Live Free or Die Hard

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)

On the occasion of Live Free or Die Hard, the 4th film in the series, a brief recap is necessary. In the first part, John McClane saves a group of people in a high-rise building, in the second part, several thousand people at an airport, in the third part, the inhabitants of a metropolis, and in the fourth part, the entire United States. If a hypothetical fifth part were to be made, the brave policeman would undoubtedly save the whole world. From this list, it is evident that this series fulfills all the rules for a sequel, namely a larger budget, bombast, and more action. The fourth installment is certainly not a bad film, but I dare to say that, from a cinematic point of view, it is the weakest of all four and it clearly shows the producers' calculation. It lacks the rawness of the first part, a certain perspective and self-irony, which is replaced by the work of special effects artists and pyrotechnicians. The exaggeration that has always been characteristic of the series here leads to counterproductive absurdity, as seen in McClane's victorious battle with a fighter plane. It is also evident that the work of the screenwriter is more careless, as some of the fights exude a certain B-movie quality, as seen in McClane's confrontation with Maggie Q in the power plant control room, where both opponents take care of each other and then ignore him, only to miraculously revive him shortly after, exactly in the style of clichés from poorly made films. The main villain is also less charismatic than his predecessors, especially the incomparable Alan Rickman. The film has the advantage of Bruce Willis's excellent performance, who shows almost no signs of aging. Fans of the alternative scene will be pleased with the small role of Kevin Smith, who in my opinion should seriously consider going on a diet... Overall impression: 70%. (01/09/2007)

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)

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)

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. (16/08/2007)