Live Free or Die Hard

Poor John McTiernan will have to come to terms with the fact that his cult classic original and groundbreaking third installment will remain in the shadow of the fantastic even-numbered films. When I once read in an interview with Willis that the screenwriters drew inspiration from the TV series 24, I had no idea that I would witness almost its feature-length version. McClane has problems with his daughter, he advances in eliminating the villains almost exactly according to their hierarchy - and he is such an amazing action hero that I couldn't help but stare. And after the tired third installment, I expected everything but this. I was looking for a lot of humor and fan nods in the fourth trap, but I also got John as an indestructible dinosaur who beats up women without hesitation and swears at them with all his might. And the viewer feels the desire to cheer out loud. The threat this time is perfectly terrifying and chilling at certain moments. Olyphant adds to this with his delightful performance, his sarcastic remarks full of anger raised my adrenaline, and when he tells McClane that he will destroy his life and kill his loved ones, I instinctively cowered in my seat. Moreover, the connection between the old fox and the young, restrained rebel works, everything is as it should be. Although there are occasionally overly calm moments in those two hours, I still have to convert those 90% into five stars. This matador will not be ashamed of his comeback. (03/08/2007)

The fact that Wiseman is an enthusiastic filmmaker who has a lot of experience with action films and then only proves on screen what wonders can be done with a big budget doesn't bother me all that much. What bothers me is that he completely misunderstands the poetics of Die Hard, especially McLane’s character, whose tragic cop with a touch of sad comic relief has become the killing machine that dominated cinema 25 years ago and whose renaissance McLane created as an action hero. Overall, I find the concept of digital terrorism juxtaposed with a 1980s hero rather dull, given that political correctness and pandering to American politics of today are at play. Willis is good at being a tough guy, but the rating tames his vocabulary and character, so the result is ultimately (from my perspective) an expected loss. Die Hard itself didn't deserve this kind of eating of its own stupidity through non-stop action. McTiernan should have got the last crack at it - it couldn't have ended up worse than this. (24/01/2008)

The story is fast-paced, the action scenes are perfectly shot and sometimes even inventive (the tunnel scene), and the old boy Bruce Willis is – surprisingly – still the same great John McClane, who holds the film together and provides it with the right ironic wit. I would edit the last third of the film a bit and shorten the whole thing by some five minutes, but otherwise I have no complaints, apart from the fallen Capitol in the trailer. (26/06/2007)

"Yippie-ki-yay, motherfu..." A solid action picture? You bet it is. But isn’t it a little too little, in view of the quality that the previous parts had to offer? Not really, no... One year short of the twentieth anniversary of the release of Die Hard, we get part four. And although, in order to get a lower rating, John McClane has gone a little soft, due to his age he wears a hoody instead of an undershirt and in the action scenes he gets a lot of help from the editor, he continues successfully to reel out great lines, shoot, bleed, get a good kicking and flatten everybody like a road-roller in the end. It’s surprising that Len Wiseman, who until now hasn’t manged to film even a mediocre movie, has pulled himself together at last. It’s true, that it’s a bit creaky in places, the screenplay is dumb (especially on the technical side), the end way over the top and camera filters just everywhere... But somewhere deep down under everything you can clearly feel the spirit of the good old Die Hards. It all rattles along nicely, action making way for more action, not many dead moments, John’s little helper doesn’t matter at all (quite the opposite), the action sequences are mostly inventive and the baddies are excellent. Especially the charismatic and nicely flaunty Maggie Q. What more could you want from a summer action blockbuster that turn off your brain and let yourself get sucked in by the return of one of the action legends of the silver screen? Even all these years later this series has managed to maintain its high standard in terms of quality, but it is dragged back from the very top rung by a sequence lasting less than ten minutes with John in a semi truck on a freeway intersection versus a fighter jet. Something that looks like an upgraded version of a notoriously ridiculous scene from the B-grade Rambo III look even worse in the middle of this A-grade action movie. On the other hand, the very end of the movie is very satisfying when the main villain performed nicely by Timothy Olyphant goes out in style. Many of us were hoping, few of us really believed it would happen, but it did. This isn’t the best of the Die Hards - it’s the worst, but it’s still above-average good, although it turned John into precisely what made him different from all the other action heroes. We can at least be pleased for that. If for no other reason then because we aren’t often treated to good old eighties-nineties style action pictures very often any more. If things carry on as they have been, we’ll be getting part twelve in a couple of years’ time. (28/06/2007)

It can be done without a ton of profanity and hectoliters of blood, but the magic is somehow gone. Len Wiseman, of course, tried as hard as he could and it's a decent action movie, but the airport and skyscraper had something more to them (let’s forget about the third one). Fortunately, Bruce Willis managed to man up, and John is back with a solid array of wisecracks and funny situations. The action is decent, inventive – just a bit too polished and without blood for my taste, and towards the end, there is an annoying overdose of visual effects, but that seems more fitting to the structure of the plot with computers and high-end technology. Hackers and computer manipulations are something an average viewer simply cannot grasp, and that spoils the overall coherence of the screenplay because there are really a lot of smart devices in the film. It's not a thoroughbred comeback, nor is it a pinnacle, but as a dignified conclusion? That could work. (27/06/2007)