Live Free or Die Hard (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
792 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
6/10
Just didn't fit...
Warning: Spoilers
The first Die Hard was probably the best modern action film ever made. The second Die Hard works because the movie has a major sense of humor about how ridiculous it is to put John McClane through such a similar situation again; it practically makes fun of itself for a lot of the movie. The third one works because you have a bad guy that is out for revenge against John McClane. The fourth one though, it just felt like McClane's character was dropped in as an after thought. I don't think you can just drop John McClane into any story and call it Die Hard and this movie felt more like a Tom Clancy political thriller than a Die Hard movie.

While watching this I at least thought I would let it pass as a generic action movie, because I was having fun. However, then I started thinking about it and I'm sorry I need even my action movies to at least make a little bit of sense. There was just too much stuff in this one that didn't work for me. The first problem I had was that the bad guys created a giant traffic jam in DC causing congestion everywhere… except of course for the streets they need for the major car chase scene. Also during the part of that car chase that took place in the tunnel, how come when the bad guy started turning the lights off in the tunnel not a single person though to turn their head lights on? However the biggest action scene that bugged me was the scene where John McClane is driving the big rig truck and being chased by the fighter plane. This scene was so laughably over the top that it had no place in a Die Hard movie. I know Die Hard movies are known for their over the top action at some points but I just could not stop laughing at how completely ridiculous this scene was. Oh and seriously, since when does the 695 beltway around Baltimore have palm trees? OK, that is a bit too nitpicky, but it was kind of funny.

The film seemed to me to also be extremely inconsistent about whether or not cell phones were working. The cell phones weren't working, so he reprogrammed the phone to use the old "satcomm" satellites instead. Then that stopped working and then a little bit later that is working again. Also I'm still amazed at how Kevin Smith's character is still able to hack into so much stuff even after all the power on the entire eastern seaboard has been shut off. I mean seriously there are a lot of servers out there that have battery backups and stuff, but a lot of the servers he would need to go through to have a good enough connection to do any of the hacking he was doing would have been shut down after the power outage. OK, maybe I am picking at too much of the film, but all this bugged me while watching the film and I wasn't able to just sit back and get sucked in like I would in any other Die Hard film.

The acting in the film for the most part was pretty good, except of course for the main bad guy. He had one facial expression for the entire movie and the tone of his voice never changed. His only way of showing anger was to throw something off his desk. His performance was so wooden; it just paled in comparison to Alan Rickman, William Sadler and Jeremy Irons, who all three just played wonderful bad guys.

The look and feel of the movie didn't feel at all like a Die Hard movie to me either. Sure, John McClane takes a good beating like he does in all the films but all the action seemed to crisp and clean. It didn't feel nearly as gritty as the previous Die Hard films. Also one of the things I noticed was the film seemed to have this predominantly blue color scheme going on. It just felt like there was this blue hue through out the film, where in the previous Die Hard films the predominant colors are very earthy and red. I don't know if anyone else even knows what I am talking about, but that is just something that I noticed that took away from the gritty Die Hard feeling.
159 out of 205 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Not bad but not Die Hard
Drooch13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
As a stand-alone film it was far better than I initially feared, and the action was very well handled with occasional flashes of Die Hard-quality genius - inventive setups with ultra-tense close-shaves (the lift shaft being the best). They were nothing like the over-stylised MTV mush sequences I feared, so I apologise to Wiseman for my nasty words about his action choreography over the last year.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his story and character work. The plot was riddled with holes and the 'characters' rarely behaved like human beings. That's fine in itself but this film carried the 'Die Hard' tag and that means it needs to respect an intelligent, mature audience.

McClane was uneven, one minute he's a cuddly wisdom-dispensing Dad and the next he's brutalising a woman to death then repeatedly teasing her boyfriend for his loss who, despite being a psychopath, doesn't immediately kill McClane's daughter out of revenge.

Ironically, the chain smoking alcoholic drenched in blood from With A Vengeance was far more humane and, despite his potty mouth, a much better role model for the PG-13 kids this film was clearly targeting from the get-go.

Bruce, however, does what he can with the material and, between the corny dialogue which tried to probe the hero's psychology in the same cack-handed way that the Brosnan Bond scripts did, there were real McClane moments (his chuckles after killing difficult terrorists, his thuggish fighting techniques), but he was far more fascinating in the earlier films where we watched his genius rather than listen to him talk about it.

Justin Long was surprisingly good and non-annoying despite his presence reeking of the studio's insistence on a heavy teen presence for maximum market appeal. He cracked me up a few times, especially his comment when the bad-guys brought him out of the lift. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was also good as Lucy but was clearly shoehorned into the script at the last minute and was underused. She also suffered from Wiseman and Bomback's insensitivity for internal human logic - she's clearly feisty and punchy yet doesn't make a sound when Gabriel orders the jet to target her dad in the truck.

Which brings me to Timothy Olyphant. The guy's a good actor and was superb as the villains in Go, Scream 2 and The Girl Next Door but here he's totally nonthreatening. One almost feels sorry for him as McClane, now a terminator relishing the capacity for murder his total invulnerability affords him, marches unstoppably to kill Gabriel while, as mentioned before, teasing him about his dead partner.

The climax was pumped and tense and I quite liked McClane shooting through himself but the censoring of 'mother *beep* with a gunshot was as insulting as all the obvious re-dubbing I noticed throughout the film. There'll be an unrated DVD with the original language and GCI blood but you can't polish a turd.

A hollow collection of 'good-bits', some of them good enough to be worthy of Die Hard but ultimately there were too many jumps in logic, internal and external, for me to suspend disbelief. As I said before, I don't have problems with such films and this was an undeniably enjoyable 2 hours, but the Die Hard banner is reserved for superior quality adult entertainment and this fell short. Congratulations to Wiseman for upgrading from a Paul W S Anderson to a Jonathan Mostow but please hone your craft somewhere other than on the Die Hard pitch. Get McTiernan out of prison, get a good screenwriter (eg Shane Black) and give McClane his brain and balls back for Die Hard 5.
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Try Hard 3.9
andrewrogergregory12 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film has been getting poor reviews since being released in New Zealand. The 7.9 average rating on IMDb made me think that reviewers were having an off day.

Having seen it, the critics were right. Suggested new title - TRY HARD 3.9

If you thought the original premise was straight from a Tom Clancy novel then you are close to the truth. No doubt Mr Clancy has also read the original Farewell to Arms article by John Carlin.

The first 30 minutes were vintage wise-cracking, shoot first-ask questions later Willis.

The remainder of the film had a plot shot full of holes. Were communications down or up ? Was the power on or off ? Was traffic grid-locked or the streets wide open ? Did the FBI have it's own helicopters or had the bad guys stolen them too (sarcasm).If Warlock was so good, why wasn't he one of the original targeted hackers? And then the dumb set action pieces began. Perhaps the lift scene was a wink and nod to the first movie, but the original John McClane would have broken the Asian ninjas neck and moved on.

Speaking of holes. I have seldom seen an action movie where the bullet holes appear, disappear, re-appear and vanish so often between scenes. The director must have found the magic bullet that shot Kennedy.

The truck vs fighter scene was like watching the bad parts of True Lies and the Matrix spliced together. And are we really meant to believe that a cyber terrorist would leave the government GPS tracking unit attached to his getaway van ! My only surprise was that they didn't remove it with a barrel roll ala Transporter 2.

I walked out of Spider Man 3 after 60 minutes. I wish I had walked out of Try Hard 3.9 after 30.
63 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
One of the worst sequels in the history of film
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki12 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
die hard 4 is a PG rated kiddie movie with a bored, middle aged superhero sleepwalking through uninspired vignettes while tackling an internet hacker with all the charisma of pancake batter. Its plot was seemingly written by a grade schooler with a box of crayons. The CGI "action" sequences were uninspired and badly staged, to the point of almost being slapstick or satirical, the only scene that had even a modicum of excitement to it was the opening shootout in Long's apartment. The real Die Hard trilogy may have one or two scenes in each movie which pushed credibility, but they were well directed and photographed and had a musical score to add to the tension, and the earlier stories were so strong that we could overlook a couple of lapses in logic. This movie was so outlandish, and the plot was so badly written it was insulting. We're actually expected to believe that McClane can drive an 18 wheeler and outrun a fighter plane, jump out of the 18 wheeler as it rolls over and fall 20 feet onto the wing of a jet, then hang onto the wing of this spinning out of control fighter plane, jump off the jet and survive a 40 foot drop onto a concrete embankment and survive sliding on his back down another 30 feet or so. ARE YOU SERIOUS?!

There were several lengthy scenes of Willis and Long driving and talking endlessly- attempts at "human drama" which amounted to nothing more than Bruce Willis' character complaining about how his life had turned out. The character of his daughter is seemingly about four different characters throughout the movie: she's a bitch for no reason in the first scene, but then when she gets into a jam (in the elevator) the first thing she does is ask to talk to daddy so that he can help her out, then later she wants to kick the bad guy's ass herself, then at the end she wants McClane to set her up with Long's computer hacker character like a schoolgirl. Apparently the writers couldn't make up their minds over her. The dialogue is uninspired and blandly delivered: it's clichés about McClane not being able to understand computers (already done better in Die Hard 2) and Long's character being unable to deal with McClane's being out of date and not being able to understand computers; none of the other characters were memorable, they just seemed to drift in and out of their scenes.

The entire movie (except for the insultingly stupid jet fighter sequence) was filmed through a horrible blue/ grey filter, trying to give the movie a "sleek" look, but only making it look drab and dull. For the first time in the series they did not film this movie in widescreen format, this was another attempt to cut corners and lowering the cost of the movie- and lowering the amount of money this movie would have to make to be commercially successful. The elevator shaft sequence, the falling down the stairs bit, McClane's family not using his own last name, were all done in the first three- but the producers claim that they're "referencing" the earlier films, not ripping them off and copying them. Riiight. The reference to the two Agents Johnson from the first Die Hard makes no sense, seeing as McClane never met or spoke to either of them in the first movie, so how the hell would he remember them after 20 years? Let's go back to the elevator sequence: in DHWaV, the elevator sequence had the same claustrophobic feeling of the first movie. It was just as well photographed as the original movie, had a convincing and memorable score to it, full, rich, vivid colours, and was violent without being too over the top, and it was short- less than 60 seconds. Short but memorable. But the elevator scene in dh4 is a silly vignette, badly photographed through that obnoxious blue/ grey filter, and it just lumbers about for the entire lengthy sequence. And the music score? What score? I remember absolutely NOTHING about the musical score in any scene in this crapfest.

You can NOT tell me that McClane would remember that catchphrase after 20 years and would think of it to say it at the end of this movie, and even if he did, it would mean NOTHING to the villain in this movie. What made the line amusing in the first movie was the terrorists' reaction to the line, NOT the line itself. (And the people who made such a big deal about "Does he say his catchphrase or doesn't he?" are genuinely pathetic, are you *that* desperate to hear profanity?) And we even got to see that moronic catchphrase used in an Arby's commercial- or at least as much of it as they could say on television. It's almost like this movie was just an excuse to say that moronic catchphrase yet again. Then, in one of the most anti climactic endings ever: McClane shoots through his own shoulder and hits the bad guy in *his* shoulder and kills him instantly? Again, ARE YOU SERIOUS?! This movie was an insult to the real Die Hard series, as well as the fans. In one hundred years people will look back on Die Hard as being one of the best action movies ever made. die hard 4/ live free or die hard is one of the worst sequels in the history of film, it took a dump on one of the best action film trilogies ever made. It's the only "Die Hard" movie (notice the quotation marks) that I'll never watch again. If it was meant to be a straight sequel, they failed. If it was intended to be a satire, they failed.

Die Hard is a trilogy. There never was a fourth Die Hard movie.

Die Hard ended With A Vengeance.
53 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
What is wrong with everybody???
pastaproductions13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8.1? Most of the time I easily accept that many people love movies that I myself totally hate and vice versa. its OK, opinions just vary. But in this case I simply don't get it. How can somebody who is a fan of the first Die Hard possibly give this one such a high rating??- given that not all voters are confused misguided 15 year old who might have dubious judging criteria at times...

A few reasons for being so utterly disappointed

1. Okay, this is just me: I would have liked to see a little more of Mclane's contemporary everyday life ( AA meeting perhaps...) just to get to see the character and how he's changed a while longer before the action kicks in (kind of like in the original)- maybe I'm living in the wrong decade with such wishes...

2. Again I understand if some disagree: The Idea of Willis picking up a kid to take him somewhere and ending up protecting him from killers was already used, and done well, in "16 Blocks" and Shouldn't have been used again...

3. The CGI. Most people laud this film, including Willis, for being so real- real images, real stunts (yes, my compliments on the stunt work that WAS real)... however i actually gave up counting the effect shots after a while- no matter how well they're done one can simply tell the difference between real movie and computer game scene. And I'm so sick of watching artificial computer action especially in movies where it is so damn unnecessary.

4. The action. Somewhere along the line in the tunnel this movie stopped being a Die Hard Movie and became a cross between The Matrix, The Transporter 2 and M:Impossible: Mclane and the kid ducking from a falling car that bounces off just inches from their heads. Mclane jumping out of a speeding car- since he's so optimistic about the vehicle taking off and crashing into a helicopter, MClane in a fistfight in a car dangling in an elevator shaft,Mclane taking down a Jet etc... thanks a lot John Hunt!

5. Stupid patriotism "It's not a system it's a country!"... Uh huh...

You know I could go on and on but I think the biggest problem of this movie is that the creators have simply ignored who John Mclane was in the original: A grumpy Anti-hero who gets into dangerous situations (yes Len Wiseman got that right) but who gets himself out of them in a way that is human and doable- HE WAS NEVER A SUPERHERO.

I don't know what most of you see in this that you find so outstanding, I really just think of it as another pebble added to this landslide of senseless sequels that overshadow this summer.
114 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A black spot on the Die Hard name
p_jones9224 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm amazed at the voting going on for this film - are you all as controlled as the computer systems were in the movie!

Die Hard's 1-3 made a good trilogy, but they have been tainted forever by this poor excuse of a fourth film in the franchise. I should of known from the clichéd opening scene with John Mclane and his daughter (which is just an appalling, badly written scene, like they'd stand there and talk about their problems in front of the is he/isn't he boyfriend) that this movie's intellectual barometer was set on dumb.

Everything about this movie seems to be a cliché of a cliché. Bruce seems to have forgotten what the John McClane character is like, because he doesn't come across the same as he does in the previous 3 films, and is not helped by the poor dialog and cheesy one-liners that are poorly timed. All of the other characters are clichés too - Timothy's ice cold bad guy, Maggie Q's brainy, beautiful, femme fatale, the FBI head who for some unknown reason can't understand what's going on or get anything done, but John McClane can work everything out no problem, even without the resources of the whole FBI to help, all he needs is a phone and a gun! - I mean come on people, this is as lazy a plot as you could get.

Some of the set pieces are OK, but then when the filmmakers go into overdrive and have McClane climb onto a moving jet fighter, it all went out the window - this is NOT a fantasy movie, I didn't expect to see Lord of the Rings - so McClane should not be on top of a moving jet plane for Christ's sake!

Everything about the movie screams of laziness. Poor script, I mean it just has some of the worst dialog and plot points ever. Poor casting, I mean you can see them now "Hey, let's get the guy from the Mac ads, everyone will relate to him as a computer genius!" Errr, no, we don't! Poor acting - Bruce is totally by the numbers, like he turned up, was told what to say on the day, does a take and then heads for lunch, and Cliff Curtis also does everything by the numbers too, a shame for a good actor to have clearly given up on his duties this time.

And Len Wiseman, come on people, what an appalling choice for this franchise, he's a knock off Michael Bay - and Michael bay hasn't made a good movie in a long time - don't get me started on Transformers!

This movie is terrible, and the most appalling thing is the rating it's got in IMDb. It's ironic how the movie points towards bringing down a corrupt government and starting again, because everything today is marketing spin, and yet here we are, giving a truly awful film a high score??? Why, because it's Die Hard???? Who are the real suckers at the end of the day huh? Don't believe the hype people, this film is a joke.
85 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
This movie is not only "Die Hard" x 4...
dv90923 June 2007
...but literally a quadruple serving of awesome "Die Hard" action.

My girlfriend and I saw "Live Free Or Die Hard" at a premiere screening last night at Radio City Music Hall. The place holds about 5,000 seats and it was packed.

With an 8:30 start, we got to our seats by 7:30. The movie didn't begin until 9:30!!! Guess who was late?

Julie and I are not particularly big 'Die Hard' fans. And having to catch a train home from Grand Central station at a certain time, we both agreed that if the movie was sub-par, we would split early to get home earlier.

So finally the lights go down around 9:20 and out comes Bruce Willis. He respectfully apologized and then started jazzing up the audience for the film. The excitement was palpable as the crowded theater whooped it up with Bruce shouting "Are you ready!!!"

Well, Julie and I were, as we got swept up in the excitement and cheered aloud as if we were at the ball game. Even the couple next to us, I'd say they were about in their late sixties, dressed very 'proper', were just as energized.

The movie starts and a mere few minutes in, the action explodes. By twenty minutes into the film, Julie and I were sold. Who cares what time we're gonna get home!?

I have not had this much fun at the movies since I can't remember when. I have always loved summer movies, but only the ones that deliver the goods. The action sequences are top shelf, 21st century movie making brilliance. These explosive scenes are a seamless composite of fantastic, real world stunt work, and exceptional CGI. Hands down, they make the film. And for an action movie with 'die hard' in the title, I'd say that was the point.

It was awesome watching this film with so many people because it was like riding a gigantic roller coaster, with everybody having a shared, hair raising experience. People were cheering like when Luke blew up the Death Star. The humor throughout was just right. By the end of the film, our senses were stunned as we dizzily made our way out of the theater, thoroughly entertained.

Excellent summer movie! Well done Bruno and crew!
660 out of 1,028 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Really Bad.
zyphex30 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this movie with very high hopes. I loved the first three in the series - they are among my favorite action movies of all time. When I first heard they were making a fourth Die Hard movie I thought - Awesome, what a great way to introduce Die Hard to a whole new generation of fans.

What I saw was a laughable mockery of a Die Hard movie. Let me start by saying the first problem was the rating. Turning a series of R rated gory action flicks into A PG-13 imitation does not work. It was as if Fox was trying to pass it off as some type of family friendly movie. This resulted in the film being minimal in bloody action violence, minimal in language use, and the use of McClane's staple line - "Yippee Ki Yay Mo ******" was made to be slightly distorted so the last word (all Die Hard fans know what it is) was more implied than spoken. The rating also had another effect. Since the aspects listed above were downplayed so much, the movie's style didn't come anywhere close to matching the style of the first three. It didn't Feel like Die Hard.

(This is off topic, but it reminds me of another time the same company took two GREAT! R rated series - Alien - and Predator - and combined them to make the PG-13 mockery we now know as AVP)

I didn't like the villain. The whole movie it didn't seem like he himself really did anything. He didn't really torture or shoot or even severely harm McClane's daughter. He was never really a threat. It was always a henchmen up until the end of the movie. (Unless you count the Tunnel-Helicopter sequence) Which bugs me, where did all the henchmen come from? In the first and third movies they were German militants, and the second movie they were military extremists supportive of General Esperanza. It this movie - they were just kind of there. I mean, Gabriel was suppose to be a DoD government employee - and he just pulled a crap load of henchmen out of no where. Were they terrorists? Wow, nice background check on a government employee with links to terrorist organizations if they were.

The use of technology was just awful. Specifically what you saw on the computer screens was unrealistic and felt like some sort of hi tech fairy tale to me (being a networking professional). I mean, I had no idea hacking was so graphical and straightforward.

To close - if the characters weren't making some cheesy quip or not dying after smashing through multiple plains of glass and being hit with SUV at one point - they most defiantly were contributing to what should go down in history as a sorry day indeed for the Die Hard series.

My advice - pull a matrix and pretend the sequel doesn't exist.
164 out of 246 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Harry Potter meets Heroes.
RIK-2230 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Yet another dreadful summer sequel So far this summer, I have seen Evan Almighty, Spiderman 3, Fantastic 4:2 and Harry Potter, all have been awful. I am going to stop going to the cinema and just watch DVD's from now on.

I often wonder if directors, writers or producers even watch the originals of movies to see what ingredients actually made it successful. Die Hard worked because it stretched the truth a little, but ultimately was realistic. McClane was a just a normal cop, he wasn't a karate master, ex-green beret or body builder, just a normal New York cop. He suffered and struggled his way to get through his ordeal.

Die Hard 2 was were it all went wrong. Instead of continuing on the same theme, McClane, now became Superman, impervious from bullets, fear or making mistakes. He could not fail.

Die Hard 3 continued in this comical theme, but for some unknown reason I thought I would give 4 a go. For the first 20 minutes, actually it was pretty good, and then came the first stupid thing, the fire hydrant on the helicopter, stupid. OK I can overlook that one, lets get back on track, oh dear ramming a car into a concrete barrier, somehow magically causing it to hit a helicopter with pin point accuracy. At this point I wondered if I had accidentally wondered into the Harry Potter movie.

I guess the overall problem is that John is part of the Heroes cast and has the same abilities as the cheerleader, somehow whatever injury he has, a couple of minutes he has made a full recovery. Needless to say the film did not improve from this moment onwards and descended into a farce. The only positive was that I thought Justin Long was pretty good as the geek, sidekick, he at least played the stereotyped role well.

I gave this a 1/10, it should have been a 3, but as so many people had voted 10 !!!, I assume company executives and people connected with the movie, I think it's important to re-address the balance.

Awful, please Hollywood wake up and make a good, realistic action movie. We need it !
52 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Independence Day Reloaded
xaxa-531 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Independence Day Reloaded

A bit of my background. I am regular reader at IMDb for perhaps 5 years, but this was the first movie that forced me to get registered and write a review of it.

*** Warning. Text below may contain spoilers *** Well, not really, there is absolutely no suspense in this movie and it is entirely predictable right from the beginning.

The movie consists of series of chases and shootouts that are not particularly well choreographed. Plot is virtually nonexistent (in other words there are more of the holes that of the plot itself).

Willis with his sidekick are dragged from location to location without any explanation how and why they got there. The scale of McLane's actions increased with each instalment (first saving the staff of a skyscraper, then airport, then a city and this time the whole country), unfortunately there are 2 issues now. First the whole premise hacking and controlling so many different computer systems is ridiculous, second the threat of terrorists does work at all. They are simply not menacing enough.

They are led by "guy who shut down NORAD just with his laptop", but when they shut down traffic in a big city, all they create is few car accidents (of the kind that can only happen when people are driving with their minds shut down). Other than police department being swamped by citizens (what the hell are they doing there?), not much happens. Cellphones work, it is possible to move around in a car, no real panic visible, no police presence on streets. Especially response to events from both citizens and government is not depicted at all. I would like to know where the hell was the mighty US Army for entire duration of the movie (apparently still tied down killing civilians in Iraq).

There are all sorts of clichés you can imagine: * Computer genius, who is at the same time exceedingly naive at the same time, a bit paranoid, uttering nonsense all the time and absolutely useless (except he miraculously saves the world in the end). * Another overweight computer genius, who is a bit paranoid, uttering nonsense all the time and absolutely useless. * Supermodel/kung-fu bitch crossover female terrorist * Girly main terrorist, who fails to be intimidating at all, he seems he can start crying any minute (I really miss calibre of Grubers or Colonel Stuart). * Terrorist masterminds who personally involve themselves dirty jobs, instead of employing their minions. * Generic industrial locations, which seem completely out of place. * 1960s sci-fi meets Matrix style computer rooms (I recommend sets designer to visit real server room next time, reality may look more menacing than this uneducated fantasy). * Cop chief who always seem to be genuinely busy, but he really does nothing in the movie. * Terrorists have resources to hack stock exchanges, traffic systems and utilities all over U.S. But still, the only thing they can afford to stop a poor cop is a chopper and few not particularly well trained guys with assault rifles.

Cast There are really only two characters in the movie, all other people appearing in the movie are just faceless bystanders (including main foes) and their performance is not any better than of any random bystander watching making of a movie.

Willis' performance is pretty generic, he tries to utter the same kind of one liners as in previous instalments, sadly most of the time they are out of place, badly timed or complete non sense. As the scale has been upgraded so is the McClane's self confidence who became true superhero with some supernatural abilities. Expect projecting speeding cars into helicopters, walking on a wing of a jet etc. This is in contrast with previous instalments where McClane had been smart guy, but still realistic police officer who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Long is genuinely B movie actor. His performance is at best bearable. He might be OK, mindless script does not give much space for his character.

Bottom line: No doubt it is the worst of all 4 Die Hards. I compared it to Independence Day it resembles a bit, but in many aspects ID is much better working. If you like mindless movies filled with explosions, but can do without any coolness factor, then you can try this, everyone else avoid it!

disaster (0 out of 5)
101 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews