403 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I've sometimes had lukewarm or even hostile reactions to films that went on to become firm favourites (for example, I hated HEAT when I saw it at the cinema, but came to love it and to consider it one of the greatest pictures of the 1990s), but I don't think I've ever loved a film and then hated it, and especially not just a couple of days after first seeing it. You say yourself that you weren't in the mood for LIVE FREE.... today; perhaps the problem isn't that it's all that bad, but that you were feeling that you'd overrated it earlier and were trying to reach a "balanced" view, which only led to your being far too critical this time round.

Which is another way of saying: I don't want to believe it's the T3 of the series!

[Harmsway]

Perhaps you're right, and I'm being over-critical. But somehow... I don't think so. Even if I'm underrating the "fun quotient" this time around, a lot of the criticisms are still perfectly valid.

And I didn't even mention the pretty poor Kevin Smith cameo.

[HildebrandRarity]

I checked it out last night and whilst it's strikely good value from an entertainment point of view, it's not a multiple viewer like many of the Bonds.

You could tell there were Die Hard fan boys in the audience by the cheering and the applause at the end. This, in itself, made it a better 'viewing experience' than otherwise.

I would check it out a second time. My only two gripes are that one can CLEARLY NOTICE where they toyed with things in post production to get the final cut from R to PG-13 in terms of dubbing and dialoge (thus lacking the feel of seamless editing) and that the movie itself seemed too 'self-aware' a la Diamonds Are Forever or AVTAK or Die Another Day to cite James Bond examples.

7.7 to 8.2 out of 10. A slightly higher rating (a couple of tenths higher) would have come from action sequences having been either shortened (jet/truck/highway scene for eg) or less OTT ("free-runner" who gets shredded 'a la LTK's Dario in the cold cylo; the gas pipelines going up; spinning airborne car in tunnel).

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 01 July 2007 - 12:38 AM.

[Qwerty]

Going to see this tonight.

[The Dove]

WOOOO!! YESSS! I finaly saw the movie yesterday.. 4.5 out of 5 stars for me.. Live Free or Die Hard totally rocks!! My only nitpicks are the lack of f-bombs in McClane's dialog.. Why the hell the studio felt they had to make this a PG-13 is beyond me?? But this did not distract me in the least from enjoying the action sequences.. Hard to say just yet where I would rank this with the other Die Hard movies.. The ending was WAY better than the endings of Die Hard With A Vengeance or Die Hard 2... Also I was very surprise at how good Timothy Olyphant was as a bad guy!! I'd put him second on the list behind Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber and before Jeremy Irons' Simon Gruber and William Sadler's Col. Stewart.

The overall film doesn't quite have the feel of a Die Hard movie, after all its on a much grander scale.. But then it also took me a while to have Die Hard With A Vengeance feel like a Die Hard film too, but after a while it did, so I guess it'll take some more time and a few more viewings of LFORDH for me to include it in the Die Hard family..

Roll on Die Hard 5 I say!! (but please FOX, make it rated R...!!)

Final Grade: A-

[Tarl_Cabot]

Die Hard looks like a pretty big box office dissapointment:

http://www.boxoffice...id=diehard4.htm

No Mask. No Cape. No problem?

Uhm, yeah...it was a problem.

[Loomis]

Die Hard looks like a pretty big box office dissapointment:

Really? $48,178,000 in, what? Three days? Doesn't sound too shabby to me. It's earning way faster than CASINO ROYALE, no? I'm sure it'll do at least $150 million, easy.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Spiderman made $130M in one weekend. I think $48M is from Wed-Sun...not exactly miserable but I'm sure it's certainly alot less they were hoping for.

[Safari Suit]

I still think that's pretty good for a film from a long dormant franchise, where the lead and biggest draw in the cast is a popular but waning action star.

[Loomis]

Spiderman made $130M in one weekend. I think $48M is from Wed-Sun...not exactly miserable but I'm sure it's certainly alot less they were hoping for.

Granted, but, as the second of the "elderly action hero comeback sequels" to be released, it looks as though it's going to trump the first one, ROCKY BALBOA, with ease (RB had a total Stateside gross of some $75 million, I believe).

Be interesting to see whether BOURNE 3 will outgross McCLANE 4.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think Bourne will outgross Mclane 4 easy.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD just doesn't feel like DIE HARD. It has a few nice moments, but other than that, it just doesn't come together and might as well be called "generic action film." The film drops the ball on the characters (even John McClane feels like a caricature of his normal self). The villain's plot is insanely and obviously ludicrous - his tech abilities need to be scaled back to make it feel plausible. And while the action is surprisingly brutal, it lacks that "real world" feel that makes DIE HARD action what it is.

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is, essentially, the TERMINATOR 3 of the DIE HARD franchise.

This is exactly how I felt about the film after I saw it last night. I did enjoy Willis as McClane, but I just thought the whole film was lacking a certain spark that the others had (yes, even DHWAV). I'm not entirely sure if it was due to the lack of an R rating - which, when it was first announced, made me totally uninterested in the film (until my friend saw it and loved it) - but I suppose I'll find out when Fox releases the inevitable Unrated Cut on DVD in time for Christmas. I think it's the weakest of the four so far, but again, I might change my opinion if a different cut is released in the near future. As an action film, it's impressive stuff. As a Die Hard film, I found it to be a bit of a letdown. 7.5/10 overall.

[dinovelvet]

Die Hard looks like a pretty big box office dissapointment:

Really? $48,178,000 in, what? Three days? Doesn't sound too shabby to me. It's earning way faster than CASINO ROYALE, no? I'm sure it'll do at least $150 million, easy.

It opened on Wednesday, so that's its five day total. Like Casino Royale, it was also beaten by a cartoon Unlike Casino Royale, I think it'll drop off pretty quickly; once the old school Die Hard fans have turned out for the opening weekend, who is left? I expect TRANSFORMERS will hand McClane his marching papers this week, and it won't be pretty!

Spiderman made $130M in one weekend. I think $48M is from Wed-Sun...not exactly miserable but I'm sure it's certainly alot less they were hoping for.

Granted, but, as the second of the "elderly action hero comeback sequels" to be released, it looks as though it's going to trump the first one, ROCKY BALBOA, with ease (RB had a total Stateside gross of some $75 million, I believe).

But Rocky Balboa didn't cost $110 million, either I'm sure Balboa will turn out to be the better earner for its studio.

[Loomis]

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD just doesn't feel like DIE HARD. It has a few nice moments, but other than that, it just doesn't come together and might as well be called "generic action film." The film drops the ball on the characters (even John McClane feels like a caricature of his normal self). The villain's plot is insanely and obviously ludicrous - his tech abilities need to be scaled back to make it feel plausible. And while the action is surprisingly brutal, it lacks that "real world" feel that makes DIE HARD action what it is.

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is, essentially, the TERMINATOR 3 of the DIE HARD franchise.

This is exactly how I felt about the film after I saw it last night. I did enjoy Willis as McClane, but I just thought the whole film was lacking a certain spark that the others had (yes, even DHWAV). I'm not entirely sure if it was due to the lack of an R rating - which, when it was first announced, made me totally uninterested in the film (until my friend saw it and loved it) - but I suppose I'll find out when Fox releases the inevitable Unrated Cut on DVD in time for Christmas. I think it's the weakest of the four so far, but again, I might change my opinion if a different cut is released in the near future. As an action film, it's impressive stuff. As a Die Hard film, I found it to be a bit of a letdown. 7.5/10 overall.

Dang! The pair of you always make too much sense for me to be able to dismiss your DIE HARD 4.0 misgivings. Oh, well, I'm sure I'll still find it "quite fun", but I'd better adjust my expectations downwards again.

[Harmsway]

Oh, well, I'm sure I'll still find it "quite fun", but I'd better adjust my expectations downwards again.

Yeah. The lower your expectations, the more you'll enjoy it.

[LadySylvia]

I just saw LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD several hours ago. I do think that the title is somewhat cheesy. However that movie rocked! I thought that aside from the military jet sequence (which seemed a bit over-the-top for me), it was just as good as the first DIE HARD film. Which surprised me very much. I could tell that the audience really enjoyed it.

Edited by LadySylvia, 02 July 2007 - 02:26 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I, upon viewing, have actually come to appreciate precisely WHY the title was chosen as Live Free Or Die Hard.

It makes perfect sense IMHO: The freedom of the US citizen is up against the wall at gun point under the premised scenario.

By the way, was that Boris Becker look-alike assassin a "free-runner". And am I wrong in thinking that the 'free-running' take in this movie is just too OTT to be believable?

[LadySylvia]

I, upon viewing, have actually come to appreciate precisely WHY the title was chosen as Live Free Or Die Hard.

It makes perfect sense IMHO: The freedom of the US citizen is up against the wall at gun point under the premised scenario.

By the way, was that Boris Becker look-alike assassin a "free-runner". And am I wrong in thinking that the 'free-running' take in this movie is just too OTT to be believable?

I loved McClane's nickname for him . . . "Spider-Boy".

[HildebrandRarity]

But was he a real free runner doing real free running? It appeared too staged and too fast. Anyone have any info on this?

[Harmsway]

By the way, was that Boris Becker look-alike assassin a "free-runner". And am I wrong in thinking that the 'free-running' take in this movie is just too OTT to be believable?

Yes, he was a free-runner. Not sure how much of it was done for real - I'm sure some elements of it were faked, or the camera speed was manipulated. I've seen lots of free-running, and some of that stuff was way beyond anything I've seen.

And yes, it was very cartoonish.

[Qwerty]

Missed out on this over the weekend. Hoping to catch it tomorrow perhaps.

[Loomis]

Die Hard looks like a pretty big box office dissapointment:

Really? $48,178,000 in, what? Three days? Doesn't sound too shabby to me. It's earning way faster than CASINO ROYALE, no? I'm sure it'll do at least $150 million, easy.

It opened on Wednesday, so that's its five day total. Like Casino Royale, it was also beaten by a cartoon Unlike Casino Royale, I think it'll drop off pretty quickly; once the old school Die Hard fans have turned out for the opening weekend, who is left? I expect TRANSFORMERS will hand McClane his marching papers this week, and it won't be pretty!

Well, it won't be surprising if - when - TRANSFORMERS outgrosses DIE HARD. Different market, aimed squarely at kids, with merchandising, toys and so on. Personally, I'll be skipping it, unless the reviews are staggeringly good.

[00Twelve]

Well, I've heard TF reviews saying that it's one of those films that will change your expectations of what can be done with CG, like Jurassic Park was, and ID4, and The Matrix, and TTT(Gollum), and that if anyone is looking for a complex plot, this film is about giant robots coming to earth to kill each other, so plot complexity probably shouldn't be a priority for any viewer.

[Roebuck]

Transformers will be a wow for the kids, but it's got no nostalgic resonance for me and I haven't seen a decent action movie since Casino Royale. Got my 4.0 seats booked for Wednesday.

[Robinson]

By the way, was that Boris Becker look-alike assassin a "free-runner". And am I wrong in thinking that the 'free-running' take in this movie is just too OTT to be believable?

Yes, he was a free-runner. Not sure how much of it was done for real - I'm sure some elements of it were faked, or the camera speed was manipulated. I've seen lots of free-running, and some of that stuff was way beyond anything I've seen.

And yes, it was very cartoonish.

The actor in the "Spider-Boy" role played the lead detective in the French film "District B13." He's a stuntman who also acts:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706220/

I first remember him as one of the blonde "twins" in the Jet Li flick "Kiss of the Dragon."

Caught LFODH on Saturday & thought it a decent flick but it hasn't resonated in the same way the first film did. I thought the action was good & it was good to see Willis in a decent action flick again but to me this was another sequel. I found the "Fire Sale" concept a good one & I thought it great that MacClane had government folks on his side for a change. I thought the chemistry between Willis and Long was great (much better than what we got w/Willis & Jackson in DHWAV). I just thought they were turning John into a superhero by the end of the flick. Don't ask me how they got his daughter from Rutgers to DC/Maryland in little or no time.

There's more I could go on about but I felt the same way after seeing "Ocean's 13:" This is decent but they shouldn't make another one.

[Loomis]

Well, I've seen it, and I wasn't too impressed. This is easily the least of the DIE HARD films, although in scattered places here and there it does manage to top the lacklustre DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE in the excitement stakes (overall, though, DHWAV is by far the better movie), and it isn't quite as bad as TERMINATOR 3. Which is not exactly saying much.

For all the talk about McClane as "an analog hero for a digital age" (as at least 362 reviews have observed), the irony is that it's actually the (weak and uncharismatic) villains' (ludicrous) supposedly cutting-edge plot that seems out of date, and by at least a decade. Imagine if 1995's DHWAV had featured Russian communist baddies plotting an INVASION U.S.A.-style takeover, and that's what DIE HARD 4.0 feels like. It seems to belong to its predecessor's year, in which the likes of GOLDENEYE and THE NET were painting doomsday scenarios from computer chaos. Not only has the real world tragedy of 9/11 (which is referenced a couple of times, almost as a matter of duty, although this film is set in a universe so far removed from the present reality of terrorist threats that it's preposterous) rendered this DIE HARD obsolete; it even looks creaky next to, say, 2000's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II, in which Ving Rhames took the exciting concept of a troublemaker tapping away at a laptop as far as it could go, which isn't particularly far. Unfortunately, the makers of DIE HARD 4.0 appear to have laboured under the delusion that acres of footage of screens and keyboards and reams of dialogue about codes make for a gripping villainous scheme.

Never mind the McGuffin, though; surely the action is what counts in a DIE HARD, and presumably DIE HARD 4.0 delivers on that score? Well, yes and no. Some of the action is indeed vaguely edge-of-seat, but none of it has the balletic beauty of McTiernan's work (or even the good old-fashioned meat-and-potatoes balls-to-the-wall impact of Harlin's), and most of it is just loud, numbing and (thanks to indifferent editing) confusing. The grimy visual style, with its desaturated colours (another element that makes this flick look dated), doesn't help matters. The America of DIE HARD 4.0 looks such a dingy, dull hellhole that you can't help but wonder whether it's even worth saving.

The supporting cast members certainly don't seem to be. There were plenty of colourful characters in all of the other DIE HARDs; here, everyone's paint-dry boring (and saddled with the sort of thumpingly clich

[Blonde Bond]

Saw it last thursday, and I have to say, it wasn't the greatest sequel possible. Die Hard 2 and especially the 3rd one felt far superior than this. I have to agree, that it felt less Die Hard, than the previous two.

Sure, it was entertaining, and had a few good lines, but it lacked of the 'fun' factor of a Die Hard movie.

[dinovelvet]

Is DIE HARD 4.0 a total loss? No - like I say, some of the action is okay (and the fighter jet finale is enjoyably OTT, although it doesn't touch the one in TRUE LIES), and the first half hour or so is pretty good. It's a film that may play better on DVD, and heaven knows there are many worse action flicks out there (as well as many better ones, of course). But it's immensely disappointing for fans of the other DIE HARDs, and a flat (apparent) finale for the series.

Relentlessly, loudly, bonecrushingly mediocre.

Ouch. Well I haven't dragged myself to the theatre to see it yet, and probably won't at this point. LOL about the "cutting edge" computer terrorism plot. I think Hollywood needs to retire that particular plot device. But not to worry, the next Die Hard looks better :

[Roebuck]

Saw it last thursday, and I have to say, it wasn't the greatest sequel possible. Die Hard 2 and especially the 3rd one felt far superior than this. I have to agree, that it felt less Die Hard, than the previous two.

Sure, it was entertaining, and had a few good lines, but it lacked of the 'fun' factor of a Die Hard movie.

Got to disagree. Take 4.0 to bits and it's got far more of the Die Hard vibe than the last one. Len Wiseman's made this film a bit like a greatest hits package, taking some of the best riffs from the previous movies and giving them a 21st Century make-over. The end result isn't wildly original, but neither was Die Hard 2, and the action sequences are way ahead of the dud set-pieces of DHWAV.

Seriously though, I can't understand why Fox keep trying to do sequels to Joel Silver movies without Joel Silver.

[Loomis]

BTW, which DIE HARDs are referenced in LIVE FREE....? I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that just the events of the first one are mentioned. Or is McClane referred to as "the guy who was involved in that Nakatomi Plaza takeover in the '80s, the Dulles Airport hijacking a couple of years later, and also the attempt in the mid-90s by the brother of the Nakatomi terrorist leader to seize control of New York City, rather like this computer genius is currently trying to commandeer the whole country"? Thought not.

I was surprised that

Spoiler

not even the events of the first film are referred to explicitly. There's a scene in which Olyphant's bad guy taunts McClane with embarrassing details about his life and finances, gathered via his computer knowhow; you'd have thought that he'd have made mocking mention of the Nakatomi affair, at least - something along the lines of: "I guess you think you're still hot **** because you managed to shoot a few goons in that tower; I guess the last twenty years of your life have been all about thinking you're some kind of hero." Stuff like that.

Not only is DIE HARD 4.0 free of "How can the same **** happen to the same guy four times?" self-regarding quippery, but the McClane of this movie has no heroic background or minor celebrity status at all, which is something I wasn't expecting. Rather than figure out a way to address the inherent preposterousness of DIE HARD as franchise fare (i.e. the way McClane keeps getting mixed up in major terrorist incidents by pure chance), the filmmakers seem to have decided to airbrush away McClane's action-packed past. Here, he's just a burned-out, brutal cop, a man of misogynistic and racist comments, someone you can easily imagine has beaten confessions out of people on many occasions, someone who's just had a lifetime of crappy, dirty and thankless assignments, someone not all that different to the character Willis plays in 16 BLOCKS, only nastier, scuzzier and more aggressive. It's an interesting potential new approach to McClane - a gritty, realistic, back-to-Fleming, Craigifying/Daltonising of the character, if you will. The trouble is that the film is so relentlessly outlandish and boring, with all the other characters so uninteresting, that McClane 2.0 just kind of lies there uselessly.

Playing armchair fanboy producer, it strikes me that DIE HARD 4.0 might have been much more interesting had Long and Maggie Q exchanged roles. Had McClane been taking Q's character into custody, there might have been more opportunities for dramatic tension and the revelation of character. For instance, Q's character could have taken McClane for a racist (okay, that was done in DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE, but might also have been done in this one - slightly differently, of course), and it would have also been obvious that McClane would develop an attraction to her, but of course she's patently out of his league, but she picks up on the signals and it pisses her off, and then he gets pissed off, and of course by the end it looks as though she's actually ready to throw herself at the superheroic McClane, who's saved the day in spectacular fashion, but McClane has enough self-knowledge to not get involved.... none of this is particularly original stuff, of course, but I think it may well have been better than what's actually on show in the film, which to my mind is pretty much.... well, nothing.

Also, is there anything in LIVE FREE.... that is any way surprising or risk-taking?

To answer another of my own questions, no (well, apart from the surprise I mentioned in those spoiler tags). The main problem, though, is that the ideas the film does have aren't developed, and nothing is done especially well. The script carries the stench of something that was knocking round Hollywood offices for many years and didn't get more than minimal overhaul once it was bought as a DIE HARD project. The action scenes are merely competent, and pale next to the sequences that the Bond and Bourne people have come up with in recent years. As brain-in-neutral escapism, a so-so timekiller, it passes muster, but as a DIE HARD film it's an absolute disgrace.