Live Free or Die Hard

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. (06/26/2007)

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%. (09/01/2007)

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. (06/27/2007)

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% (01/31/2013)

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. (08/03/2007)