The following is a counter-point movie review by Francisco Saco. You can read Peter Sciretta’s original positive review at this link.
The announcement of a new installment in the Die Hard series caused a wave of deep skepticism to wash over me. The fact that every geriatric actor in Hollywood has decided to once again take on the roles that made them household names is an insult to all fans of their original work. An obvious ploy to milk the new generation of filmgoers for all their milk money, these new and updated continuations usually fall short of their predecessors, turning away veteran fans at the expense of trying to make new and younger ones with more buying power. With all this said, knowing that an aged Bruce Willis was to reprise the classic role of Detective John McClane was a bit unsettling when I first heard of it. Nevertheless, as a devout follower of the first three films in the series, especially the first and the third parts, I attended the screening on opening day.
Already aware of the foul PG-13 rating, a dire blow to any chances of making this film even come close to the awesomeness of the first three, I was ready for a serious downgrading in the overall feel of the Die Hard franchise. Let’s face it, John McClane is foul language, John McClane is violence, and John McClane isn’t the same without a good amount of both. What I witnessed on opening night left me totally wrecked. The half-hearted expectations I had weren’t even close to being met. An utter disappointment, Live Free or Die Hard totally fails in completing the series, let alone being a coherent action film.
The absence of McClane’s use of bad words and the substitution of true violent action scenes for rubbery, outlandish CGI infested sequences cause the film to go awry right from the get go.
Len Wiseman should stick to making his far-fetched monster fantasy flicks because his style cannot obviously translate over to such a different genre of filmmaking. This time around, John McClane has been transformed into a dull caricature with no real life to him. In the three previous films, we saw a man filled with grit and guts, not to mention a whole lot of attitude, and all these elements were totally lacking from this film. He is a cartoon, jumping onto fighter jets and brandying lame one-liners with his sidekick Justin Long, who is a far cry from the beastly Samuel Jackson in Die Hard with a Vengeance.
Add to this a substandard villain, a cheesy cameo by a reticent film director, unnecessary hitmen who happen to speak French for no reason whatsoever, and gigantic logic gaps, and you begin to see a film that easily falls apart at the seams. And while all the over-the-top action scenes did not fail to entertain, they weren’t enough to make me forget how wrong this film was and how it was subsequently destroying the legacy that the first three films had so meticulously built. Totally devoid of spirit and attitude, Live Free or Die Hard makes one yearn for the John McClane of the past. Perhaps we’ll need John McTiernan to come back and rescue this series once again, since he has experience in doing this after Renny Harlin almost tarnished the McClane icon with Die Hard 2. What Harlin almost succeeded in accomplishing, Wiseman has. He has turned a great action film series into a mess of silly putty apt only for the teenyboppers and bubble gum crowd.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
This review is so fucking biased it should have been from FOX NEWS.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
i agree, you seriously need to lighten up and stop taking yourself so seriously. maybe it isn’t mcclane that’s changed, maybe it’s you? my son and i are both big die hard fans and we loved the new movie, not as much as 1 and 3 certainly, but waaaaaay more than 2.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I just got back from watching the film? It wasn’t great but it wasn’t all bad. Timothy Olyphant did his best which you can tell, the guy kicked ass in Deadwood and it looks like he was held back here. He just wasn’t hate-able. The jokes between McLean and tag along just didnt work and seemed forced. McLean is better as a lone wolf. Also I didn’t hear Yippee-ki-yae mother f)(*ker. Maybe I was gaping out. As for the reviewer saying there were logic gaps get real it’s a friggin’ action flick, it’s a film, a movie whatever the whole thing is a logic gap, thats the point stupid.
Go see it but dont expect to be blown away.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Peter Sciretta is the best reviewer on this website.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Just got back from seeing the movie and I thought that it was
entertaining, funny at times, and a good amount of action.
I do miss the grittier more vulgar McClane, it was not the best,
but way better than 2, hopefully there will be an unrated version
when it comes out on DVD
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
In some ways, I agree with the review at some points. Like “Die Hard 3″, this one was filled with even more pacing problems. (I’m talking about narrative pacing here that interweaves with the action.) The familial situation between John and his daughter Lucy was clearly forced; there was no real way to care deeply about the characters. (By contrast, consider how you felt about his family in “Die Hard 2″, when they were trapped on the plane, or his wife in “Die Hard 1″ when she was trapped in the tower.)
That said, I did really like the movie overall. The action was way, way, way over the top. But, in some ways, that’s kind of part of the fun. I do agree that the pacing of the action sequences, however, did make them a little lackluster. Here is where “Die Hard 1″ and “Die Hard 2″ were clearly superior in my opinion. For example, Maggie Q taking a car to the legs at about forty miles an hour and then getting smashed into an elevator wall — and still fighting! Yeah, that’s a bit much. It just comes off silly. But I know a lot of people didn’t like the “take on a jet fighter with a truck” sequence and while it was over the top, it was pretty cool looking.
I also liked the hacker sidesick (Justin Long). I thought their interplay was good, with one being tech-saavy and the other … well, not.
Anyway, it all just goes to show that people differ. It’s even interesting to see which of the Die Hard films people like most. I find a lot of people dislike “Die Hard 2″ where, for me, in terms of plotting and pacing, it was by far the best of all of them, followed very closely by “Die Hard 1.” The third film (”Die Hard With a Vengeance”) was, to me, the most lackluster of the bunch. So, basically, we all differ. All in all, I didn’t feel I wasted my money on “Live Free or Die Hard” so I was happy with the overall experience.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Right on, Francisco! This movie was laughable. I mean, literally… I found myself laughing during what I’m sure were all the wrong parts. This was a two-hour trip into the realm of the ridiculous.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Wow, this reviewer has no idea what he’s talking about.
Die Hard 4 was amazing - especially b/c of the fact that
it’s a sequel. The plot, the action, the humor, and the
acting were very well written/executed. And the review is
very wrong about Len Wiseman. His talents as a director
are very evident in this film!
July 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
You. Are. High.
I finally saw this movie last night, and I thought it was GREAT. Just under the original in my rankings.
It was funny. It was action packed. It was Die Hard.
Something tells me that no Die Hard movie would ever be good enough for you. Lighten up, Francis.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Dude, I think you should lighten up. It was a nice movie. Dont know how old you are but i dont think you would still be performing 12 years from now. It was marvellous. A bit exaggerrated I agree but it is entertainment. Value for my money? Yep!!! Enjoyed every bit of it.