Live Free or Die Hard

I enjoy it, but I recognise it's nowhere near the level of the first 3. It's a fun summer flick.

Behold the wrath that comes upon it now though. Don't let Gruber near this thread, his anger will boil the entire page.

Yea, I saw part of it some night a few weeks ago when I was fairly blasted, and I still thought it sucked.

And I like Die Hard 2.

Yes, I enjoy it. Just watched it again on HBO the other day (weirdly caught it starting at just the point where I'd left off watching my DVD of it a few days prior).

I still haven't seen the unrated version though. I'll have to give that a rent at some point.

I am mildly disappointed that HBO isn't airing the Unrated version.

Its a fun action movie, and better than Die Hard 2.

Well, from the looking I did for it, the only version available in HD (on Blu-ray at least) is the theatrical version. That's why I don't own the unrated one. Maybe Fox didn't want to pay more to master the unrated version in HD?

Plus, everyone says the unrated is mostly just off-camera swearing and CG squibs.

If enjoy it, goddamnit. Beats the snot out of ARMAGEDDON.

Agreed.

can't wait for someone to come in here and say it goes against the "mythology of Die Hard" or some such crap.

Not even close.

It's a good action film with Bruce Willis playing a super human. Which it would be great if it weren't called DIE HARD.

I watched this for the first time recently, until about fifteen minutes left in the film where I was distracted and forgot I was watching it. I don't know how that speaks towards the climax of the film, but I just thought it was boring as hell.

The super human gripe doesn't wash. In all these films he spends the running time jumping off exploding buildings, jumping off helicopters to fight dudes on the wing of an airplane, and falling onto boats from extremely high cable wires.

The stuff he does in LIVE FREE is just not that much different.

Justin Long is the highlight of this one. He took a real boring character and made it fun to watch.

even so, the movie still sucked. Why is there this need to team up Bruce with a side kick?

Still he doesn't take a guy out of an helicopter with a hydrant. Drive a car into a helicopter or fight a fucking jet with a truck.

Plus, no blood, and more importantly, no FUCKS.

Not a worthy entry on a DIE HARD franchise. Call the movie "Bruce willis vs bad guys" and i love it.

Let me get this straight. You see McClane jump onto a moving airplane, fight two special forces badasses, fall off the plane while causing the fuel tank to leak, light the fuel stream on fire, and watch as the lit fuel stream rises in the air and blows up an airplane and find that realistic.

Then you watch him launch a car into a helicopter causing it to blow up and throw your hands in the air in disbelief.

Huh?

I can kind of see what Tati is saying, but either way the film was just a bit bland.

I remember this attitude being all over the site when this movie came out. Personally I like Die Hard well enough but was a little surprised to learn it's considered such a sacred cow series that people would get up in arms about the very idea of taking the franchise in a straight action movie direction. Especially considering Die Hard with a Vengeance had by the end already pretty much thrown out the original Die Hard formula in favour of action movie heroics.

I never saw it, but if it is in fact a good action movie, that's good enough for me.

The SUV in the elevator shaft sequence is pure "Die Hard." And Mary Elizabeth Winstead is easy on the eyes. This movie gets a pass from me.

I didn't dislike it, but I'm not a big fan either. For my money the first film and first half of 3 are where it's at for the Die Hard franchise. I don't hate any of them though.
This should have been R from the get-go, like many have said, but even so it needed a stronger villain. Olyphant can be pretty awesome, but as written he just sucks, and he didn't really add anything to the role. Yet another movie that resorts too much to cell phones and computer screens for the hero/villain interaction.
It worked well with Die Hard with a Vengeance(still a stupid title).

I remember when it came out there were folks who thought it was absurd Maggie Q was able to grab onto that vehicle without being smashed. Yes, that's not realistic. But she's dead 2 minutes later so who gives a dump?

The action, Willis, and even Long are fine and what save the film. Olyphant and the tech-heavy plot are what put it behind the others in terms of quality.

Your saying this while realizing the sidekick in Vengeance, right?

EDIT: Nevermind, I was beat.

You are failing to take into account McClane's happy-go-lucky, mildly retarded sidekick from Die Hard 2!

I like it. It's a lot better than Die Harder at least.

I don't particularly like Die Harder either. It's a repetition of the same formula, only exaggerated.

And yes, as said before, Live Free also has a lame villain.

I like the movie. I think it's a good action movie with some great scenes (the apartment shootout is fantastic). But i just don't like it as a DIE HARD film.

The only good thing in this movie is Bruce Willis. Everything else ranges from average to godawful.

But where on that scale does Bruce's soft old-man tunic lie? I'll let you guys decide.

Removing it from Die Hard, and I kinda like it.

Although, I think it's the only movie in the franchise where he isn't teamed up (not necessarily in close proximity) with a black man. Yes, this film is racist.

i enjoy this one

though for some reason willis doesnt' seem like he is having as much fun with the role in this one compared to the first three
at least until he takes out the helecopter with the car, then it feels like he settles into the role again

olyphant is alright as a villain. not nearly as interesting as hans or simon

Yeah, McClane enjoys fucking with the bad guy. He doesn't really get the chance to do that until after a while into the movie.

Most DIE HARD-like moment: McClane calling Maggie Q a little Asian hooker to taunt Olyphant.

Such a fucking toothless movie.
I expected so much more of the sequel to Mercury Rising

I enjoyed it for what it is. It's not so much the over-the-top stunts that don't belong in the DH franchise, it's the general (there were moments) lack of classic McClane "I can't believe it" and "not again" weariness and vulnerability in this one that makes McClane seem more super-human IMO.

EDIT: I'm too tired to reword that so it makes sense.

I agree with DARKMITE. While I enjoyed the movie a lot more than most that was what I found really missing.

There was also none of that great McClain cursing at himself and telling himself he's fucking crazy while he's in the middle of something stupid.

I still haven't seen it and this thread tells me why.

From what I understand this movie has:
Bruce Willis.
SUV in elevator shaft.
Take-down of a helicopter with car-fu (forgive me Joe Bob).
Bruce fights a fighter jet WITH A TRUCK.

Yet the best defenses are "better than Armageddon" (faint praise indeed) and better than Die Hard 2 (likely balderdash, but still)?

Movies with that much potential (again, an SUV in an elevator shaft!!!) that still barely rate a "meh" are probably my least-favorite kind of movie. I'd literally rather watch Atonement.

Yeah, it worked well in that film which i enjoyed. I was just anoyed that a side kick was needed yet again. and one poster was right, this movie had no teeth, hell, this film had no balls! Once Kevin Smith showed up I was pretty much done with the film. on a geek level I did enjoy the Kevin Smith scene. "So your a fan of the Fett man huh, "No I like Star Wars" ha ha ha

I still feel the same way about this now as I did last year when I first saw it. It's not a bad action flick but it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. I hate the part with the fighter jet and the ending is really weak. Otherwise it's pretty good. But again, it doesn't feel like it's part of the series to me.

I think a lot of the praise for this movie stems from Terminator 3 syndrome. Mainly that people are so used to getting their movies pissed on, that a decent sequel becomes somewhat surprising and a relief from the mediocrity that we all imagined in our heads.

However, my problem is Die Hard should have never had a "decent" sequel, I felt that whomever took over should have attempted something that thrilled as just as much as the original.

I've noticed the biggest problem always lies with Hollywood hiring insecure directors to take over from creative masters. I could just tell from Jonathan Mostow's (sp ?) interviews and approach that he wasn't going to attempt to top Cameron's work but try to deliver something that honored it.

Nothing angers me more than hearing a filmmaker pull a Lucas and say: "We'll never meet the hype" and just never try. I want ballsy directors taking over from masters and proving themselves by trying to top them.

You give a Die Hard film to the director of Underworld, you'll get a fairly entertaining film like Die Hard 4. You give an Alien film to someone like James Cameron and you get the ballsy Aliens.

There should be some kind of ambition test given to directors before they take over a franchise. If you don't think you can improve on the previous work then hand it over. I don't want directors who idolize previous films in a franchise as well as their directors, and end up giving me fan fiction, I want directors who try to deliver something more special than what we've seen before.

That aside, I personally think the Die Hard films went in the wrong direction by having bigger and bigger threats, I thought the best thing about Die Hard was the claustrophobia. They should have had Mclane getting out of tighter and tighter spots not out saving the world.

Either way, with the budget they had why not sacrifice some of it to hire an established heavyweight filmmaker. Imagine Die Hard in the hands of Cameron, Scorcese, Ridley, hell even Michael Bay or Tony Scott would've at least given me something. Dumb fun, but ambitious dumb fun nonetheless.

To me Die Hard 4 was solid fan fiction. Nothing more.

That theory is good except for the fact that Terminator 3 sucks.

I'd say the main problem is that the movie is made by the current regime at 20th Century Fox.

My wife said it best when she said that it was pretty much a "cookie cutter" action movie, which the Die Hard series is not. The film could have been called something else with Bruce as the star and it would not have missed a beat.

And when did 20th Century Fox just go batshit crazy? I mean they have not done anything in YEARS. To me it seems like Warner Brothers is the studio thats going out there and making risky films, is Watchmen and even the Batman reboot.

This is gonna be hard to explain. When I first saw ARMAGEDDON (at 14) I liked it a whole lot better than when I first saw DH4 (at 22). If I'd have to choose at any given moment nowadays which of these two movies I'd pop in, it'd be DH4 without question.

I actually saw DH4 on sunday. Caught it on cable. And as i said repeatedly, it's a good action movie. It's got some great scenes and i particularly like the action and the look of the film.

I just hate that it's called a Die Hard film, because it bares almost no resemblance to the franchise.

Also, Armageddon is pure bliss.

I was pleasantly surprised by this, and I'd watch it again before I'd watch Die Hard 2 again.

But I still don't get the name. Whose freedom was threatened in this movie?

Have you ever seen The Dirty Dozen?

Gotta think liking either Armageddon or DHINO means you haven't seen a lot of Action movies. There's fun dumb, and then there's waste your time stupid.

Hate defending Die Harder, but can some of you really not see the higher level of craft that went into it, compared to the cookie-cutter, and offensive 4?

I'm not getting into another Armageddon argument in this thread. If you can't see the difference between one type of movie and the other, you don't like seeing different types of film.

The "If only it had a different name" argument is so weak.

And FE, I've seen plenty of action films. Big budget, small budget, foreign, and domestic. LIVE FREE is a perfectly entertaining big budget summer action film. The fact that it's not as good as the first 3 isn't gonna make me forget that it's still a heck of a lot more enjoyable than what else passes for an action film from the studios in this day and age.

Not to continue the argument or anything, because it's really, really dumb, but I wouldn't say that Armageddon is in a different genre from Die Hard 4. Their both big, dumb action movies starring Bruce Willis that don't have any respect for the audience's intelligence. If you like that kind of thing, its cool, but liking one and not the other doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Unless you really, really like Ben Affleck.

Clarify this bit of stupidity. If two films are in the same genre you have to like them both? That's as dumb as ARMAGEDDON.

I was referring to Dirty Dozen and Live Free or Armageddon.

Shoulda said with the exception of Moltisanti.

Forgot you were in the pro- category. (Shoots a hole in that theory!)

Confess to being baffled by your defense though.