'Cos I do!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Live Free or Die Hard
thekingofsting — 15 years ago(January 01, 2011 01:56 PM)
'Cos I do!
As a massive Die Hard fan (the original Die Hard is THE greatest action picture of all time) I feel embittered the way that they completely sold out to make this PG-13 kiddie safe turd. I am staggered at how it seems that no-one bothered to watch Die Hard, Die Hard 2 or With a Vengeance before they made this movie, and thus betrayed the fans who had parted with their cash to make the franchise so successful in the first place. There is no consistency between the first three movies and this monstrosity. The McClane in the original three movies is the reluctant hero, smart, resourceful and humourus. The McClane in 4.0 (Live Free) is basically an indestructable super hero idiot. He's a morose, boring bstard (which is basically Willis playing himself) who sleep walks his way through the movie having his hand held by Justin Long. I honestly thought at the jet scene that he was going to reveal a cape (as a super hero) and fly through the air to the final denouement.
This movie is just a succession of inane dialogue and boring action set pieces (one huge explosion after another does not make a good movie). Good direction, a good script and an interested performance from the lead would help. The editing is a joke. The movie panders to a teenage audience (Die Hard used to be a grown up, intelligent action movie series) by teaming McClane up with a limp "computer whizz" and hip young villain. Olyphant puts in an atrocious performance ("You got her now, you're sure?"). It makes me shudder to think that the series had fantastic villains like Rickman, Irons and Saddler.
Overall it is obvious that the studio decided that the last Die Hard was made so long ago (1995) that people had forgotten what made the series so great, and decided to cash in on the Die Hard brand by making this regrettable piece of nonsense, and thus totally dis-regarded its loyal fans. Willis should have had more consideration for said fans and firmly replied "no" to the studio and stuck to his guns demanding a decent director and a decent script. He IS McClane and this would have been in his power. No Willis, no Die Hard, simple! Instead this movie sums up the term a "phoned in performance".
Well the one thing that they have succeeded in doing is alienating the true Die Hard fans. I hear that they are threatening to make 5 AND 6. Not content with dumping on the franchise, they now seem determined to screw its dead carcas also.
Critics and audiences think that the Die Hard films are ridiculous action movies, and forget that the original is a brilliant thriller with top notch performances (including Willis' exceptional everyman hero), with excellent action to boot. Anyone who rates this movie can not seriously consider themselves a true Die Hard fan. For the fans that hope the next movie will be R-Rated, forget it, this one made so much dough it wont make any sense to release this as anything other than PG-13.
For those of you who think that the above is nonsense please re-watch the original and then compare it to this sht. I would love to know what McTiernan thinks of what his original master piece is now spawning, with McClane's catch phrase cloaked by a gun shot to get past censors. Sigh. Hopefully Super McClane is put out of his misery in the 5th installment, possibly by the new lead villain, Justin Bieber. -
inter_tayne012 — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 08:39 AM)
I completely agree as well. Like many other sequels that lose sight of what made the predesessors great, I hate Live Free or Die Hard with a passion(yes, even Die Hard 2 was better than this). John McClane is no longer the ordinary detective who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now he's a fearless supercop who feels that he can overcome anything, which is NOT the John McClane character at all.
Many will try to justify his lack of fear by saying that he's older and wiser now. Uhhhh.NO. First of all, the fact that he was an "aging" detective, who found himself in this terrorist situation again, should have made him a bit more worried. Second, John McClane, or so he calls himself, shows absolutely NO signs of age whatsoever as in almost EVERY action sequence, he is able to jump out of a speeding police car and "kill" a helicopter with it, survive a big fall after getting KICKED out of a window, and surf on the back of a jet(I liked that scene better in True Lies), a scene that ends with him surviving another big fall.
If there is another thing that John McClane lacks in this film, it is brains and common sense. In the previous films, whenever he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, he was STUCK there. Either he or someone that he knew was trapped in a certain place or someone that he knew was being held hostage, thus creating the clausterphobic atmosphere. He was trapped in the situation and forced to do something about it. But here, the clausterphobic feel is gone and there is no reason for him to be there. After he drops off Farell, the hacker kid, he is no longer in his custody, he now belongs to the FBI and he could have bailed anytime he wanted to. It makes no sense.
I could go on about how bad this movie is and how inconsistent it is to feel of the previous films. This is not a Die Hard film at all. -
thekingofsting — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 10:31 AM)
Agreed. The list of reasons to hate on this movie is endless. Aside from the wretched script, there is a complete lack of direction at the helm. Did anyone else think that Wiseman was in thrall of Willis and/or terrified of him, and therefore had no balls to actually give him any "direction"?. The weird blue hue that the movie was rinsed in would have been fine in an Underworld movie, but this is a Die Hard film! We need it filmed in vivid and vibrant colours to see the sweat and the tension. The Beltrami score is boring and instantly forgettable. Hes no Michael Kamen thats for sure. As I mentioned in the first post the editing is all over the place, rather than the movie flowing it jumps from one scene to another with characters mouths moving despite no dialogue coming out! I dont buy it that they wanted two versions of the movie, its just downright sloppy.
This movie could (and should) have been just another generic Bruce Willis vehicle, with which he posted zero effort into. It really grinds my gears that they had to insist on this being a Die Hard movie. It doesnt hold a candle to any of the previous three movies. In my honest opinion Bruce is so far up his backside these days, he wanted to make what he FELT was a Die Hard movie. The lack of a McTiernan to tell him any better was this movie's major downfall.
I can appreciate that everyone has an opinion on this movie, and if people like it, then good luck to them. I just know that genuine Die Hard fans like ourselves are massively disappointed that the series is tainted forever with this garbage and its only going to get worse with parts 5 and 6. -
thekingofsting — 15 years ago(January 03, 2011 01:43 AM)
Great point about Last Boy Scout Drooch. Its a fantastic movie, with an excellent Shane Black script, if only he could write a Die Hard movie! The Last Boy Scout's pacing is perfect and it balances being gritty and not taking itself too seriously superbly. It also features a good performance by Willis as Hallenbeck. He used to play the tough, cynical, world weary guy with humour and zest (the one liners in this movie are great). Not anymore unfortunately.
The thing that I appreciate about The Last Boy Scout is that its a standalone piece of work, and will not be tainted by a PG-13 sequel with no profanity, just to get its logo on the side of happy meals. Nor will Hallenbeck be reduced to being a neutered, sad ass version of his former self - as is McClane in 4.0.
We'd love to see Willis wake up from his self induced coma and put some sheer effort into making a real Die Hard movie. It wont happen though because its obvious that he just doesnt give a damn anymore. -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 11 years ago(March 06, 2015 08:48 PM)
"John McClane is no longer the ordinary detective who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now he's a fearless supercop who feels that he can overcome anything, which is NOT the John McClane character at all".
Sorry, but McClane was a fearless supercop who feels he can overcome anything since the second movie, and that was especially true in the third one. I mean, for effs sake, in the third one he survives a bunch of dumb and unrealistic situations one after another after another, from a train crash to a flood in a tunnel. -
durdin888 — 14 years ago(November 15, 2011 06:06 PM)
Not to mention, he cried about you running away and then did the exact same thing. Though, in his defense he did come back and write a novel to cover up the fact that he ran.
Back on topic, I still strongly feel Die Hard 2 set the low standard bar for the series by featuring a happy go lucky McClane. Then went around mentioning the first film every chance possible as if it's awesomeness would some how rub off. Let's not forget the Janitor side kick either.
Can you blow me where the pampers is? -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 11:39 PM)
So, you really think you can lecture someone in a film that you don't even remember yourself?
"a) No he didn't know very well that they could crash airplanes, nobody did and that's why they were all surprised when it happened. Stewart had only said 'any attempt to restore your systems will be met by severe penalties', the nature of the penalties were never made clear and Lorenzo even suspected it was a bluff.
First of all, it was very clear since the beginning that McClane didn't agree with Lorenzo that it was just a bluff. It is 100% clear that McClane knew these "terrorists" were the real deal as he was trying to prove it to Lorenzo and everyone else. And so, if a group of terrorists take over the airport's equipment it isn't logical to think that they could do some real damage and thus it is fine for McClane to go around killing terrorists, but if someone implies that there may be bobby trapps when entering the church, it is very logical for McClane to assume that the equipment that controls the airplanes will also be bobby trapped and that he must pursue ALONE a group of armed trained soldiers to get a detonator from them expecting them to not use such detonator? Right, because the most logical thing for such an average guy to do is to go on a pursuit ALONE to try and get a detonator he doesn't even know if it exists for bobby trapps he isn't even sure exist.
Let me get this straight according to you, In DH4 McClane is stupid because he provokes the guy that is threatening his daughter, but in DH2 McClane isn't stupid even after he kills bad guy after bad guy when they were threatening an entire airport (including his wife).
Also, according to you in DH4 McClane acts like a superhero who illogically takes the challenge to defeat the bad guys, but also, according to you, in DH2 McClane isn't a superhero and he acts very logical when he decides to go ALONE after a group of trained soldiers to force them to give him a detonator to disarm some bobby trapps, a detonator that he doesn't even know if it exists, hoping that the armed soldiers won't use it on some bobby trapps that McClane doesn't even know about. Of course this is logical, how didn't I see it before.
"How would you describe his behaviour here, if not 'running away' from the argument?"
Oh wait! I know that one let's see, I think it's this one: I'd describe it as getting tired of your stubbornness and false sense of accomplishment oh and also of your made up information. -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 05:22 AM)
Oh, I see you are still around here with your weak, baseless, invalid, made up points. How fun. Critics and audiences like this film, and you don't. Just accept that and you'll live a happier life.