IMDb > Live Free or Die Hard (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Live Free or Die Hard
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Live Free or Die Hard More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 79: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 785 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

You get what you expect

Author: johnny-08 from Rijeka, Croatia
3 August 2007

After big summer hits like Pirates 3, Spider-Man 3 and Shrek 3, now it's time to go on with number four hit; and that is "Live Free or Die Hard"(Die Hard 4.0). My personal favorite are still Pirates but also I can't say that I'm disappointed with this movie because John McClane is back.

Plot is about our hero, John McClane (Bruce Willis) who fights against Internet-based terrorist organization. McClane's first job is to save young hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long). With problems on work John has also problems with his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead ) because there isn't any real communication between them.

Action movies, like "Die Hard" series, all have basically same plot. One man is out there alone and somehow he manages to save everyone, including himself. It isn't important whether our hero is on a building, plane or just on streets but what is important is how the whole movie is made. First "Die Hard" is still untouchable and best of series. "Die Hard 4" is somewhere in range of the third movie, pushing the second movie on last position. Maybe everything is made better then in a third movie but I just like that movie with Jeremy Irons and Samuel L. Jackson as co-stars. On the other hand fourth movie started from nothing and obviously producers decided not to take any big and famous names in this project. They already have Willis and they decided to cast young, promising actors (Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Maggie Q). I agree with that decision because I think that all of them did good job. Especially Justin Long who really surprised me. He acted very good in role of young, scared hacker. Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis and he's so confident in this role. Another good one for Willis who really needed this after few years of "non hit" movies (period from "The Sixth Sense" to "Sin City"). But don't worry about Willis cause he's really someone you can call movie star. If producers had 100 million dollars (I just took one number), they decided to gave 20 to Willis, 10 for other actors and director and everything else in action scenes. Direction of this one was given to young Len Wiseman (only "Underworld" series) and he did a good job in putting lots of action scenes in the plot. He really stayed loyal, to other movies of the series, on number of action during the movie and that is a good thing.

Everything I talked about so far was good sides of this movie but as any other this one has it's bad sides. It is mostly making the impossible possible. For me impossible is for a man to jump out of a running car, to jump on a plane, to survive fall from great heights, to survive all those bullets who are meant for him. And after everything, he can run again like nothing happened until the last scene where he sits on the floor longer then usually. He even shot himself but hey, that's John McClane. I always watch that realistic side in every movie and I can understand that jumping out of car became normal but I just can't pass over some things. When I'm saying this I don't mean only about this movie but to all those movies who are making things like this possible to a normal man (John McClane is human and not some Terminator or Jack Sparrow adventure character).

Putting everything together all I can say is that mostly I enjoyed in this movie and for me this is good action movie. Just turn off that realistic point of view and maybe you'll find this movie excellent. There is some good acting and some really good special effects that are important sides of this movie and I recommend this one to everyone who want good action movie. You'll probably get what you expect. I did.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:


Author: smickey from Germany
3 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Those who like the saga of detective John McLaine being in the wrong place at the wrong moment may be disappointed as the movie does not really keep the promises because compared with the others it is far too exaggerated. Only John McLaine of course can drive a trailer the way he does and destroy an Fighter. And what about the fight with the Chinese girl. That hit the roof. Come on... he hits her full power frontally with an SUV and she survives without a scratch, also after being dragged through various walls and landing in an elevator shaft. Who is she wonder woman? Is she one of the Fantastic Four? And the bad guy is really not a bad guy. He is not convincing at all. Much better the bad guys of the other films. Also the Feds played a poor role. The story as such seems pretty realistic. These type of situations may happen as all is based on computer controlled technology. Unfortunately the story that the guy was angry is not a new one this year, with the difference that The Breach was much better. Disappointing is the current Hollywood wave of using Europeans as bad guys. OK a European group played also the bad guys in the other movies, but this starts to be annoying and shows only a certain attitude towards the rest of the world.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A great movie spoiled by Hollywood typicality

Author: marulez from Romania
24 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OMG.... I can't believe this movie! This John McClain is immortal, better than the Terminator! :)) I can't believe the director of this movie just made this character a killing machine, someone who killed hundreds or maybe even thousands of people but he never lost anyone close to him nor did he ever got shot. It's a comedy, really. This guy is Superman, even better than the Terminator.

I would have really liked the movie if Thomas Gabriel would have shot Lucy (John's daughter) in the foot or something while talking to John on the phone and asked him to stay away, go move to Brazil or something :)) why wouldn't he do it? Also there were at least 2 occasions to kill John and that boy, why did they hesitate to "talk before"? This "talk before getting killed" is getting too old, I've seen it in hundreds of movies! There was nothing to talk about, just press the trigger and make a realistic movie. Even make the bad guy win, so what? It's just a movie anyway, make it unpredictable! Unpredictable movies are the best. No one likes movies where they can easily foretell what will happen next.

Now don't get me wrong, this movie really had great potential, nice story, I will give a perfect 10 to that, great action, great effects, great actors and everything. The movie was perfect up until the hesitations made by the bad guys. That totally ruined a movie with great potential.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

I had to lower the star rating.

Author: Nick Damian from Toronto, Ontario
25 December 2008

OK, you read a lot of comments, some good, some bad.

This is not a Die Hard movie, it's a movie about another character with the name John McLane.

What I found really hard to believe...even beyond the airplane/truck or car/helicopter or suv/elevator shat thing was the fact that all these computer geeks knew exactly how to use each program the very second that they needed it.

The computer freaks knew the passwords, knew how to get around, how to lock, unlock, reroute, block, delete whatever they needed without any thought to them.

Another thing...if the bombs were already attached to the computers in the beginning of the movie to blow up on que, why weren't they set to blow up immediately...why did the computer users have to hit a certain key before hand? These bombs were mounted inside their dwellings, and were put there well ahead of time but are only set to explode upon a certain keystroke? What happens if that key never gets used? What happens if the hard drive or motherboard fries or the power gets turned off? McLane had no real fistfights, no real chase with the final bad guy, didn't have too much personal interaction.

In the first few minutes while the buildings are being shot and torn apart and explode...nobody in the neighboring apartments calls the police or fire department? Nobody cares about the building they live in? Nobody hears a bomb blow up or rapid fire tear apart a hallway, door, wall or ceiling? The computer graphical interfaces for all the government computer systems just weren't convincing - the entire idea that everything is operated within 1 room just doesn't play right.

Also John gets thrown about all over the place but doesn't limp, doesn't break a bone, doesn't sprain an ankle - gets a couple bruises, but nothing serious.

This movie should have been renamed something else with a female lead - maybe Gina Gershon in a movie titled "Adrenaline".

While it was entertaining and wasn't horrible in the fact that is was just didn't work as a Die Hard movie.

But you'll find that out soon enough.

Oh yeah, by the way...were do bad people and super villains get recruited? How do they get access to all the latest hardware, technology, weapons, transportation system and everything else...

I mean...if they have all the money for that stuff...why do they need more? That already cost hundr4eds of millions of dollars alone...why make you lifelong ambition as a supervillian to get more money which you can't spend and risk your life to do so? For the bad guys to set this all up had to take millions upon millions of dollars and I assume that it also took years to plan the entire why risk blowing it all when you already have the millions upon millions of dollars to start up your nasty scheme? Makes no sense to me.

I didn't pay to see this and I'm glad that I didn't.

So much money spent on this in all areas of production and marketing and yet it still doesn't hit the mark.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Not a Winner

Author: sydjulia22 from United States
14 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the beginning of the movie it looked promising but things went downhill very quickly. The end was absolutely ridiculous. The last hour was completely cheesy!! I wouldn't watch it again. What a waste of time it was the first time! I thought the plot was pretty good, but having Bruce Willis in all those body "damaging" sequences and then popping back up was so dumb. Please, a fighter plane! I know it is Die Hard, but still! The casting also seemed off. I like Timothy Olyphant (Thomas Gabriel) in his role and Maggie Q (Mai) was a good cast. On the other hand, I couldn't stand Justin Long (Matt Farrell) in his role. Watching him was like nails on a chalkboard. I also would have liked to see someone else in Cliff Curtis's (Bowman's) role. He was not a believable leader. Also, as usual, Kevin Smith (Warlock) was ultimately BORING. For such a long anticipated movie it really seems like it was "thrown" together carelessly.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Same pointless violence yet nothing new to learn about it.

Author: seppo-sihvo from Finland
30 November 2007

Who cares if it's entertaining, you may say. I beg to differ. Why? Because there's plenty better things to do with life than enjoying this same recycled pulp. Sure, it's got style, it's visually appealing and it has the same hero drawn to a yet another blown up situation just for the sake of being the hero, just what the masses ordered. Yup, Bruce Willis is back as the wisecracking cop from the three earlier films, this time pitted against yet another one token baddie in the form of Timothy Oliphant's poor villain performance inspired by the earlier baddies, just what the masses ordered. Nothing new to see, for other words. But ask yourself this, instead of enjoying the same thing over and over again, wouldn't we actually want to learn why we have violent people and what we can actually do with them instead of, ahem, shooting them in the order they appear? Makes a lot more sense than enjoying the stuff we all say we resist just for the sake of being entertained by it. Mclane saves the day, as usual, killing the foes in the same style, as usual, only this time with watered down violence so the kiddies can also see naughty men die their deserved deaths, just what the parents ordered despite the fact that, until this installment, the Die Hard franchise has been quite gritty to say the least. The worst you see here is Willis covered by blood, bruises and scars. Nothing new to learn either, for other words. And, non-surprisingly, I expected just that when I rented this piece of Hollywood's best. In fact, I only did it because I'm studying audiovisual career(nowhere near Hollywood, thankfully). All I have to ask is what is the point in all this? Entertainment? By sucking up the same lame, shallow concepts in every film till the day the sun explodes?? You got to be kidding me. These films have no point, nothing definitive to offer to ones who go through real violence in a certain thing called reality. But I won't start complaining. You know why? Because that's the job for people who actually take these films seriously. I most certainly don't. Why? Because there's better things in life. The only purpose for these endless Hollywood production line molds is for people to waste time and money with them. If we don't watch violence to learn from it it must be because we enjoy it for being violent ourselves. If I were you I'd skip this AND the previous parts, because there is no point here, just a good guy violently killing bad guys to save the day that is, in reality, never saved. Not this way. Not by watching these repeats. 4 out of 10, just because of the pointlessness.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

mediocre sequel in an otherwise impressive series

Author: strezise from Dublin, Ireland
9 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is horrible. It's a damning indictment of the total lack of imagination and flair in mainstream US cinema now. Almost everything that happens can be termed comic book, from the preposterous invulnerability of the main characters to their lamentable attempts at dialogue. Whatever hint of credible situations occasionally settled into the fabric of the earlier films is replaced now by the most risible, inconceivable denouements. We are used to bad men who can't hit a car with a vast machine gun mounted in a helicopter at near point-blank range, but it's difficult to credit the fact that a little later Bruce Willis launches his car into the air like a guided missile and knocks the helicopter out of the sky! After jumping out of the speeding car he rolls across the highway, gets up, grunts (better than the dialogue to be sure), and starts shooting at the man who miraculously crawls out of the helicopter after it's hit the ground. Well really! And there's no longer any foreplay. The shooting starts almost the instant the film starts and continues at a predictable pace for the next two hours, all carefully doled out to stop morons snoozing after tens minutes without blood and guts. It's terrible entertainment. Humourless, predictable, tension-free, and utterly witless.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Fails to convince

Author: DonAndre from Austria
4 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have to say that I enjoyed the other Die Hard movies to some extent. I'm not an action fan, but they were done well and they were believable. McClane was also always a likable character.

In this movie, the conclusion I drew is that he's just getting old, but he still has to work. He does things in and old fashioned way, talks in an old fashioned way, lacks sarcasm and humour. Sometimes he even looks quite dumb. He's more of a fighting and kicking grandpa, but well he isn't because it's still the Daddy + Daughter thing.. that really becomes tiresome. Why not have her be mother and he the real grandpa, that would be a real sequel and actually reflect what he's playing anyway.

But that's not the worst. The worst is the reaction of the environment: The light in the tunnel goes out, but none of the cars therein switch on their headlights. They crash into each other without breaking. That's not even close to being realistic! All other people besides McClane become stupid supernumeraries that are just obstacles in his way. Yawn! Next thing: Hacking!? SORRY? That's not hacking, that's clicking the right buttons on first attempt on a GUI that you've never seen before. Ridiculous. But wait, that wasn't the worst either, the worst are the characters and how they are totally boring. The villain is just a toothless boring little bad boy and the good government agent is never doing anything besides screaming "We've got to do something" while looking incredibly stressed.

I hope they don't make another one.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

What a Great Ride!

Author: bkwunder from United States
8 July 2007

Thank you Len Wiseman and Bruce Willis for an outstanding, traditional summer blockbuster action film! Live Free or Die Hard is a blast -- both literally and figuratively. This movie is action packed from beginning to end with clever writing and stunningly-effective cinematography.

Willis' Detective John McLane is every bit as effective (deadly and funny) as in the first Die Hard movie. Willis is simply outstanding. Justin Long is an excellent techie sidekick for Willis. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does an excellent job playing Detective McLane's daughter. Winstead channels the McLane fire and spirit in the heat of battle, but is also able to express love and care through some very lovely brown eyes.

Timothy Olyphant is the weak link here -- not convincing as the lead bad guy. His eyes simply do not betray the intelligence or gravitas one would expect in a high-tech criminal mastermind. His sidekick (and kick she does) Maggie Q is excellent as the no-nonsense martial arts killer. The other computer geeks on the bad guy's team perform well.

Kevin Smith is entertaining as one of the most talented geeks -- and was in my view under-utilized.

The stunts are fantastic. The cinematography is brilliant. The writing is terse and clever.


Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Surprisingly fantastic

Author: greasefreak from United States
7 July 2007

I personally love all the Die Hard movies. I have been a fan for years. When I first heard that the fourth one was going to be pg13, I started having doubts about it. I,however, found myself absolutely loving this one.

From the moment the movie started all the way till the end, it sucks you right into the plot. Even with less blood than its predecessors, Live free or Die Hard remained action packed with intense, jaw-dropping scenes. I would claim this the best summer film.

The only thing that should have been changed to make it a true Die hard movie would be to give it more language. ANyone who watched the other Die Hard's would know that what really makes it Die Hard is Bruce Willus using the F word. Even his famous line was muffled by a gun shot.

But all in all Live Free or Die Hard provides enough thrills to keep you on the edge of your seat, humor that will make you laugh out loud, and McClane's sparling personality.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 79: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history