Live Free or Die Hard

I was a little weary, but yippee, John is back in full strength. Even more wisecracks than before, he’s full of laughs and eliminates baddies one after another. The story is, well in short, fine. Technological advances haven’t hurt John as much as I had feared (what’s more it prompted a couple more wisecracks). Olyphant is one of the best villains to Die Hard and I must say that I understood his motives. I would also be pissed if someone did to me what they did to him. And he had a nice shirt, too. Justin Long was also a pleasant surprise and he makes a pretty decent sidekick (I bet you can’t pronounce the Czech equivalent: “přicmrndávač"). Maggie Q was gorgeous, as always. And if John weren’t John, she would have won, same as the French Spiderboy Cyril Raffaelli who put on a nice show in the little room he was given. Live Free or Die Hard worked out just fine. Wiseman did some great work and you can tell that he’s a fan. Despite all of his blue filters and logical nonsense, you just have to forgive him for that. And maybe. Just maybe I would like to see a Die Hard 5.0. Hope to see you again, John. (17/08/2007)

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. (27/06/2007)

Len Wiseman, the eclectic and soulless vampire son and John McClane? Are you kidding? No! Unless... Bruce Willis was at his best, and Len made fun of what he embodied in his two previous films - from a state-of-the-art action room. Well, miracles do happen. Live Free or Die Hard is exactly the kind of action cocktail that old lovers of the genre like to drink. Explosive, ironic, witty... charming and captivating. How so? In order: Willis is at his best, and his John could carry the film, even if the script was a level weaker. The script is not a level weaker - it is exactly as sparse as it needs to be. Wiseman was being honest and made a film without unnecessary modern buck-passing, and with enthusiasm and a clear vision. In the old way, but also very brisk. Timothy Olyphant is the ideal villain. The perfect contradiction to the bald detective - a guy who doesn't stain his hands with blood, but uses the conveniences of the modern world. A world that will become a deadly arena in which an aging detective, the last Mohican of his kind, must face modernity. He won't be able get around it, he won't dance around it with the elegance of a Kung Fu master, and he won't deceive it with hacking or supernatural abilities... he will break it with his fist, bullets, or simply the manly force we are used to from John. The NYPD detective does not want to make friends with the modern world. He makes his way from point A to point B, says one-liners just like when he was young (and later), skates through jacked and breathtaking action sequences, puts on armor made of clichés and the pathos of "good cops", which is an integral part of the 1980s. Live Free or Die Hard is a whiff of old times - honest filmmaking with a hero who is a loser (and therefore cool), with a hero who is so perfectly incompatible with all hi-tech culture that he resembles an angry Don Quixote. But unlike Cervantes, he flattens windmills to the ground, gets into an ambulance covered in blood and leaves for the Hollywood gold fund. A perfectly good film from a genre that I had thought had died out. Yippee-ki-yay, bastard! (30/06/2007)

Die Hard for kids. History repeats. As in the first Die Hard, John has to regain the lost trust of a woman (and which surname is used again plays a role) and, as in Die Hard with a Vengeance, the labyrinth in which he finds himself and in which he toys with the villain is an entire city (Washington this time instead of New York) and, as in all three of the previous films, he faces a band of terrorists from around the world (France, Italy, the United States). Now, however, because of the PG-13 rating, he curses a lot less and kills only in such a way that cuts down on the blood spatter (i.e. sometimes imaginatively, sometimes like in a shooter game from the last century). In comparison with the previous films, the pace is significantly more laid-back, John and the people around him aren’t constantly under stress, there aren’t several things happening repeatedly in parallel (the third film particularly excellent in that respect) and quite of lot of time is taken up with somewhat sentimental talking. Of course, John’s primary objective – other than eliminating the bad guy – is to prove himself a capable father (where Matt serves as his training aid before he reunites with his daughter), but haven’t there already been enough action dads in other movies? ___ As in every buddy movie, here the narrative is given its dynamics by conflicts between opposite natures. John and Matt are separated by a few generations and by their varying scope of knowledge of modern technologies and pop culture (John’s dialogue scenes with Kevin Smith, the guru of all nerds, are among the film’s highlights). They reverse the unfavourable course of events only by joining forces, which is a pleasantly nostalgic aspect from today’s perspective, when analogue heroes have clearly fallen behind the geeks. Information still wasn’t everything back then. It was sometimes necessary to stop staring at a monitor and do something. John has all of the necessary skills; he just lacks information. Muscly tough guys like him are shown to be invaluable. By contrast, the hackers, cut off from the world of real (not virtual) action, are given one ethical slap in the face after another, and whereas John imparts important life lessons (“face your fear”) to his younger partner, he himself remains the same BFU at the end as he was at the beginning. ___ Live Free or Die Hard is the most entertaining when it refers to one of its (better) predecessors or to the action genre as such (the villain’s urging to “Say somethin’ funny”, the ruses that John uses). This would have been a run-of-the-mill high-tech action flick (with action moments sometimes bordering on parody in the vein of True Lies) if it didn’t have the ability to poke fun at itself – and, of course, if it didn’t have John McClane. Because even though this returning American saviour no longer has hair, he still has balls. 75% (31/01/2013)

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. (28/06/2007)