Live Free or Die Hard (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
796 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Live Free or Die Hard is the best Action film of 2007 and it works for me
ivo-cobra816 October 2015
Live Free or Die Hard (2007) is the last good Action film of 2007 in the Die Hard franchise. An old-fashioned cop emerges to foil a high-tech attack on the country's computer infrastructure as Bruce Willis brings back one of the biggest action franchises in screen history. It is one of my personal favorite action movies, it is a sequel I love to death.

It's been over a decade since audiences last saw New York cop John McClane (Willis), but now, as the world's greatest criminal mastermind (Timothy Olyphant) attempts to cripple the entire country with an innovative act of technological terrorism, only one cop can insure that the integrity of the system stays intact. In this, the fourth installment of the long-running action series, Underworld director Len Wiseman picks up the torch formerly carried by directors John McTiernan and Renny Harlin to helm a script penned by Mark Bomback.

Best Action Film Of 2007. Even with ratings PG-13 this film works for me. Those four movies of the franchise are the ones I love. 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.Well, I can't believe I'm saying this but the newest edition to the Die Hard series may rank with the first. It's superb direction, fantastic acting, groundbreaking special effects and clever scenes, will leave you with (almost) nothing to complain about. Die Hard may very well be the best action flick of 2007. It can be beat, but I doubt by a sequel. I am proud to say that Bruce Willis still has some John McClane left in him. Bruce gets to say one of most famous lines in action film history, "Yippy Ki-ya Motha ******!", without cuts, he even gets to talk to himself, a scene that is almost identical to the scene in the air vent of the first film. (C'mon, it'll be fun, come out to the coast, have a few laughs.) About all the controversy for the MPAA rating...it was all useless. Die Hard acts just like a rated R film, just because it says PG-13 doesn't mean its not as violent as the others. No, he doesn't say the F word, but it's not as bad as you think. It's more of a character to character type of thing then anything else. John McClane learns to bond with a young hacker. (Justin Long) It's more...I don't know..."cute" then the other movies, it doesn't need the F word. I don't think there is much else to say. Die Hard is one of my best movie experiences to date. The crowd laughed and screamed and then cheered at the end. The only slightest problem I had with this film was the fact that the realism was quite low. Then again, as I have said before, if everything were realistic we wouldn't have action movies.

Live Free or Die Hard is a must-see FOR DIE HARD FANS.

Live Free or Die Hard (also known as Die Hard 4: Live Free or Die Hard or simply Die Hard 4 and released as Die Hard 4.0 outside North America) is a 2007 American action film, and the fourth installment in the Die Hard film series. The film was directed by Len Wiseman and stars Bruce Willis as John McClane. The film's name was adapted from New Hampshire's state motto, "Live Free or Die".

I loved the fact it's still Die Hard especially in the Unrated cut. the PG-13 didn't bother me he still told jokes, put a smile on my face gave his tagline & killed the bad guy. But my favorite scene is the Car Chase with the Chooper if I had to pick one. An enjoyable pop projection of post-9/11 anxiety. That said, it also makes you nostalgic for the days when irresponsible action movies didn't have to deal with it. Bruce Willis should not be the victim of facile stereotyping. He brings more heart and humor to apocalyptic pulp fiction than any other actor I can think of offhand.

That film is great and the last good Die Hard film, A Good Day To Die Hard sucks horrible. Live Free or Die Hard is my favorite fourth film in the Die Hard franchise and this film, filmed in 2007 was great. 9/10 Score: A+
77 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
160 out of 206 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 82 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 25 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.
116 out of 162 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.
54 out of 73 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.
86 out of 123 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!
661 out of 1,031 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.
165 out of 248 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)
102 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Rock solid!
nisdahm-126 June 2007
Just went to the world premiere of Die Hard 4.0, and I was positively surprised. It delivers action in abundance, and the movie has a great visceral feel to it thanks to great stunt work, and the fact that Willis really steps up in the fight scenes. The movie keeps up its pace throughout, and the script works quite well, though the tech-talk gets a little heavy at times. I was particularly worried about Wiseman directing, since both underworld movies were a complete mess in my opinion, but he really keeps it tight and disciplined this time around. Is Die Hard 4.0 the second or third best of the series? I don't know, but it is certainly a worthy successor, and all the other blockbusters should look this way to see how its done efficiently, crisp and above all entertaining.
259 out of 405 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 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
PG-13 Watered Down Die Hard
doctorix30 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, I can't believe I finally saw a blah Die Hard movie. This movie was totally ruined by the PG-13 rating. Bruce Willis felt like he was holding back every scene. He kept using the word Dickhead at the end of every sentence, he need to drop about 30-40 F-Bombs. Justin Long was such a horrible sidekick. He needed a black wise-cracking sidekick. He showed no emotion. Timothy Olyphant was such a boring villain. The whole world is breaking down but McClane looked like he was never gonna lose. He wasn't vulnerable like all the other Die Hard movies. He gets smacked around then he gets back up. I don't know what movie critics saw, but this is such a fair movie. Definitely the worst of the series. Even the 2nd one was far superior to this crap. It was just another studio controlled watered down movie.

P.S. The moment of truth, when he finally says the famous quote. You can hardly hear him say the F-Bomb, this movie could have been rated PG easily.
46 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Typical Boredom
mansatan11 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
worst of the series, typical hero story that tears down the terrorists by any means no matter how ridiculous! our bald hero fights the chopper by splashing water! nothing wrong with that! takes the chopper down by a jumping car! original! gets a kid and go ALONE to west Virginia to fight terrorists leaving all the cops behind! then the terrorists take the power down remotely after by directing blasting gas towards it! no comment! he kills the terrorist leader girl friend so they get his daughter, do they kill her? no! they put her in a chair! no revenge, no payback, nothing..terrorists are stupid and predictable! and no one can track them but a 20 yr old nerd! suddenly they get our amazing spider man at gun point! do they kill him? he's nothing, why not just shoot him? oh it must be a happy ending so they just say "we've been expecting you" and smile, then he kicks their asses! the movie goes on and on with this BS to finish the BS story! if u love this crap, watch the movie! it's LOADED!
45 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Past-it Action Hero
john7doe200228 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
All good things... Except in Hollywood, of course, they frequently don't come to an end, do they? With the cameras now rolling on the fourth addition to the Indiana Jones chronicles (which, begrudgingly, even this reviewer must acknowledge as being a fairly exciting prospect), the time seems wearily appropriate for catching up with John McLane (and, this time around, his grown-up daughter) and booing and hissing at the latest evil villain, with whom he must match wits.

Willis's charming grin is, of course, still firmly in place as, to be fair, is the franchise's emphasis on mostly exciting action set-pieces. What, unfortunately, seems now to be entirely absent is any sense of coherent narrative structure or the lip-smackingly evil but villainously intelligent characterizations of an Alan Rickman in the original Die Hard (1988) or Jeremy Irons in ...with a vengeance (1995). In their place, a perfunctory Dr Evil-esquire plan that inevitably involves McLane and which, with weary predictability, puts his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) in mortal peril. Oh, and McLane isn't really getting on with his offspring at the film's outset...

In a nutshell, McLane is asked to escort hyper-hacker Matt Farell (Justin Long) into FBI custody - Farell is among a number of computer geniuses that have got the feds twitchy since their HQ computers were (temporarily) hacked. When Farell's apartment is converted into Swiss Cheese by certain terrorist types just after McLane comes a-knocking, everyone's favourite NYPD detective smells one of his famous rats, and the pair come into the orbit of Thomas Gabriel (a very overplayed, would-be psychotic Timothy Olyphant), a very bitter former NSA computer expert, who's out to teach Uncle Sam a thing or two by systematically shutting America down, via the internet. A so-called Fire Sale - everything must go...

All well and good - these days, it doesn't sound any more unlikely a plan than, say, flying jet airliners into tall buildings or blowing yourself up on the Metro. Unfortunately, whether due to budget restrictions or simple laziness on the parts of director Len Wiseman and writer Mark Bomback, we never really get to see what the awe-inspiring and terrifying consequences of such action might be, short of a few nasty traffic pile-ups and lots of lights going out. To wit, McLane isn't really put through much hell before, inevitably, he starts getting well-'ard with the terrorists.

Much praise has been heaped on the stunts which are, in keeping with the 'Timex hero in a digital age' theme, nearly all genuine rather than CGI- based but, whether they're blue-screened or for real, things exploding are still just loud bangs if there's little or no suspense. Let's face it, charming though Willis still is (and this installment's buddy-buddy factor works pretty well, thanks to an intelligent, twitchy turn from Long), there is never any doubt that it's going to be McLane victorious and, once again, entirely at ease with having just killed some 15-20 terrorists.

Credibility was there in spades in Die Hard, despite its 'high concept' narrative - by part four, rhyme and reason seem to have been finally sacrificed for box-office certainties. A shame.
45 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Best Action Film Of 2007
Jigsaw_At_The_Disco27 June 2007
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.

Well, I can't believe I'm saying this but the newest edition to the Die Hard series may rank with the first. It's superb direction, fantastic acting, groundbreaking special effects and clever quirps will leave you with (almost) nothing to complain about. Die Hard may very well be the best action flick of 2007. It can be beat, but I doubt by a sequel.

I am proud to say that Bruce Willis still has some John McClane left in him. Bruce gets to say one of most famous lines in action film history, "Yippy Ki-ya Motha ******!", without cuts, he even gets to talk to himself, a scene that is almost identical to the scene in the air vent of the first film. (C'mon, it'll be fun, come out to the coast, have a few laughs.)

About all the controversy for the MPAA rating...it was all useless. Die Hard acts just like a rated R film, just because it says PG-13 doesn't mean its not as violent as the others. No, he doesn't say the F word, but it's not as bad as you think. It's more of a character to character type of thing then anything else. John McClane learns to bond with a young hacker. (Justin Long) It's more...I don't know..."cute" then the other movies, it doesn't need the F word.

I don't think there is much else to say. Die Hard is one of my best movie experiences to date. The crowd laughed and screamed and then cheered at the end. The only slightest problem I had with this film was the fact that the realism was quite low. Then again, as I have said before, if everything were realistic we wouldn't have action movies.

Live Free or Die Hard is a must-see IN THE THEATRE.

9.0/10.0

A
366 out of 618 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Good Old-Fashioned Shattered Glass Action Flick
"Live Free or Die Hard" is quite a refreshing piece of entertainment this summer in the wake of so many effects-driven computer simulated action/fantasy films. With its silly title, smart-alleck lead character (Bruce Willis as Bruce Willis doing John McClane), and loads of old fashioned stunts involving cars, SUV's, elevator shafts, big rigs, helicopters, fighter jets, and collapsing highway bridges, this flick is a great piece of shattered-glass entertainment--a throwback to the late 1980's and early 1990's when movies like the original "Die Hard" changed the face of movie action.

There is some frustration to be had when you start to realize how much they toned down to achieve the friendly PG-13 rating. There's far less profanity flying, and while the body count is astronomically high (the collateral damage in this film in terms of human life and damaged property is tres magnifique), there's little blood and guts to be found. Still, die hard "Die Hard" action fans should rest assured knowing there will be plenty of funny one-liners, hot chicks (a wonderful Maggie Q as the bad-ass female villain and the scorchingly feisty and cute Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane), super smart bad guys (a very good Timothy Olyphant), and jaw-dropping death-defying stunts.

Director Len Wiseman orchestrates the complicated stunts very well like a masterful puppeteer, which is a shock considering how god-awful his "Underworld" films were. The hand-to-hand human match-ups still bear some of his annoying hallmarks, but he's learned how to blow things up really well and has learned a thing or two about scope and editing in big action set-pieces. The excellent pacing and preposterousness of the stunts (especially the climax involving the fighter jet and the big rig) certainly put a smile on my face.

There's a whole lot of computer hacking related mumbo-jumbo involved in the story, and there's a lot of downtime for male bonding and "explanation" of the finer plot points that slows the film down some but is actually nice to see in a world now ruled by Michael Bay-style non-stop action. Plenty dumb, plenty thrilling, and plenty of fun, "Live Free or Die Hard" is a pleasant surprise considering how unnecessary this sequel seemed from conception.
130 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A film that delivers!
ShiggyLucasWenger4 July 2007
12 years on; McClane is bald, estranged from his family and feels increasingly like an anachronism. There is a strong 'post-9/11' vibe, a muted color scheme and a strangely sombre tone that permeates proceedings. The film covers more terrain (literally) than it's predecessors and the action is slightly episodic as a result of shoehorning a series of mini-showdowns into a plot about cyber-terrorists and an attempt to shut down the US infrastructure. It's handled more deftly and inventively than you might expect, but it's not an obvious marriage.

The authenticity of the 'hacking' that takes place is also suspect (webcam becomes spy-cam in the basement of a security obsessed computer nerd?) and there is a horribly misjudged piece of casting in Kevin Smith as a stereotypical basement-dwelling, uber-hacker.(he simply doesn't have the acting chops) Having said all of that, the action sequences are top-notch; brutal and old-school. (with a couple of nods to the 'new', in the form of the stoic but sizzling Maqqie Q and 'le parkour' madman Cyril Rafaelli, whose incredible dexterity is captured to dazzling effect by Wiseman and crew) The performances are mainly strong, especially Bruce who immediately reminds you that you're watching McClane despite the (slightly) sanitized language and vanishing hair. Justin Long is surprisingly engaging as McClane's assignment/sidekick in a role which could so easily have been irritating, and Olyphant, as the main bad guy, gives an intense and charismatic performance full of understated humor and implied menace. He makes for an interesting antagonist, reminiscent of Rickman's 'Hans Gruber' in the original; a little less verbose, but a similarly charming sociopath with a formidable, sub-zero stare. Even the inclusion of Mary Elizabeth Winstead as McClane's daughter, (another move which, on paper, seemed destined to annoy) works well. She has inherited some of her fathers personality traits to frequently amusing effect, but the film-makers (wisely) avoid the temptation to give her any 'Lara Croft' type abilities in order to appease a wider demographic, a move that would have potentially alienated the core audience - even more than the furore over the PG-13 rating.

Speaking of the rating, while the film is light on blood and one particular swear-word, the violence hasn't been toned down at all. If anything, McClane is actually more hardened and brutal than before. Enemies are often dispatched with an efficiency and a ruthlessness commensurate with a man who's done this before. There is also a calm resignation in Willis' body language at times. McClane is a man who has found no solace in being a hero; post-divorce and struggling to maintain a relationship with his daughter, (His son is barely mentioned) he feels he has lost the things that matter most to him. This is the single most notable change in the film. Gone is the wild-eyed, heavy-breathing, frantically pacing McClane of the original Die Hard; The man rapping on the windows, desperately trying to signal the fire brigade. Willis communicates this malaise subtly and effectively, prompting the Justin Long character to ask at one point; 'Why are you so calm? Have you done that kinda stuff before?' The direction is astonishingly controlled and confident from the man that bought the world 'Underworld' (He may be one to watch after all.) and, for my money, offers the best spectacle of any film this summer.

There is a weight and an impact to the stunts and the fight scenes that comes from using actual stunt-work; so often eschewed these days in favor of scenes built entirely on disk.

As mentioned, the tone is slightly subdued for a summer actioner (despite a good number of amusing lines and a healthy amount of self-awareness) which differentiates it from the others in the series. There is a world-weariness amongst the chaos. A meditation on being 'that guy' is one of the more inspired exchanges, and the greatest insight into McClane's journey through the missing years. As a result, the audience is not left to enjoy the sense of good triumphing over evil at the end without at least a little remorse about the meaning of it all (It reminded me of one of the great strengths of '24' in that regard.). As the credits roll, all may not be right with the world as would be more typical of the genre, but there are other, more personal triumphs to savor. This gives the film a little more depth than the previous sequels, though it takes some of the edge off the 'octane buzz' that the film injects you with.

Nevertheless, this remains significantly the best blockbuster of the Summer Season. It is the first to truly deliver on all it promised (and probably surpasses realistic expectations) It would require a second viewing to determine where it might rank in the series, but it is more than worthy of the name and Die Hard remains, for my money, the undisputed champ amongst action franchises. I humbly request one more installment in which Bruce et al pour heart and soul into creating a worthy send-off and then suggest that Bruce let's McClane retire undefeated. He'll have earned it.
184 out of 306 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Summer blockbuster with no overkill. Terrific action packed entertainment!
John McClane back on duty and back in action.

This time around he is assigned to bring Matt Ferrell, a known hacker, to the FBI after some top security government mainframes are hacked. McClane and Ferrell barely get away with their lives and the US begins to crumble as a nationwide cyberspace takeover is engineered by some clever terrorists.

It has been 12 years and several weeks of controversy here on IMDb about this much anticipated release, but here it is, finally. And it doesn't disappoint. From the first scene to the last there is lightning fast pacing and many jaw droppingly spectacular stunt pieces. Much like the previous Die Hard entries logic isn't exactly a part of the game, but sheer adrenaline packed excitement sure is. John McClane is faced with many outrageous challenges and like before he doesn't back down even after seriously getting his ass whooped. But that's McClane you. Also, McClane isn't just as tough and resourceful as ever, he is a wise ass at the top of his game. Much of the "controversy" on the forums here was about the PG-13 rating's limited profanity (I know, I participated in the discussion), but guess what? There is profanity! But it is not really that that matters, it is John McClane's wise ass no fear attitude that fans want and that is just what they get. The profanity is obviously less than in the previous films but it still has plenty of funny moments and the famous 'yippy kah yay' quote is here in full glory.

Also, the stunt work is in full glory with several amazing set pieces, especially a dual with a super fighter jet near the end. Grade-A Hollywood mayhem and destruction and very little apparent CGI. As far as summer entertainment goes - forget Pirates 3 or Spider Man 3 - this is an action movie that knows when it is getting over the top ridiculous and spares the viewer overkill, but still manages to be ridiculous and entertaining. There are also subtle references to previous Die Hard movies that fans will undoubtedly smile at. --- 8/10

Rated PG-13 for violence/intense action and profanity. Ages 13+.
150 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Die Hard 4 - Here's Why It Sucked...
adlion94429 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
First off, I'm a Die Hard 1 lover. The second and third weren't very good. Die Hard 1 was a textbook on how to make a thriller and was the first "high tech" heist/terrorist blockbuster thrillers I can recall.

Die Hard 4.0 (which would've been clever in 1998, not so much now) is a loud, expensive, frenetic modern take on Die Hard 1. It's too much of everything. Here are the ingredients, see if you haven't seen these 100 times before (5 seasons of 24, MI:3, Bourne, Matrix, etc.):

1. Indestructible hero 2. Art-directed government computer centers that look like Dr. Evil's lair with plasmas all over the walls. 3. Computers doing high tech things with beautiful unknown operating systems that can pull up 3D wire frame schematics of anything imaginable in 1.5 seconds flat, and make high tech noises and beeps. 4. An aerial establishing shot of Washington D.C. that "types" in courier font the name of XXXXXX government institution (ticka ticka ticka ticka...). 5. Bossy government officials who say "get me XXXX on a secure channel" or addresses everyone as "people, you better get me some answers" and dislikes the hero and ignores his sage advice. 5. Beautiful computer technicians who know kung fu. Also, who wear 9 inch heels to conduct military operations because we all know how easy heels are to maneuver in. 6. Bad guys who take out 3rd tier characters with one shot but empty clip after clip in futility to hit the good guy. 7. Good guys who can launch a car into the air to hit a helicopter or knock open a fire hydrant to get a killer to fall out of his helicopter. First, fire hydrants lose their high pressure once the water has traveled about 3 feet. And the pressure comes from the narrow hydrant nozzle, not the water supply in the ground. If you knock the hydrant over, it won't spray upward more than a few feet and certainly wouldn't knock a guy out of a helicopter (who would've been clipped into a safety harness for rifle sniping anyway). Idiotic.

All in all, this movie is terrible. We walked out. How can chase set pieces be boring? Die Hard 4.0 will show how. Lousy movie.
29 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
The DNA is degraded.
Robert J. Maxwell23 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The original "Die Hard" was a crudely entertaining action movie with comic villains and a couple of humorous exchanges in addition to the usual violent sequences that had Bruce Willis as Officer John McClane running barefoot through a sea of broken glass. The next episode in the franchise, "Die Harder," switched the locale from the Nakatomi Building to Dulles and was essentially a repeat, duller than the first despite the enhanced special f/x. The third installment, "Die Hardest of All," or was it, "Die, Whether You Like It Or not"?, put Willis back in New York with Samuel Jackson as his unwilling sidekick and Jeremy Irons as the least believable German heavy imaginable. It wasn't up to the standard of the original -- so few copies are -- but it was more entertaining than the second installment. I know. I got the titles all mixed up but these sequels come thick and fast and seem to pile atop one another like cow flops.

This one keeps nothing more than the character of John McLaine and the acing of Bruce Willin in the part. He has devolved into a routine action hero. He has no vices. He doesn't smoke. He doesn't say anything that is politically incorrect. He doesn't use cuss words. He doesn't suffer from a hangover. He has no humanity to speak off. It could be Arnold Schwarzenegger in the part, or Sylvester Stallone, back in the 80s, or Dolph Lundgren or Jacques van Damm a decade ago. Interchangeable. In the next installment, may we look forward to a silver-haired Willis, his hair grown back, who is a vegetarian and is serenely awaiting The Rapture, the satisfaction of his utter boredom tempered by the saddening realization that the Jews, Moslems, Zoroastrians, Coptic Christians, and Animists of all stripes will not ascend into heaven to sittith in Paradise? Well, why not? This fourth outing has drained the character and plot of any blood the original had. The thing's been almost completely eviscerated. Nothing is left but the gall.

The story involves the takeover and the threatened demolishing of the entire computer system that now permits the United States to function. But if you think you're going to learn anything about how this might be done, or if there will be suspenseful scenes in which we follow some hacker through the system, you'd be wrong.

It's action, period, 24/7. That's all it's really about. There's little time left for humor or character development. Instead of Officer McClane hanging on the edge of an endless elevator shaft in the Nakatomi Building, there's an entire SUV dangling at the end of a cable in an elevator shaft. Not enough? Okay, there are two people having a vicious fight within the precariously suspended vehicle. Need still more? There's a guy a few floors up with an automatic weapon, shooting the SUV full of holes. And there is, trust me, nothing funny about the villains. The only wisecracks come from Willis and a young computer geek he drags around by the hair, and they're not very funny. What really makes me gag is that conversations now use a telegraphic style. Nobody says, "Let's launch the rockets." It's, "Launch rockets," even though the addressee is standing next to the speakers.

Would you like to see one car smash into another in the Holland Tunnel, leap up, and spin over and over eight or nine times in mid-air? If so, this is the movie for you. If you're looking for anything in the way of comedy or human interest to balance the action, don't look here.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fourth Time Is Still a Charm
Michael_Elliott11 February 2013
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

*** (out of 4)

The fourth film in the franchise has John McClane (Bruce Willis) asked to pick up a hacker (Justin Long) for questioning by the two of them are soon under attack from an unknown group of men. Soon it becomes clear that a madman (Timothy Olyphant) plans on hacking into every U.S. system to bring the country down. LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD sounds like it would be a complete loser. I mean, after all who thought it would be a good idea to put McClane up against internet hackers? As silly as the story might sound, it actually works extremely well thanks in large part to a pretty nail-biting and tense story that fits into the post 9/11 world of fear where we could be hit hard at anytime. Now, I will freely admit that you've really got to suspend your disbelief because not for a single second did I buy McClane being able to pull off what he does here. I'm not going to give away any spoilers but I'd buy the events in the first three films a lot more than I do this one but director Len Wiseman handles everything so well that you can overlook the unbelievable nature of the picture. What works best is the direction actually because he at least makes you believe that this terrorist group could pull off what they're doing and pretty much attack America on three different levels. I'm really not sure if would be as easy as the bad guys do it but this is just a minor problem. There are some really terrific action scenes scattered along the way including a real nail-bitter on a highway where all lanes are opened and this leads to an amazing crash. Another terrific sequence happens with Willis driving a semi and a fighter jet comes to attack. Willis, as you'd expect, is in fine form as he has no problem fitting into this character. The one-liners and his smart mouth are right on the mark and he manages to also play the more dramatic moments. I thought Long was okay in his role but there's no question that it's rather underwritten. Olyphant makes for a good villain as does Maggie Q in her brief scenes. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also good in her scenes as the daughter. LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD manages to deliver in the entertainment value, the drama and there's no question that the action is fun. The film has a few flaws along the way but it's still another good entry in a very good series that manages to be different yet keep the same type of fun.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A fun adventure, but so many errors it was distracting
jasonmiskiewicz16 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I am a big fan of the original Die Hard movie, but this flick had so many continuity & factual errors, it took away the fun, in my opinion. See the "goofs" page for a summary of them. Whereas all the Die Hard movies have had fantastical plots, this one was REALLY out there. Bruce Willis was entertaining as the "old guy who didn't understand computers", but I thought some of the plot points were so ridiculous that it took away from the enjoyment of the movie. Case in point: the whole elevator shaft SUV scene. Also, the detonation of the natural gas lines without an ignition source. Avoid this movie if you are a fan of the original!
32 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Try Harder
skelman-29 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. A tired, lazy procession of clichés which lacks even a fraction of the flair or imagination of any of its predecessors. What Bruce Willis was thinking when he signed up for this God only knows; next time an A-list action movie star announces that he only signed up to revive a well-worn franchise "because the script was right", you should go ahead and assume they got the word "script" confused with the word "money". I just wish for once they would be honest about it and save everybody's time.

The film itself is merely a succession of highly improbable action set pieces joined together by clunky expositional dialogue and interrupted by moments of abject boredom. The sequence where Bruce engages in hand-to-hand combat with a fighter jet (yes, really) is just plain ludicrous. Maggie Q's henchwoman(she's Asian, so of course she is an expert martial artist) must have been a terminator, it's the only way to explain why she took so long to die. Timothy Olyphant's villain must rank as the dullest screen villain in living memory; he was given literally NOTHING interesting to say or do. Oh, wait, I think he kicked a chair once. He was angry, you see. Not as angry as I was at the thought that the two hours of my life I wasted watching this drivel are now lost forever. And if I see one more pretty estranged daughter in peril/daddy's coming to save the day/I love you daddy subplot I will puke. Can whoever thinks this is an interesting dramatic device please just STOP ALREADY.

In summary, if I wanted to spend two hours watching things get smashed up I'd visit my local junkyard on crushing day. Everyone involved in this limp excuse for a movie should hang their heads in shame.
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Die Hard 4.0
pellonpah15 June 2007
Just saw it at the press screening here in Finland. It works and delivers. Thanks to Bruce, who is pretty charismatic and special thanks, surprise, to Justin Long who proves to be very sympathetic young actor. And of course, Timothy Olyphants black steering eyes are still full of rage and anger, as they was in Deadwood.

Action is fast and violent and whats most important, almost entirely hand made. Good old stunt work and explosions, thank God. The movie is called here (in Europe) Die Hard 4.0 but you guys in America will see it Live Free or Die Hard. Its not the best of the Die Hard series (it goes like first, 3rd, 2nd and this) but it is a real thing. Worth for your money, absolutely.
308 out of 563 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