Live Free or Die Hard (known here in Europe as Die Hard 4.0) is the fourth film in the popular Die Hard franchise of action films starring Bruce Willis as John McClane, a detective with the NYPD.
The first Die Hard appeared in 1988, a no-frills action-suspenser that was followed by 1990's Die Hard 2: Die Harder and 1995's Die Hard With A Vengeance. Both films were not bad as action films (and sequels in general) go. The second film suffered from being a little too similar to the first's premise, while the third upped the ante somewhat and injected some much-needed new twists and turns on a by then already-jaded franchise.
This new Die Hard comes nineteen years after the first and twelve years after the last installment. Bruce Willis reprises his role as McClane. No other previous characters reappear. Sadly, McClane's wife Holly (played by the brilliant Bonnie Bedelia) disappeared after the second film, and you miss Vengeance's Samuel L. Jackson. A lot of new characters don their Die Hard hats with varying degrees of success. Timothy Olyphant isn't bad as the villain (though doesn't hold a candle to Alan Rickman or Jeremy Irons). Justin Long is Willis's new sidekick. And we meet McClane's grown-up daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Long and Winstead put effort into their parts and seem to be enjoying the trip. They're nothing to write home about, however, just two more twenty-somethings indistinguishable from most of Hollywood's line-up of young, good-looking stars.
All the Die Hard films have been based on books or original scripts intended for other franchises (the first two were based on novels and the third was intended to be a Lethal Weapon film). This one continues in that vein, being based again on the written word, this time on a 1997 article "A Farewell to Arms" written for Wired magazine by John Carlin.
The film's storyline is about virtual hackers and McClane now up against a world he doesn't understand. Hence, his need for a new sidekick, Long's whizz kid computer hacker. To be honest, the plot isn't important and you don't really need to know it. Suffice to say, it's serviceable but no more. What really matters here is: how well does this film live up to its three predecessors? The answer is fairly well. In some ways it is the weakest of the series but, all in all, a night out no more and no less.
The action is big, bad and bold (though sometimes very repetitive). There are no real surprises, sadly, and that's what I found most disappointing. Sure, McClane is subjected to many perils but you never doubt for one moment that he will survive any of them. The finale when it comes is a bit too quick, a rush job, surprising considering the over-extended battles in the middle of the film.
It seems a pity that, considering the article it was based on, the general paranoia of today's wired world, and the fact that this is the first post-9/11 Die Hard film, that more wasn't made out of the premise. With a bit more attention to the script and some retooling of the set-pieces, we could have had a much better film, something that not only thrilled you with its action but made you think. But that's not what these films are about.
My final comment on this is simply that it's not bad. If you like your action films loud and no-nonsense and you enjoyed the first three Die Hards, then chances are you'll like this one. The film is predictable to the extreme, however, so don't expect any surprises.
The first Die Hard appeared in 1988, a no-frills action-suspenser that was followed by 1990's Die Hard 2: Die Harder and 1995's Die Hard With A Vengeance. Both films were not bad as action films (and sequels in general) go. The second film suffered from being a little too similar to the first's premise, while the third upped the ante somewhat and injected some much-needed new twists and turns on a by then already-jaded franchise.
This new Die Hard comes nineteen years after the first and twelve years after the last installment. Bruce Willis reprises his role as McClane. No other previous characters reappear. Sadly, McClane's wife Holly (played by the brilliant Bonnie Bedelia) disappeared after the second film, and you miss Vengeance's Samuel L. Jackson. A lot of new characters don their Die Hard hats with varying degrees of success. Timothy Olyphant isn't bad as the villain (though doesn't hold a candle to Alan Rickman or Jeremy Irons). Justin Long is Willis's new sidekick. And we meet McClane's grown-up daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Long and Winstead put effort into their parts and seem to be enjoying the trip. They're nothing to write home about, however, just two more twenty-somethings indistinguishable from most of Hollywood's line-up of young, good-looking stars.
All the Die Hard films have been based on books or original scripts intended for other franchises (the first two were based on novels and the third was intended to be a Lethal Weapon film). This one continues in that vein, being based again on the written word, this time on a 1997 article "A Farewell to Arms" written for Wired magazine by John Carlin.
The film's storyline is about virtual hackers and McClane now up against a world he doesn't understand. Hence, his need for a new sidekick, Long's whizz kid computer hacker. To be honest, the plot isn't important and you don't really need to know it. Suffice to say, it's serviceable but no more. What really matters here is: how well does this film live up to its three predecessors? The answer is fairly well. In some ways it is the weakest of the series but, all in all, a night out no more and no less.
The action is big, bad and bold (though sometimes very repetitive). There are no real surprises, sadly, and that's what I found most disappointing. Sure, McClane is subjected to many perils but you never doubt for one moment that he will survive any of them. The finale when it comes is a bit too quick, a rush job, surprising considering the over-extended battles in the middle of the film.
It seems a pity that, considering the article it was based on, the general paranoia of today's wired world, and the fact that this is the first post-9/11 Die Hard film, that more wasn't made out of the premise. With a bit more attention to the script and some retooling of the set-pieces, we could have had a much better film, something that not only thrilled you with its action but made you think. But that's not what these films are about.
My final comment on this is simply that it's not bad. If you like your action films loud and no-nonsense and you enjoyed the first three Die Hards, then chances are you'll like this one. The film is predictable to the extreme, however, so don't expect any surprises.