So, I caught an early screening of Die Hard 4.0, or Live Free or Die Hard (which title is the worst, I can’t quite decide on) yesterday evening at a filled Imperial here in Copenhagen. We were told that it was one of the earliest showings of the movie in the world, which I guess puts the pressure on me to post something akin to a review up here.
Now, let it be known that I love the first Die Hard, I sorta like Die Harder and I think Die Hard With a Vengeance is an alright action romp, but it has nothing to do with Die Hard.
And I was by and large entertained while watching Die Hard 4.0, but at the same time I honestly felt ‘Michael Bay-ified’, in the bad way. Yes, the action sequences were well-produced and larger than life (much, much larger!). And yes, it does follow the bare minimum of the ‘genre’ conventions (A hero played by Bruce Willis by the name of John McClane, evildoers with some (rather weak) European ties, some Yippie-Kai-Yay’ing (with a cheap politically correct motherf*BANG*r tagged on to it) and Bruce getting beat up, while firing off witty one-liners).
The problem is just that if you peel away the items on that list from the movie, all you’re left with is a generic movie which has succumbed to the by-the-numbers execution the first movie so elegantly sidestepped.
I could honestly write a book about the overall lackluster quality of this movie. It is patronizing to its audience, lacking any and all believability and often moves the story along with ‘oh, I’ll just reroute the satellites and align the API. Oh, and I can fly a helicopter! no problem!’.
Characters, no matter if they’re ‘shallow’ action stars from the 80’s, aren’t like putty. You can’t just take John McClane and all the things he stands for, and dump him into any ol’ script and hope for the best… McClane doesn’t fly a fucking helicopter! He doesn’t fight an F-35 with a truck!
Well you can, but you’ll have young angry people like me, who feel deceived write things like: Slapping well-produced versions of seen-before action sequences into an unbelievable plot and wrapping it up in by-the-numbers writing, filming it in seen-that-been-done locations and hoping that the laughter from the absurdity of pitting a truck against an F-35 (and the stupidest pilot in the world, ever), doesn’t make a satisfying action film, only a hell of a lot of noise.
The first Die Hard had John McClane walking on glass for fuck’s sake! It’s one of the most famous scenes in an action film ever; and all he does, is walk on glass, and pull the glass from his feet! This time around, he can’t even say the word fucker without it being covered up by a gunshot!
In my humble opinion, this movie fails on such a fundamental level at being a Die Hard sequel, not to mention being an even half-witted action romp, that it’s worthless talking about actor performances or individual story or plot points.
Is it a worthy sequel to Die Hard? No.
Is it a sequel to Die Hard? The jury is still out on that one.
Can you go to the cinema and enjoy this? Yes. There is large explosions, outrageous action, oneliners and the handsome mug of Bruce Willis.
The 80’s are dead. Long live the 80’s.
I saw Live Free, Die Hard last night at a pre-screening in a private theatre with only 3 other people besides myself. And I have to say, I had quite the opposite opinion as you. I really, really enjoyed it (besides about 15 seconds of footage with the jet), and I would even consider seeing it again or perhaps picking up the DVD.
I think the reviews seen on sites like Rotten Tomatoes are a fairly good representation of what I would rate Live Free, Die Hard.
The title is “Live Free or Die Hard” here in the States. It’s probably a reference to the state motto of New Hampshire, which is “Live Free or Die”. New Hampshire doesn’t like taxes.
Someone, honestly, needs to stop Michael Bay from being involved in the film industry for the next 5 years.
His films keep being churned out and manage an ‘okay, maybe good’ – making you wonder what other directors could have done with the same genres?
Haven’t watched yet, so thanks for the review! I am going to watch it probably tonight.
The title is “Live Free or Die Hard”.
Also, please Please PLEASE tell me they didn’t make it PG-13. I’m going to be really pissed if they did.
Edit: IMDB says Live Free Or Die Hard is PG-13. GOD DAMNIT. :(
That was harsh Michael. I was at the same screening as you and I have to agree with Colin above. I loved it! It’s Die Hard as it’s supposed to be, corny, cliché and action packed. I enjoyed it very much and Bruce is still da sh!t. Imagine being 52 years old pull it off as he does :)
Oh well, it’s a free world and thanks for the review anyway. I actually came to get my hands on a WP theme and I better get working. Thanks for that too! I’m also in Copenhagen btw :)
Hi Michael,
I saw the movie some days ago as well, and I have to say that I enjoyed it very much. What I don’t understand is why you liked the first ones if you didn’t like this one?
I didn’t find them too different from the earlier movies. Good action, a lot of explosions, and John McClane surviving the most crazy attacks :-)
Anyway, I actually came here to check out your themes. Are you selling WP-themes? If you are, please drop me an e-mail.
Nope, I don’t sell themes.
Comparison of the two run deeper than checking off whether both contain explosions and a character by the name of John McClane.
Thanks Michael!
Now I know that I don’t have to hurry with seeing this one. I fully agree with you that there is something special about Die Hard. Even if the background story is a bit silly, the actors make up for it, the action is great yet believeable and the composition of the movie is almost perfect. But the most important thing is that it has HEART! You really feel something for John in the first one. They loose that in the beginning of the second movie (probably got on the wrong plane;) and it hasn’t been found yet.
But that is a problem with (almost) all Blockbuster sequels…
Whatever people say I am still going to see this movie, as I love the first Die Hard. Some bad special effects spoil the second one, though it’s still a good film (especially the end), and despite what anyone says, I love the third one. Cheesey one liners, over the top action and the usual cliches will not stop me from going to see this film…after all, it is Die Hard, and not your average action flick starring Van Damn. Hopefully, it won’t be crap.
Women think Bruce is sexy. In this movie he is bald. Now women will think bald men are sexy. 3 out of 5 stars for said achievement.
Moving on.
Like Tara said, the title is likely inspired by the New Hampshire motto ‘Live Free or Die’, probably the COOLEST motto. Ever.
It sounds like a Braveheart quote, but it’s taken from a 1809 letter and reads:
Freeeedom!!
But come on; isn’t it a total sellout to not have the same title in all territories? That spells ‘let’s sell this movie on patriotism to the Americans, but in other territories that won’t do, so let’s change the title’.
Come on Fox; grow a pair!
I know this isn’t Gandhi or The Godfather, but where is their integrity?
Michael, I completely and totally agree with you. This film was a hatchet-job all the way.
Sure, it gets the job done and if you can get over the compete absurdity of the action sequences you might enjoy bits here and there, but let’s not make any mistake here, the film is bad in every way a film can be bad. Was it watchable? Yeah. Entertaining? A little. But Good? Fuck no.
Scott Tobias’ review at the AV Club nails it on the money:
Thank you! For a moment there I thought the entire world had gone haywire.
I watched Die Hard 4.0 (due to the computer hacking related theme of the movie) yesterday and then went back home and watched Die Hard and Die Hard– With a vengeance.
I feel the hero has become hugely larger than life like Indian (read bollywood) heroes and hence has lost the lustre completely. The 80’s McClane seems more down-to-earth and realistic as he struggles to defeat the villain. I also felt that there used to be balance of perfomance & action in the script which was not visible in the latest version. So, I feel the director & script-writer failed to understand the philosophy behind DIE HARD and the character. They just tried to reinvent the old wheel with nylon tyred and all but failed miserably.
I would however, like to congratulate the action director, the special effects supervisor and the cameramen as they have done a splendid job.
The action sequences were cool, and the movie was competantly made (aside from all the ridiculous computer bullshit), but it just wasn’t Die Hard.
Whatever anyone says, John McClane is the ultimate action hero!!!!!
like any other film you could rip massive holes in it for being unrealistic but who cares its a die hard film. brucie is invincible and I say that because he jumped out of 2 speeding cars, beat a helicopter with a car “because he ran out of bullets” and of course outsmarted an f-35 and 5 of its 99% accurate heat seeking missiles with a big rig and a bridge. genius. wot more can i say, if you want an emotional film watch love actually and have a cry otherwise watch die hard 4.0 and buzz your tits off
Thank you; you are officially the reason the shelves at our collective local video stores are filled to the brim with stupidity.
What’s a stupid movie anyway? People go to a movie to get entertained and if they were entertained, then it must be a good movie. There are really no stupid movies, just people with the stupid notion that movies ought to be intelligent. So Michael, why not just stick to documentaries. Intelligently sophisticated people like you deserve nothing less.
hi.there.i am a damn die hard fan and was just on my toes to watch this 4.0. but truly speaking i was a little bit upset after watching it. the main theme in die hard is a man rejected by all and still all alone he fights because of his duty and never runs away.
in this part we missed mcclane with a berreta in one hand and painkiller in the other. when you find that the sequences are illogical (f-35 scene, in the production station, in the tunnel….….) you just can’t be attached with the character and feel his PAIN. else this is a very good movie.
[quote comment=“138396”]What’s a stupid movie anyway? People go to a movie to get entertained and if they were entertained, then it must be a good movie. There are really no stupid movies, just people with the stupid notion that movies ought to be intelligent. So Michael, why not just stick to documentaries. Intelligently sophisticated people like you deserve nothing less.[/quote]
Nice rewrite of the “You’re either with us or against us” notion. Unfortunately here, in the real world, where I live, it’s not a world of polarized extremes, as opposed to where you live.
The entertainment industry, like all others is ruled by the law of supply and demand. If there is a strong market for a certain commodity, then its production increases accordingly. If you are right in saying that “the shelves at our collective local video stores are filled to the brim with stupidityâ€, then we who patronize stupid movies are the overwhelming majority. There are so many of us in fact that you started wondering whether “the entire world has gone haywire†(only to be relieved to find out that a handful of believers still exist).
Art appreciation is subjective and you do not have any right to call our taste “stupidâ€. We are the majority and you are overruled.
Since I work in the ‘entertainment industry’, I have some perspective on this, and quite frankly, ‘art appreciation’ is a concept that has just about nothing to do with 99% of what comes out of Hollywood. And I don’t say that to belittle popcorn movies, romcom’s, cheap horror flicks, games, pop or rock records and so on and so forth.
But let’s keep the two things separate. Art is art. Entertainment is entertainment. The two can crossover, but they are, as a generally applicable rule, not equal to each other.
Now, I concur, more than you might know, with the subjectivity of entertainment in general. But imagine for a moment that we were talking about food, and not movies. Die Hard and its ilk, would be comparable to McD’s and Burger King. Mass produced, major brand names, created to hit as many people as possible in an effort to maximize profit (I don’t have to explain profit maximization, with your lecture on supply and demand, I can tell you’re the kind of guy that knows what I’m talking about here).
Now me, I likes me some fastfood, no doubt about it. I also like classy food, and I don’t mind paying for it; but fastfood is good enough for me most days.
Then one day I get a Big Mac, and it’s bad. It’s lukewarm, the salat is a day old, the tomato’s aren’t ripe and the meat is rare. Shit.
Same recipe mind you; there’s only so many ways (one) in which you can make a Big Mac, and this one was made to the letter. But the person who made it obviously didn’t have any sense of what it is that makes a good Big Mac good.
Some people might’ve enjoyed that burger; right? You’re a bit tipsy, walking home to hit the sack after a night on the town. Under those circumstances, that burger might’ve looked pretty good. Right?
And this hypothetical guy, he doesn’t remember too well how a Big Mac used to taste, nor does he really care. He’s looking for something organic he can shove down his throat, for his stomach to digest.
And to him, this pastiche of the proto-Big Mac is good enough. Down the hatch. Move on home. Sleep.
But me, I remember how a Big Mac used to taste, and I know how well a burger can be done.
So now you tell me, when I meet you on the street, and you ask me: “How was the burger?”, and I say: “Not particularly good. Slapped carelessly together and dead on arrival; nothing like the Big Mac they used to make.”, am I right or wrong to say that?
I mean ‘supply and demand’ tells us McD’s very much in demand, seeing as how they have restaurants from Moscow to Freetown.
And surely, since that’s the case, I must just not know how to truly appreciate this particular burger. Right?
Aren’t I just being a bit picky, when everyone else seems to not care that their burgers are a pale reflection of what they should be? Surely so!
But that doesn’t change the fact that my burger, the movie Die Hard 4.0, is a poor pastiche of what once was; a thinly veiled attempt at cashing in on one of the most well-known of Fox’s franchises (and one of the last that hadn’t yet been properly bent over the table and had its way with).
Lucky for people like you, there are plenty of movies where the explosion’n‘tits-to-quality ratio is in your favor (See: Casablanca for stupid people).
But please, don’t come here and spill your complacent ‘millions of flies eat shit, so we must be content with eating shit’ mentality, which is Uwe Bollian and Paul W. S. Andersonesque in its nearsightedness and lack of ambition.
Have some fucking backbone man!
Taste is not universal, it is subjective. Big Mac may be OK to you but it will never sell in India (even if it was made to the letter) because they simply do not eat beef. In the same manner, eating live maggots may not appeal to you but they are considered delicacies in some places in Africa.
“Millions of flies eat shit, so we must be content with eating shit†will not sound ridiculous if the one speaking is a fly. And that is precisely my point. Flies eat shit because its food to them. Does that make their taste stupid? On the other hand, I bet you cannot make flies watch the entire Die Hard 1 movie and expect them to like it as much as you did. They’ll probably call you stupid if you did that.
If you still don’t get it, my point is this – other people’s taste not conforming to your own standards does not give you the right to call it stupid.
And where does it say that sequels must be better or as good as the original? How many examples of this can you think of? To many including myself, the first God Father was far better than the second. Should we therefore label the second (which won an Oscar for best picture) as SHIT?
McD’s and Burger Kings are mass produced to make them deliverable to as many people as possible. And indeed, many people patronize them not because they are the best tasting food in the world but because they are conveniently located, they have good service and most importantly, their prices are affordable. Just because their popularity is not based on taste doesn’t make them BAD. In the same manner, movies being high on entertainment and low on art, does not necessarily make them bad movies. They were simply made to for people who would like to go to the cinemas to be entertained.
I also like to watch quality art films but not ALL THE TIME. In the same manner, you don’t eat classy food all the time. There are times I just want to relax, and there are times I like to appreciate works of art. But if I were after “believabilityâ€, I would just stay at home and watch Animal Planet.
And you said “But let’s keep the two things separate. Art is art. Entertainment is entertainment.†BULLSEYE! Movies like Die Hard are entertainment films. They have no pretense on being realistic, educational or artistic and therefore should be evaluated based essentially on their entertainment value.
I’ve not seen Casablanca for Stupid People because based on the title, I am not among the target audience (I assume YOU have seen it). On second thought, if you are correct in saying that I live in a world of polarized extremes between the Michael believers and the stupid non-believers (WOW, I am suddenly enlightened to the true meaning of life), I guess the movie is indeed for me.
Oh, how I wish I had time to join this conversation (NOT!:).
If I go to McDieHard I want my McClane burger fresh and crisp not lukewarm and spongy… I want my burger to be made with feeling not slapped together by a tired college student dropping dandruff all over the place. Well, you get the picture! Just want to say that I enjoy this discussion more than the said movie…
Much in the same manner that Bollywood movies don’t have much of an audience outside of India. This is strictly speaking subjective, but really it’s socially conditioned; but I digress. It however is irrelevant to the discussion, in that Die Hard 4.0 probably doesn’t do much business in India (or Afghanistan, or on Easter Island and so on and so forth).
So we’ve established: Die Hard and Big Mac’s are primarily limited to the western/westernized worlds. This is irrelevant to our discussion.
Not to the fly, but when you anthropomorphize the concept, it is a little thing I like to call a metaphor for people who keep their heads low and their expectations lower.
Flies have no (known) language, so I doubt they’d do that.
That’s a very lovely thought, but it’s also a useless stance, for a number of reasons. First of all because it effectively stops any and all talk of taste. “Did you like it?” – “It was what it was.” – “True, true. Want to grab a burger?”
The fact that I have my own taste, and the will to fight for it, is what it worth creating entertainment (and yes, art) in the first place. And that sure as shit gives me the right to call it stupid. Not only because it is, and I can see that (and I can tell you why), but because if I didn’t have that right, we’d live in a world where a lot of movie reviewers would be without a job (“Sorry Mr. Kermode, you’re not entitled to an opinion”).
So that in itself, is a stupid thing to say.
Secondly, without opinions, we wouldn’t have movies. Because good entertainment comes from people who have standards that aren’t like everyone else’s.
I never said that it had to be. But if you’re asking me what my criteria for making a worthy sequel to anything is, then alright:
1) Stay true to the uniqueness of the original. If it’s worth making a sequel for this particular movie, make sure you remember what separated it from the rest of the pack, and bring that with you. Don’t stay too close, but don’t stray too far either. (Die Hard 4.0isn’t intimate, it tries to be epic. It isn’t bloody and people don’t say fuck. It isn’t a Christmas movie. It breaks the power and danger of the single bullet and the single explosion by, among so many things, pitting a truck against an F-35. The danger of hanging in an elevator shaft with the MP5 slowly slipping its grip is replaced with driving a car through a near future science fiction ‘control room’, in a suspiciously Terminator-like manner, wedging it in an elevator and having a fist fight all the while. The story doesn’t progress naturally, it makes use of entirely implausible ‘let me just rewire this phone to use the satellite system, in half a minute’ turning points and so on and so forth)
2) Add to it. If your hero has a back story and certain characteristics laid out, build from that. (Die Hard 4.0hardly even mentions the events of the previous movies, his wife gets merely a passing remark, despite having been core to the first two movies. McClane stalks his own daughter in a creepy fashion? No.)
3) Give the audience what they need, not what they think they want (McClane isn’t Rambo + one liners).
I don’t care what you label it as (as long as you keep it in one word; ‘Godfather’). The argument isn’t about sequels in general, that’s just you polarizing the argument. Again.
Sequels are like any other movie; if they’re competently made, it’s not a problem. But Die Hard 4.0 isn’t competent. Nor is it ‘SHIT’. It’s just sub-mediocre.
That’s bad enough in itself, though had it not been a Die Hard sequel it could have slipped into oblivion. But when you make a sequel to a rather big franchise, you’d better make good on the promise, or else even mediocrity isn’t good enough.
There you go with the art again. This is nothing to do with art! NOTHING TO DO WITH ART! Take your vocabulary and cross out ‘Art’, and put a big fat circle around the following words: ‘Quality’, ‘Craftsmanship’ and ‘Originality’. That is what a movies like Die Hard 4.0 is missing, not fucking art.
Thank you.
I’m glad you noticed.
They have no pretense on being realistic, educational or artistic and therefore should be evaluated based essentially on their entertainment value.
You wouldn’t call the first Die Hard ‘realistic’? On what scale? Because if we’re on the 0 is Pelle Eroberen and 10 is taking out an F-35 with a truck and all the shenanigans involved in the sequence (including the pilot, who was unaware of the fact that his plane could hover at about 100 meters and he could simply press the ‘fire’ button to let the heat seeking missiles do his job, instead of trying to dive the fucking thing in between elevated freeway lanes). Then I’ll place the wildest action scene in the first Die Hard, with our protagonist tying a firehose around his waist and jumping off of a building, on a solid 3. 4 If you’re having a bad day. And that, is well within reasonable limits of what I call ‘realistic’.
I think we’ve put the idea of artistic value to rest in this discussion of ‘entertainment’. And your mentioning of ‘educational’ is entirely out of the blue, so I’m also going to pass on that.
Of course; I wouldn’t reference something I didn’t know anything about. You wouldn’t know this, but to know good, you must know bad.
Because of this, I also know that if you like Die Hard 4.0, you’ll enjoy this ol’ blast from the past, which fits as well in with its predecessors as Die Hard 4.0 does.
Give me a fucking break; that is your closing argument? That’s it?
“I ironically make you look like you’re as important as you think you are, and then I dismiss your importance as if it was irrelevant. Peh.”
But you got that last part right though, it is a movie for you. It has big action set pieces, with explosions, one-liners, a bad guy, a person who looks like a great on-screen character from 20 years ago, who talks like that same character from 20 years ago and a sweeping score.
But most importantly, for you to be entertained, it has moving colors on the screen and loud noises coming out of the speaker system.
And Hollywood has plenty of that, which makes you the lucky one between the two of us.
Mmmm, mediocrity.
OK, YOU WIN!
I’m sorry I was a non-believer, Enlightened One.
Please accept me now as your apostle. I will try to gather the “millions of flies who eat shit†and bring them the good news. Michael the Savior has arrived.
Listen to me now “stupid†ones. Finding pleasure in watching non-believable action films will condemn you to eternal mediocrity. So all you who enjoyed watching Die Hard sequels, James Bond, Spiderman, Batman, Terminator, Indiana Jones, Transformers, etc kneel down before Michael the Messiah and REPENT your sin!
On second thought, what’s wrong with pure entertainment? I go to the movies knowing its all product of someone’s creative imagination. As long as I enjoy watching it, who cares what a fucking truck does to fucking F35. If I want a doctorate in applied physics, I’ll go a university.
So let us continue enjoying our shit. There are millions of us and we have “99% of Hollywood†on our side (including many film reviewers who need not insult you just to make pretense that they have a deeper understanding of what YOU should enjoy). Let Michael and the other 1% of Hollywood eat their shit.
I’ll let you have the last say on this, Michael. Who cares? You belong to an insignificant minority anyway.
WordPress chokes on further comments on this entry, so I’ve moved the discussion to this entry.