up with off-the-cuff split-second MacGuyver stuff. Fighting with his brain and his balls rather than just having it written in that no bullets hit him. That last scene really doesn't carry that same vibe and gets too GI Joe for my blood. I'm ratting on this movie more than I should because it is enjoyable, but all the reasons to enjoy it are reasons you would already know going into a Die Hard movie. Somewhere between a 3.5/5 and a 4/5. Pros: Bruce Willis, Solid action scenes, Bruce Willis, Bruce Willis, Bruce Willis Cons: Some weak performances, totally bogus plot, Some GI Joe kind of stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 07:56
|
|
|
Yeah I completely agree about the plot. In fact I was laughing during the entire movie because it was so unbelievable and appeals to people who know NOTHING about computers, lol. Umm, for an action movie, I thought it was awesome... Here are some points I made in a blog: I saw the movie. And its an AWESOME one, except for ONE small little problem. Their dubbing was horrible!!! WTH. Who authorized this movie's release? Aren't there preview showings for this kind of stuff so that things like this don't slip through? In this multimillion dollar production where the government had to endorse it and let them use special equipment, they can certainly fix a simple dub before its release! Were they so close to the deadline where they're like "screw it."? Did they think people like me wouldn't notice? OMG, in 3 scenes at least! Come on, I can do a better job and prove it! Typical Die Hard movie, but the nerdy parts were hilarious. The nerd he protects in the movie is a hacker who's name is Matt Farrel. His screen name is F4rr3l. The first commandment in hacking is to never use your name or any part of it as your screen name. So that was just funny off the bat. Then there's his friend, fat bad hygiene guy you would normally meet from SomethingAwful.com who is this hacker that calls himself the "Warlock" defends his dignity when Bruce Willis calls his room the basement. "This is NOT a basement, this is my COMMAND Center" Both get picked on by Bruce Willis because they have action figure dolls or Star Wars obsessions. Beautiful. This action movie follows trend of sticking two opposites together to make a team that is forced to work with each other. This isn't like Rush Hour, black man working with an asian man, Lethal Weapon, white man teams up with a black man, Starsky and Hutch, stupid works with...stupider. No this was immortal cop who only knows how to pull the trigger paired with a skinny never gets any fresh air NERD
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 10:36
|
|
|
Not a review.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 12:11
|
|
|
I saw this last night and it did not disappoint. Plenty of action, poo poo blowing up, one-liners and all that. There was no gimmicky bullet time or any stupid poo poo like that, it was pure old-school action. The fact that there wasn't much swearing or nudity didn't really detract from the film overall. A few scenes were a bit over the top (the car falling and hitting the other 2 cars from the trailer and the F-35 scene) but aside from that it was Die Hard all the way. The catchphrase part was somewhat surprising, the whole theater gasped when he shot himself as opposed to groaning when the gunshot drowned out the "motherfucker" which I didn't expect, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 13:18
|
|
|
There were some absolutely retarded things in this movie, for example the bad guys sending a van with five dudes to take out each of the hackers at the beginning, but only sending 3 people to shut off the power for the eastern grid; the kid being able to hack everything with a cellphone; the asian chick not dying after being crushed by the suv, etc. Overall, it was a very fun action movie which there aren't a whole lot of these days. I didn't feel like I had to turn my brain off too much throughout the movie, which is always a good thing in movies that focus on current technology. Bruce Willis was very good in his role, as were almost all of the other main characters, so the acting was good enough for a movie like this. I really can't compare it to the previous 3 movies, but if I had to I'd say it's about equally as good as part 3. THe PG-13 rating didn't hurt it as much as I thought it would. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 14:01
|
|
|
I enjoyed it. It wasn't as god as the original, but it was fun. Die Hard was always king of the over the top action movies, and this seems just inside of being a parody of itself. Don't let the pg-13 fool you, its got enough action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 16:39
|
|
|
.
Bo Shek fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jun 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 20:34
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. I went in just looking for a good action flick and it fulfilled that expectation. Don't expect some deep story/acting and you will come out impressed. I liked Die Hard with a Vengence more, but this one was the second best of the 4 movies. 4/5 Also DISCUSSION ABOUT ENDING BELOW The ending and how McClain killed him by shooting himself was awesome. That was the first time I was left speechless to the ending of a movie. HanabaL03 fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jun 28, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2007 21:50
|
|
|
I enjoyed this movie, just good ole explosions and stunt acting. The hacker plot was pretty stupid, and I laughed at the fact that normal cell phones could use sat com links, and somehow every TS facility was hacked though I'm sure all of them don't even touch the internet. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2007 03:18
|
|
|
I saw this movie tonight and absolutely loved it. The plot was pretty basic but the action was amazing. I was flinching and cringing with every bang and explosion. Well done action sequences, Bruce Willis was amazing and Justin Long was excellent as his "sidekick." I felt the ending was abrupt but still cool. Definite must see. So far the funnest movie I have seen all year. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2007 04:50
|
|
|
The technobabble alone made this movie fantastically entertaining. This movie must've been pitched as "Die Hard for the information age", except they made the whole thing without ever even trying to figure out what they were talking about. They fake their way through the entire thing, and it shows every five minutes when a character has to prepare for the download mainframe upload. Pretty much every single time they show a computer screen, there's something hilarious on it (a spreadsheet full of IP addresses, a 500TB download), and as far as I'm concerned, laughing at that with my friends was worth the price of admission. The action was great, too. There's a little bit of shakycam, but not nearly as much as other movies are getting away with these days. There's more than one scene that's memorable in its awesome absurdity, and all the choreography is great, especially in one scene near the end. The only negative things I can say about it are that you find yourself laughing at it way more than you're laughing with it. There was also some inexcusably sloppy ADR considering what a major movie it was. 4/5 e: Penny Arcade's commentary on the technobabble: 
Baby Lion King IMAX fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jul 23, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2007 07:05
|
|
|
I couldn't have hated this movie more. I loved Die Hard. I loved the slow pacing and continually building intensity. This movie had none of that and instead felt like Firewall or Paycheck. Willis was fine, and Long didn't bother me either, but the obnoxiously bad plot and ridiculous fighter jet stunts just ruined it for me. The PG-13 rating wasn't bad--apparently "poo poo" is PG-13 friendly--but I was more concerned with Die Hard becoming a 21st century Jason Statham/Vin Diesel action movie, and it was. Some might say that big, stupid action movies can be entertaining if you suspend disbelief, and I agree. But I hold Die Hard to a higher standard because the first movie wasn't a big jaunty adventure, it was periods of semi-realistic excitement interspersed with extended periods of nail-biting suspense. Also, the villain was utter poo poo. 1.5/5 Ponuh fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jun 29, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2007 09:00
|
|
|
"Decent" is the word to describe Live Free or Die Hard. Apart from the fighter jet scene, which was so silly it provoked giggles rather than wide-eyed appreciation, the action was fantastic. Nowhere near the level of Die Hard or Casino Royale, which might be the best action film since Terminator 2, but still very enjoyable. And, of course, Bruce Willis brought back the snide glances, cocksure banter, and total thuggery that made John McClane so appealing the first time around. That being said, I don't think it makes sense to ignore the rest of the film's unsettling political content. Some might argue that it is folly to read "deeply" into a Die Hard movie, that the movie is about muscle and explosions and the rest is window-dressing. But remember that this is pure pop and John McClane is the hero for the everyman. Large swathes of filmgoers will come away cheering McClane's perspective, whether they realize it or not. What I find most disturbing is the scene in which Matt Farrell (Justin Long) launches into an inarticulate diatribe about how the media attempts to keep the public in fear and ripe for consumption while McClane poo-poos him as just another cook conspiracy theorist who needs to get out of the house more. When this movie is not about blowing things up, it is about trivializing salient critiques of the complex of media, industry, and society that operates for worse in this country. LFODH suggests that we not even discuss the matter. Then Farrell has his moment of inspiration: it's not a system, it's a country! Don't look beyond the surface citizen. You might get cynical about all that flag-waving and the racially diverse can-do-no-wrong FBI team that, of course, is here to help. While we're at it, let's stick it to the French. In a moment of palpable irony, the ending credits feature the Credence Clearwater Revival song Fortunate Son, an anti-establishment anthem that eloquently challenges the powerful and the wealthy to bear their own burdens for once. I could but shake my head and snicker because I was too horrified to witness that classic tune eulogizing the iniquity of the very system that LFODH minimizes exploited for patriotic thrills. Pros: Some great action, the return of John McClane. Cons: Distressing political content, Die Hard was more intense when terrorists attacked one building rather than the whole country, as in LFODH. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2007 17:10
|
|
|
I agree with many of the posters who said they didn't like the technobabble. On top of this I didn't like how the movie tried to convey John as a complete old fart who was way out of his league. The main problem with the movie though was the fact that it was PG-13. It hurt the movie because I noticed the parts that were censored down because of the rating. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 03:45
|
|
|
Eh. It was exactly what I thought it looked like: A lame excuse to cash in on some classic films; a mediocre action movie with the Die Hard title, in the hand of a horrible director. The main problem is the film is ridiculously over the top. The appeal of the old films was that they were realistic. Characters acted realistically to situations, and the action scenes were exciting, but feasible. This film is pure over the top slam bang action with bad CG and a blue filter over it. Holy loving drat this movie was blue. It felt like a cheap way to insinuate "HAY GUYZ THIS FILM IS NEW AGE AND HIGH TECHNICAL OOOOH LOOK SHINY BLUE". Also, the cinematography was horrible. Wiseman sure loves his quick cuts, extreme close ups, and panoramic shots. All in all entertaining enough, but insulting to the Die Hard name. A big missed opportunity here, as there were really some great ideas in this film. Leave it to studios to attach horrid directors and make a quick buck off of a classic franchise by cashing in a generic over the top action film. The good points are Bruce Willis can still play John McClane, plenty of good one liners and John being John, and best use of the Yippee Ki Yay Motherfucker line in the series thus far. Everything else is pure spectacle, and typical over the top summer action movie fare. The spirit of the old films is lost in the sea of ludicrous action pieces more at home in Mission Impossible II, crap cinematography, horrible CG, and a sea of blue filters. This is no Die Hard. Also this movie must have set a record for number of ridiculously convenient bad guy deaths. Jesus gently caress. Call it something else and attach Vin Deisel, you wouldn't know the difference. 2/5 MarioTeachesWiping fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jun 30, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 06:17
|
|
|
Man of Wax posted:That being said, I don't think it makes sense to ignore the rest of the film's unsettling political content. Some might argue that it is folly to read "deeply" into a Die Hard movie, that the movie is about muscle and explosions and the rest is window-dressing. But remember that this is pure pop and John McClane is the hero for the everyman. Large swathes of filmgoers will come away cheering McClane's perspective, whether they realize it or not. That's funny because the only political message I got out of this movie was "Don't gently caress with John McClane" Anyhow, like others have pointed out, it was pretty impressive for a PG13 movie, though in some parts you could really feel (after narrowly escaping exploding death via van, the Mac commercial sidekick's lines are so badly dubbed over its comical), and I don't know if it was due to the poor directing or the rating, but while there were plenty of great death scenes, the majority cut away from right before or cut to right after the death, which was pretty weak. A lot of stuff I thought would be annoying wasn't; I'd like to think I'm a modicum more proficient at computers than the average person and I was still able to suspend my disbelief enough to go with it (though when all the traffic lights turned green causing car crashes and mass confusion, all I could think was "HACK THE PLANET"). The Mac guy, who I hate, actually does really well as a sarcastic hacker wuss, and Kevin Smith didn't make me want to stab my ear-drums out, though its probably pretty easy to pull off a Star Wars-obsessed fat neurotic loser when they're basically telling you to play yourself. Even McClane's daughter (the cheerleader from Death Proof) does a pretty good job. Well, I mean, she is attractive to look at, at least, and she only has like five lines?? Look, I'm not a miracle worker. Only part that seemed a little too over-the-top was the aforementioned fighter jet, though the indestructible Maggie Q and Spider-jerk did toe the line on that front, but the scenes were badass enough to be forgivable. The main villain was also pretty well done in that you dislike him for being such a douche and want to see him get his rear end beat (I'm not sure about others, but a lot of the time I find myself either completely apathetic to the villain or actually rooting for them), though he does have one moment of complete stupidity: You have McClane on the ground, incapacitated and unarmed. You have his daughter held at gunpoint, and Mac commercial hacker re-fixing your evil plan. You do not grab him and hold him in front of you. You even read his file, you know he's taken down like a million real terrorists before now, and you're just a scrawny human being hacker guy! Do not even go near him!! Don't even get within ten feet, he can probably kill you with just his bare hands! Didn't you see him just killing all the other guys you threw at him earlier? Why would you, scrawny nerd, get anywhere near him!!. Pro: Awesome action, funny lines, cool characters Con: A few minor nitpicks above 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 10:22
|
|
|
Reasons I liked it: Bruce Willis Reasons I didn't like it: It's not a good movie for a 4th movie in a series, but if they plan on this being a restart then it's alright. All the special effects scenes were in the previews The supporting cast is terrible Two scenes were copied from previous movies I don't buy Timothy Olyphant as a viable bad guy. Edit: 2
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 15:50
|
|
|
Ponuh posted:the obnoxiously bad plot and ridiculous fighter jet stunts Actually, the marine version of the F35 will supposedly be able to do just about everything it did in the movie (so my friend, an Air Force pilot, told me). Anyways, as long as you go into the movie expecting a 2-hour-long action scene (which is about what I expected), it should be an enjoyable movie. And like others have said, you have to suspend disbelief for some of the "hacking" that is done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 22:05
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie, and felt it lived up to the franchise, although none of the sequels can really top the original. As usual in a Die Hard flick, suspension of disbelief is critical. And I was able to do so right up to the aforementioned jet fighter scene. But even while I was internally scoffing, I still enjoyed the action. But that's a relatively minor nitpick when compared to the parts that work. The partnership between McLane and Farrell builds up gradually enough to be believable, and I was really surprised to see that they made McLane's daughter such a hard-rear end character, rather than the usual damsel in distress. Honestly, until I read the reviews here I didn't even realize that the film was PG-13. The bad dubbing didn't jump out at me either, so I'm thinking that these are complaints from people who are looking for something to complain about. Either that, or I'm totally oblivious (which is certainly within the realm of possibility). Pros: Bruce Willis, snappy banter, tons of action Cons: Over the top once or twice, even for a Die Hard film 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 18:08
|
|
|
Really liked it. I'm a programmer, and I could withstand the endless tech bullshit and suspend enough disbelief to really enjoy the film. Last night I watched 45 minutes of Deja-Vu with Denzel W and had to turn it off, not able to suspend anything. In DH4 the action was great, especially at the beginning, and got more and more infeasible towards the end, yet was still entertaining and didn't bore me. Bruce Willis carried it and the Justin "Mac guy" Long was great. Even Kevin Smith was great. Can I say great anymore? I hope they make a 5th film, just please.. no more computers. You just cant sex them up enough to make an action film revolve around them. Definitely not Swordfish 2, and the trailers do not ruin all the action. Go watch it. Keep an eye out for Tuvok  7/10.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 22:25
|
|
|
magnafides posted:Actually, the marine version of the F35 will supposedly be able to do just about everything it did in the movie (so my friend, an Air Force pilot, told me). I'm sure it could, but why in the world would a pilot do something like that when they can leisurely take their time doing strafing runs or, hell, launching another of the 6 remaining missiles? Not to mention that the pilot never seems to think "Ok, I've probably destroyed miles of highway in a major city and killed a fair number of civilians, but I will follow an order I didn't confirm till I die! I was really kind of hoping that Bruce Willis would somehow find the pilot and kick his rear end for being such a douche, but no... As purely an action movie I thought it was good. I like it just for Bruce Willis, but it was just too silly. And while I realize it is a movie, I don't think that should give the creators of the movie free reign to toss in as much unbelievably implausible and downright impossible BS as they can because they think it's cool and a lot of people won't know the difference. A few times is OK, but they really pack it in. It makes it hard to connect with any of the characters because you're constantly reminded that you are watching a (ridiculous) movie. After this movie I watched the original Die Hard again, and they just don't compare (you do notice how much younger Bruce Willis looks though). Maybe the latest is more marketable, but it's not nearly as good as the first, which really contained nothing that was impossible. The firehose/window thing was probably a bit of a stretch, along with the elevator shaft, but those are easy to overlook considering the quality of the movie. Don't get me wrong, I had a great time watching it with my friends and really enjoyed the whole thing, but it just isn't a movie I can see myself watching over and over without getting tired of it, unlike the first. P.S. I was kind of saddened that the producers tossed his wife out of the picture. After Die Hard 3 I kind of assumed they lived happily ever after. I suppose that wouldn't go with the trend though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2007 09:12
|
|
|
EDIT: That was odd...somehow I quoted myself.
SovietSpyGuy fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jul 2, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2007 09:14
|
|
|
I loved the hell out of it. Great action, great one-liners "OHHHH NOO-HA-HA-OO"/"HOW YA DOIN', great pacing, just great all around. Yes, the movie is ridiculous and the hacking/computer stuff is beyond fake and lame, but thats a small quibble I had with what was otherwise a great time at the theatre. One thing that I really love about McClane is his lack of needing to act cool and collected or rely on slow-motion to make him cool. None of this walking-away-from-an-explosion-he-just-made-in-slow-motion-while-wearing-sunglasses-at-10PM-bullshit. When McClane blows someones poo poo up, or kills them in a hilarious way, he recognizes how loving awesome it was. He's just so much more identifiable than other action heroes, and as ridiculous as the Die Hard movies are, it really makes the whole experience more immersive and loving fun. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2007 17:02
|
|
|
This movie is perfect if you just want to sit down someplace, turn the brain off, and bathe in the infinite awesomeness that is Bruce Willis in Live Free or Die Hard. Seriously, this one is leagues ahead of Die Hard 2 and I might go so far as to say it's better than Die Hard 1 or at least very close to it. I mean, the one liners are loving hilarious, the stunts are outrageous, and the action is non-stop. It's got a pretty good plot to it but not exactly the best. However, that's beside the point here. It's loving Die Hard for gently caress's sake. If you're a human being and have seen and enjoyed the other Die Hards then go see this film. I will definitely be picking up the Director's Cut of this when it comes out and that's not saying that the lack of fucks and motherfucks and brains getting blown out made this movie worse. In fact, I wasn't even thinking about how stupid this lack of so-called harsh language or violence was because this movie is just that awesome. Hell, the lack of harsh language made this film better as Bruce Willis fills it in with just ridiculously, funny one liners. Just go see this movie. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2007 02:42
|
|
|
Tons of awesome REAL explosions. Wanton destruction with no regard for bystanders, inflicted on the public by both the bad guys AND the good guys. A constant stream of hilarious Internet/computer technobabble. Bruce Willis beats the poo poo out of a really hot chick... and she totally deserves it. ***eBOMB*** 5/5 Terzol fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jul 3, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2007 05:09
|
|
|
Much better than I expected. I was afraid this was going to kill the series (think Terminator 3 or Lethal Weapon 4). John McClane is still the great blue collar hero--saving the day is a real pain in the rear end but its his job and somebody has to do it. But as mentioned earlier some of the action sequences were just a little to over the top even for Die Hard. Pleasently surprised. 3.5/5.0
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2007 03:09
|
|
|
A watered down, bloodless, very non-Die Hard version of Die Hard. Bruce Willis was not McClaine, he was just a generic action hero. Put Stathem in this role and it would have been Transporter 3. Put Arnold in it and it would have been Eraser 2... *shudder*. It just wasn't Die Hard. And there was WAY too much computer hacking, techno babble bullshit. Some of the action scenes were exciting, if not a bit too over the top. I'll give it a few points for entertaining me now and then. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 09:31
|
|
|
I liked this film, but only as a standalone action movie. It does not live up to the "mythology" (oh, how I hate that word) of what the Die Hard series is about. The stunts, whilst certainly impressive, were just ridiculously over the top. McClane doesn't really get the poo poo kicked out of him at any time, at least not as brutally as in the other films. McClane never seems to be panicked about what's going on. Yes, he was cool and collected in the other films but he was "a man alone, hurtin'". I didn't get that impression here, it was like he was superhuman. Maggie Q's character survives a situation that would probably kill a 300-pound fatass, let alone a stick figure like herself. The fighter jet scene, driving the car into the chopper, just not realistic. Some of the oneliners were good, but nothing compares to "NO FUCKIN' poo poo LADY, do I sound like I'm orderin' a pizza?!" from the first film. I'm gonna give it a 4/5. Like I said, it's a great film but it's not a Die Hard film. I'm not docking it any points for not being a Die Hard film though... if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2007 14:41
|
|
|
For me, the progression of best Die Hard movies from best to not best has always been Die Hard 3, then Die Hard, then Die Hard 2. Going to a movie theater and watching the movie once does not allow me to place Live Free or Die Hard anywhere in there, because I've only seen it once! I can say, however, that it is definately a great Die Hard movie in all aspects. I can see how some people think it didn't feel like a die hard movie. It deals with a topic that no other Die Hard movie has touched base with... widespread hacking is awfully "techy" for good ol' John McClane. But stop and think about Die Hard 2 and 3. They technically aren't very similar to Die Hard either. Die Hard 2 was in an airport, and for God's sake, it featured Willis fighting a martial arts expert on the wing of a plane getting ready to take off, only to be followed by using the fuel trail of the plane to destroy it. Or even in the first Die Hard, jumping off the roof as it exploded while swinging on a fire hose. To say that is more believable than any of the action in LFoDH is stretching things. No action movie is totally believable, that is why we like them. Touching back on what makes this a Die Hard movie, John McClane never really plans some of the intricate poo poo he does, he gets put in the situation and then he reacts to it. He doesn't plan Driving a SUV into an elevator shaft, then fighting his way out of it with a totally hot asian chick. Nor does he plan running through a tunnel filled with head on collisions, knowing precisely when to duck and have two cars prevent his untimely death. He just reacts in a genuine John McClane fashion. Which is always totally badass. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2007 17:46
|
|
|
Die Hard 4.0 (which you may know as Live Free or Die Hard: I used to love big, silly, action flicks. The stunts, the explosions a little suspense. But recently I've found myself becoming more and more bored by big budget summer blockbusters. This year has been worse than ever... I found the action sequences in Pirates 3, Spidey 3 and Transformers tedious jumbles of sound and action that just did nothing for me. I'd find myself sitting there bored out of my mind in what were supposed to be exciting set pieces and wondering if films have just got worse or my tastes are changing as I've got older. I'm sure in the past I would have eaten this stuff up. I was expecting to hate Die Hard 4. I felt a duty to see it as Die Hard is one of my favourite films and it's probably my favourite action franchise. But I was dreading it, the trailer didn't help. But I was suprised to find I really enjoyed. I'm not sure what was different about it, maybe there is an element of nostalgia but it's been the first time in ages I've just been able to sit back and enjoy the ride. I think the pacing was pretty good. It didn't get bogged down in a convoluted story that no one cared about. It didn't take itself to seriously and it was actually fun to watch. I have no problem with the complete lack of realism or the techno-babble. A big plus was the fact that I actually liked the Justin Long character and his interaction with Willis. That's one aspect of the film I had doubts about based on the trailer. But it was actually kind of fun, they had a few good moments and I never found it annoying. I disagree with those who don't see it as a true Die Hard film, it seemed to have all the key elements for me. McClane getting involved by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, elaborate terrorist plots turning out to be covers for high-tech robbery, McClane taunting the lead bad guy over the radio (a key element!). It was all there. There were a few negatives. They skirted with some kind of political message here and there, it was so vague though they could just as well as left it out. the Kevin Smith character didn't really serve any kind of purpose. But apart from that I'm having trouble faulting it. Overall the most enjoyable action blockbuster I've seen in a long time 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2007 11:22
|
|
|
Ever since Lord of the Rings and the Spiderman trilogy raked in money like mad, the current Hollywood attitude towards big budget blockbusters is to add some semblence of human touch to the films. After the camp of big budget films of the 80s and 90s such as Top Gun, the Schumacher era Batman films, and countless countless others I won't bother mentioning, it seems the studios have some massive intellectual inferiority complex, and tries to make their popcorn films prestige films as well. With films like the first two Spidermans and LOTR, it works well. With films such as the 3rd Spiderman and 300, it fails miserably. The good news is, Live Free or Die Hard seems to be exempt from this trend. That isn't to say that this movie isn't human. Bruce Willis' John McClane is probably the most human action star in film history, and the new crew behind this flim are not oblivious to this at all. Even though the colorful language is regrettably absent, every single thing you would expect from a Die Hard film is present, from memorable action scenes, mind boggling stunt work, and McClane's sardonic wit. The minute trappings of the old Die Hard films are gone, but once the action gets started, there is little to separate them from the new one. Every action scene has McClane hanging on to his life by a thread, in a way that highlights the character's fundamental frailty in the same way Willis' acting does. Justin Long isn't exactly Zeus Carver, but he fills his role well and complements Bruce in a delightful combo. The technobabble isn't exactly swimming in believability, but hey, neither is 14 dumptrucks full of gold, and frankly, I'm perfectly willing to sit through any lame excuse to watch McClane crush an F35 with his bare hands. Would this film have been better had McTiernan been in charge? Absolutely. Would this film have been better had it kept its colorful language? Definitely. However, in all other respects it stays true to the Die Hard name, and in an age of pedantic social fables and archetype filled epic messes, this film keeps its restraint. 4.0 could have easily turned into some hamfisted post 9/11 parable, but thanfully it didn't. It's a refreshing reminder that there is still room for old fashioned shoot 'em up action flicks. RATING 4.0/5 PROS: Great action fun, McClane is still McClane CONS: No McTiernan, no cussing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2007 11:02
|
|
|
I was pleasantly surprised. Really, it's got John McClane beating the poo poo out of terrorists, and cars exploding and crashing at a phenomenal rate. My movie experience was soured by a fat ugly bitch behind me kicking my seat anytime something exciting happened and remarking loudly on the obvious the whole time, but that's not the film's fault. Recommended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2007 13:27
|
|
|
This was supposed to be an oldschool action movie. Wiseman said it, Willis said it, many people said it after watching the movie. It is not. This movie is not oldschool, it's like the graduate project from a student of the Michael Bay Filming school. Every shot is in some way moving. If it's a scenery shot, the camera is sliding around, like you are turning your head. When people talk, the camera is always shaking a little bit. I felt like watching a stageplay, while I'm walking around on the stage, turn my head left and right and nod my head slightly, but rather fast up and down everytime I actually stop to turn my head around. Oh, and it was very blue. I could live with that. I can watch, for example, Bad Boys 2 and enjoy it, but the movie has actually bigger problems than it's rating or the camera(even though the camera was really annoying). The characters were pretty much awful. I read that many people wrote "that Mac-Guy isn't as annoying as I expected", like it's a favourable feature of the movie. He was still annoying. Either he stands there and says "Did you see that?!" or he sits somewhere and surfes through spacy-blue interfaces on his mobile phone. I'll admit, the first scene in his apartment was good. I liked their dialogue, but after that he shows us why there are no action movies about nerds. It would have been a better movie if he got shot in the apartment. Though he's pretty low on the list of ridiculous characters, because this film is full of zany characters and actors I never wanted to see. Let's see... oh yeah, Maggie Q. This badass chick, that has this tough fightscene with Willis, right? Well, she is pretty badass, because she was nearly immortal, but the fightscene wasn't that tough and I wonder why people praised it so much, when it wasn't something special or actually any good. It wasn't close combat or anything. It was Willis getting kicked and lying on the ground for a while, or Maggie getting kicked and lying on the ground for a while, alternating. And to top it off: her acting was awful, maybe even non existant. Whenever the camera focused on her face, you could have shoved a log across the screen, I wouldn't have seen a difference. Let's keep on going at the bad guys. First the french guy, who was jumping around all the time. He really felt out of place here and the swinging camera didn't do him any favours, because everytime he did his thing, it looked like Spiderman made a visit. I know he can do all this stuff in real, but it only works out, if other people follow him, like in B13 or in the beginning of the last Bond movie. But Willis always just stood there, which made it look even more weird. Now to Timothy Olyphant. I felt a bit sorry for him, because he is a good actor and I think he could have played a frightening villain. Not necessarily the leader, but a villain anyway. He was not a bit intimidating, he was just fragile and weak. That's not how the main villian should be. The villians should be on par with the hero. Not necessarily on the physical level, but in some way they should be a challenge for the hero. Unfortunately the rest of the characters and cast couldn't help the movie out of it's misery in the slightest. The Warlock is a 30+ year old nerd living in the basement of his mother. What the gently caress? If someone told me the whole story of the movie before, I would have yelled "wait a second!" at the latest at the moment the person told me "so then McClane goes into the basement of this old woman and it's totally nerdy with star wars poo poo all around and there's a fat guy, who helps McClane out". I can imagine many situations in which I want to see McClane or any other action hero. A nerdy basement isn't one of them and never will be. The last character I want to mention is McClane's daughter, because she felt just so unreal. She never appeared to be really scared. Sure, she is the daughter of 2 thickheaded parents, but she's still human, she wouldn't punch everyone in the face, she would be scared too. Instead it appears that she is as hardy as McClane, as if every family vacation was some kind of action adventure, with hostages and shoot outs. Without good characters, no good story right? Well, the story is pretty much poo poo with or without the characters. The characters doesn't interact with the story at all. Unlike the first Die Hard, in which McClanes actions heavily affected the story, he could have skipped everything. The story is basically: McClane and Mac-Boy pop up somewhere, the villains throw something at them, they crouch, repeat from step 1. No cat-and-mouse games, no tension. It feels as lost as Die Hard 3. Though the biggest problem of the story is certainly the cyberspace stuff. Why do people think this could deliver a stirring story? Every villian team nowadays has a hacker, but he usually sits around and people wait 'till he's finished with his stuff, why focus on that? But action could save the worst story. Too bad the action is ridiculous too. All these creative ways to kill people are poo poo. I don't think all creative ways to kill people are bad, quite the contrary. Schwarzenegger and even Spielberg showed us splendid ideas. But Die Hard 4 is on The Transporter level, or even beneath that. McClane drives over a hydrant and the water from the hydrant blows a guy out of the helicopter. I've seen movies that made me laugh out loud, because the deaths were so insane, in Die Hard 4 it was too stupid to laugh. This movie was not entertaining for me. My standards for entertaining movies aren't high. I enjoy some really bad movies, but Die Hard 4 is just so... stupid. The characters are bad, the story is bad, the action is bad and doesn't make much sense. The PG-13 rating couldn't damage the movie, because it was doomed to fail with such a script, such a director and such a cast. I can see why Bruce Willis wants to make a Die Hard 5. This isn't the ending the Die Hard franchise deserves. I hope Willis gets a better director and a better script and makes a last Die Hard movie. And with a little luck it's playing on christmas again, Willis is really annoyed about his fate and realises that he's in the same situation for the 5th time and it has all the great features of the first Die Hard: tension and over the top action, that has the feeling of pretty real action with a swearing cop in the middle of it all. Final Conclusion: Imagine Hollywood told someone to write a sequel to Die Hard 3, but is has to be really stupid in every way possible(even more ridiculous than Die Hard 3) and integrate nerds in some way. Now imagine that this pretty stupid script got in the hands of a Bay-wannabe director and you get Die Hard 4. 2/5 for the movie, because things blew up and that kept me awake though if you put it in the context of the Die Hard legacy, it should be 0/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2007 05:19
|
|
|
I just watched this tonight and was completely disappointed. PG-13 is not Die Hard, stupid technobabble, horrendous dubbing. The only reason I sat through the entire thing is because I'm a fan of Bruce Willis and the entire Die Hard series. Just go watch the first Die Hard again, it'll be a better use of your time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2007 07:35
|
|
|
Watered down pussified version of what Die Hard should be. Otherwise a mildly entertaining action flick with some good moments (Lucy McClane is amusing) but ultimately nowhere near worthy of the Die Hard name. Also, the jet scene at the end was retardedly ridiculous and had me rolling my eyes. 2.5/5, only reason for the .5 is because I like Cliff Curtis and think he's underappreciated
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2007 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
It doesn't hold a candle to its predecessors, and for me doesn't really feel like a Die Hard movie. It's decent enough fare, although the techno-stuff is unforgivably bad in this day and age (HIT ENTER TO SEND VIRUS.....). Action is pretty decent, one-liners are pretty average. Bruce Willis is pretty much the only reason to watch it. Give it a rent or watch it on a plane or something. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2007 11:24
|
|
