Pajiba

I knew this film was doomed the moment I saw the PG-13 rating. He doesn't even say the whole phrase? What a fucking copout.

Oh, bother. That's disappointing as all hell, as the original flick (and the third, to a much lesser extent) are quite quotable about the workplace.

At least now I can focus on Transformers, and use the energy I would've had for Die Hard to shore up my enthusiasm for the former.

wobble-lipped sniffle, damp snuffling

I have to disagree. I saw this movie on Wednesday, and I loved it! I found it to be better then Die Hard 2 & 3. Total popcorn summer movie but much better then all the other summer sequels the studios keep shitting out (Spiderman and POTC I'm looking at you!) Completly forgettable but fun. For Godsake, he blows up a helicopter with a car!

This makes me sad now. The lack of R rated language was bad enough, but reducing McClane to something other than the previous incarnations is just wrong. I love the original Die Hard and Die Hard 3 (2 to a much, much lesser extent as there are movies worse than it). I am still probably going to go see it this weekend though.

Damn...my hopes were low due to the fact that Wiseman is the director, but I had hoped that Willis and addition of one of my favorite humans, Timothy Olyphant (I've just discovered the glory that is Deadwood), would rectify that. Oh well. Another one for the Netflix queue I guess.

I, too, am sad that this is not at least as good as Die Hard III, but I have to say, well done Daniel! That was a really good review.

I'll always have Hans Gruber, so I think I can get past my disappointment.

I actually had a lot of fun watching this movie, but I'm pretty sure it was due to the fact that I saw it with 8 friends who had just marathoned the other two in the last 48 hours as well. Watching these kinds of films (especially Die Hard 2) is better with a little help from your friends.

When I saw the PG-13 rating on this latest Die Hard offering, I heard taps. How can you have a Die Hard movie without liberal use of "motherfucker"? Simply put, you can't.

And while I'm talking about PG-13 ratings, what's going on with all the PG-13 "horror" movies as of late? Can't anyone make a decent R rated horror movie (notice, I said "decent" so that eliminates offerings like Hostel). Can't they throw the ADULTS a bone one in a while?

I'm going to say it was big, dumb, and fun.

I knew we were in trouble as soon as I saw the PG-13 rating. That, and the preview with Bruce Willis standing on the wing of the Jet. Part of me still wants to see this, even though I knew I'll be disappointed.

I saw this movie Wednesday and I agree with the review, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it. This has been a good summer for getting-stoned-before-you-go movies (you all remember small-town college life, right?) and Live Free's will wow you if you're in the right state of mind.
So see it high at a matinee and get your favorite cheap food after. There's no way you'd regret it.

See it stoned at a matinee (remember small-town college life?) and it'll be well worth it.

Just as I feared, boy am I glad I waited for you guys to get a review up before I went to see it. It's always good to know what I'm walking in to.

WTF? You can't ELIMINATE the end of the yippee-ki-yay-motherfucker IN the film! On the bus advertisements, sure, but in the movie? That is the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Rent "16 Blocks" instead. I know Dustin didn't love it, but it's Bruno at his resigned/beat down best and it's helmed by a "real" director...Richard Donner (sigh). He's dreamy.

I smelled serious trouble over LFDH when SF Chronicle reviewer Mick LaSalle said, "The latest 'Die Hard' film . . . is the best in the series." (Yes, that is a direct quote from his review.)

Huh? "Die Hard" the iconic, archetypal action picture I've voluntarily watched at least thirty times? DC's first-paragraph description of that film is spot-on, and everything I've seen or heard about LFDH makes the rest of the review sound spot-on as well.

So, anyway, Mick's enthusiastic support of a movie once again let me know that it was actually going to blow. I'll catch it on HBO/Max/Show/whatever in December.

As I said in the Ratatouile comments, Pajiba isn't going to like it.

I liked it a lot and disagree with a lot of your points. This DID feel like a Die Hard movie and Willis was playing McClane, not just generic Bruce Willis Action Hero. There are several great close combat scenes amidst all the cgi nuttery, the opening shootout in Matt's apartment kicks things off right, and "Yippe Ki Yay" works at the end. The PG-13 rating is irritating and there are scenes that were obviously overdubbed but it's still a solid action movie. It has plot holes galore and gets ridiculously over the top by the end of it, but you know what, I don't care. McClane is back and if this is the final go around it's a good note to go out on. If you are a fan of the other 3 see it. It's not as good as "Die Hard" but it is better then Die Hard 2 and at least on par with With a Vengeance.

My expectations were low but I was pleasantly surprised.

Oh and another thing - could we just talk about the title for a minute? Live Free or Die Hard? Seriously? I thought that was a joke when I first heard it months ago.

It's like someone who actually hated the original Die Hard film got a hold of this latest installment and decided to turn it into a big joke. Like when the seniors in my high school got together and voted the biggest idiot in as class president for the next year as a prank on my returning junior class. Guess who suffered? We did! That's who, WE DID!

When I saw the PG-13 rating on this latest Die Hard offering, I heard taps...I knew we were in trouble as soon as I saw the PG-13 rating...
WTF? You can't ELIMINATE the end of the yippee-ki-yay-motherfucker IN the film!

Add my voice to the chorus.

Daniel, your review makes me want to go home and watch the original again. Eighties Alan Rickman...Mmmmmmm.

I watched it and with the sorta horrible trailer, PG-13 rating, Len Wiseman directing, and kid from the Apple ads co-starring I really didn't think it was going to be much. But I liked it. I liked it so much I am going to have to say this review is perhaps biased and request a secondary review because my fellow Pajibians are missing on a actual worthwhile flick. And no I'm not just saying it's biased because he dislikes it.

No that's fine. But the way he says it. Like Timothy Olyphant who was a VERY good villian. "Oh yeah he was good but get any athletic square jawed person and they coudld do it." "It's as if Len Wiseman is trying to cover all bases" They're two different characters saying two different things not a case of schizophrenia. Really that's like saying, "Well Mel Gibson wants to just die and Danny Glover wants to just make it back home to his family and retire. Huh. Guess Richard Donner is trying to cover all bases."

And not evoking a Die Hard feel? Really the only element to place it outside of Die Hard is that John McClane is actually in control but other than that it did have the Bruce Willis doing insane shit and cracking jokes vibe. Realistic? Really? Jumping off a bridge hanging onto a cable on a frigate? Oh or were you talking about actually surviving that bomb after throwing it off the subway and it exploding several seconds afterwards? No? How about the jumping onto the subway itself from street level? Maybe you're getting the picture. And the CGI isn't out of control. Matter of fact it is being praised for being a back to basics stuntwork. I mean Bruce Willis' stunt double did break some bones. But seriously Pajiba. If it's not too much to ask...a secondary review. Let not these people toil in their disappointment no longer when they could be watching a seriously cool movie.

P.S. I do believe I heard, "fucker". Maybe it's just my theater's sound system or something but even if I didn't the context the gunshot was in...I can't say I really cared.

Fuck it. I stopped reading after I saw that PG-13 comment. No way in hell I'm gonna waste my money on this

No "Yippie-ki-Yay Motherfucker?" Damn!

MaryWoo, I thought the same thing about the bullshit title. It's just so cheesy.

Pg-13 = Live Free or Die Flaccid, nooooo thank you.

I don't know if it was my mind projecting how hacky this was going to be, but, ...was there a VTOL aircraft flying and shooting shit up in the promos?
Wasn't this done before by Cameron?

Bah, I'm not wasting my time or my money on this stinky piece of cowplop.

Nice Son Volt reference in the headline -- and from an appropriately titled song, no less.

Just saw TRANSFORMERS.

This one (LFODH, or DIE HARD 4.0, as it's known in Europe) is a friggin' masterpiece compared to that jumbo pile o' shit.

Brie,
Right?

Jerce,
Thanks for re-presencing the delicious evil of Alan Rickman.
Mmmmmmm, indeed.

Just one minor point - inasmuch as this may be a generic action movie, With A Vengance wasn't orignally written as part of the Die Hard series (check IMDb).

Maymar: none of the Die Hard sequels are based on original scripts. All of them are either novels or stand alone scripts molded to fit Die Hard. The first movie was based on a book called "Nothing Lasts Forever" (I've read it, kind of trippy), second one on an unrelated novel called "58 Minutes"(?), 3rd on a script called "Simon Says".

All of you blasting the movie sight unseen the based on Pajiba's review are missing out. Check out some other reviews before dismissing the movie out of hand. I know this site has some elitist commenters but Christ this is even more excessive then usual.

Rob,
I get your point about not having seen the film.

But, for me, the combination of the name, the trailer and the PG-13 rating disqualifies the film for me. If this had been a favorable review I might have put aside my misgivings and gone anyway.

Also, I think this film is suffering from backlash from other recent hackjobs. I mean, come on, did you see Spiderman 3? How much more of this bullshit are we supposed to put up with? I guess it's never going away, but the fact that that "Hostel II" freak is writing paranoid blogs about the real reason people are losing interest in his films gives me hope that things can change and people will eventually say enough is enough.

As for the "elitist commenters...more excessive than usual" - go to the top of the page:

"Scathing Reviews. Bitchy people."
It's in the NAME.

graffiti artists in my neighborhood have blacked out all but the "HARD" on the billboard by the train station. I have to say, it makes me giggle.

I have to say, yeah John McClane is not anymore among us, and the movie is as over the top as it could possibly be, still I had so much fun watching it! the first Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever but still is not Bergman so i won't feel so sad if this one is not esactly on the same page. And also you can't tell me 1408 is a great horror movie and then destroy this one.

i SOOO wanted this movie to be good, but from the very first preview i could tell that it was exactly what dan said it was, a generic action film with nothing new to contribute. it doesn't even look like it belongs in the die hard series.

sigh. i'll probably still see it since i saw the first 3 with my brother and his girlfriend, and we plan on keeping the tradition alive.

to be quite fair though, die hard started going downhill with the third installment (in my opinion). it became too cop/buddy. i missed the familiar christmas setting, the mcclane family drama and john mcclane's self-deprecating style. god, this could have been so good.

Yep, bitchy. I had a fucking blast. I didn't think anything else, certainly this year, could have me laughing with joy at such audacious gags as "Hot Fuzz" did. And that was "Hot Fuzz"'s secret weapon, it expertly made fun of cool shit, but it *had* some really cool shit. Not to say I thought the action here "laughable", that's just how I react when impressed by insanity.

The best thing about John McClane and his nemeses is when everyone starts getting mad at each other for not dying already, and this crew is pretty resilient, unlike the Germans who were dispatched one by one and stayed dead. It's a rush when you see the Die Hard villains start to sweat, even though you know they've still got a dirty trick or two left to give John pause, and they're gonna threaten his family and seemingly leave the heroes no choice. It *is* a Die Hard movie, one could even positively or negatively say it's an update of the original, except this time Al Powell is along for the ride and there's at least one Fed who's not a schmuck.

But, yeah, when the smug villains start getting pissed and scared cause fuckin McClane won't fuckin die, and is still coming for your ass, there's few characters that can hold a candle to him.

The short point: it brought me the goods. He just didn't say "fuck".

Nice. If I stoop to watching this film, I'll convince myself its only because of Tim Olyphant.

What the hell is up with people demanding rewrites of reviews? Don't agree with the review, I get that. Want to dispute the review, I get that, too. But to demand a second review because you liked the movie and the reviewer didn't? Makes no sense to me. Here's another option - read reviews that agree with your take on the movie. This isn't rocket science. Cheese and crackers, people.

For the record, I saw this tonight, and completely agree with Daniel. Bruce Willis looked utterly bored throughout the movie, and there were blantantly obvious CGI shots that sort of took me out of the movie, despite the other great action sequences. Justin Long was ai-ight, and the girl who played the daughter was utterly useless outside of plot contrivance. That said, Cliff Curtis was all kinds of yummy, for me at least. Also, Cyril Raffaelli is hot.

Save your money, Pajibites. Please. The only reason I spent mine is because my friend's grandfather passed away today, and she wanted to go to the movies to get her mind off things. I really wanted to see Ratatouille, and I wish I had. Sigh - the things you sacrifice for friendship. She seemed to enjoy it, so at least that's something.

who co-wrote Live Free or Die Hard with Mark Bomback and, one assumes, a Magic 8 Ball

Thanks. That was much more entertaining than it sounds like the actual movie is. I seem to be along in not liking DH3, although I thought the original was great. Guess I can give this one a miss, too.

DHIAF?

Daphne, I'm not requesting a second consensus because Daniel didn't like it (Just like I had stated in my comment). I am requesting a second consensus because so many of the readers are getting so disheartened to a movie they could actually enjoy. Maybe a second consensus would make a more reasonable review. I know I'm not alone here. It's 76% over at rottentomatoes and from the people in the comment section who have watched it so far only you and and Carlos W have disliked it. I mean I personally go to Pajiba because they never steer me wrong when it comes to what to watch and read sans the glowing Smokin' Aces review which was also written by Daniel Carlson. And I'm sure I'm not alone with that. Readers come here and implicitly put faith in these reviews because nine out of ten times the nail is hit right on the head. I'm really not doing this to rebel against Pajiba or just because I liked the movie. I simply think a second view would be a great service to the readers who don't want their little hopes crushed so violently.

Travis,

What the fuck are you blathering on about? You're saying that because you enjoyed the film and it's got a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, you want Pajiba to fall in line and post a positive review? Are you serious? Clearly you misunderstand the concept of a review, specifically the part where the writer gives the reader his personal opinion of the film. Asking Pajiba to post a positive review of this film so more people will go see it is ridiculous, and moreover, it makes me wonder whether you work for 20th Century Fox.

"...and from the people in the comment section who have watched it so far only you and and Carlos W have disliked it."

Eh? No, that's not what I said. I'm actually in your corner, dude, I quite enjoyed DIE HARD 4. The 'jumbo pile o'shit' is was referring to is TRANSFORMERS.

Unfortunately, Travis, your attempt at a good deed is clouded by some pretty gaping flaws in your arguments. For one, you said that you weren't accusing Daniel of a bias because he didn't like the movie, but because of the WAY he says it. But everything after that pretty much says the opposite. You didn't come up with one good reason for suspecting bias besides "He didn't like this part..." or "He was wrong about this...", all about the movie. If he had said he didn't like the Die Hard series, or Bruce Willis, or even guys shooting at each other, you would have a better case for calling bias.

Daniel never said it was a bad movie, just that, for a movie with Die Hard in it's name, it was unremarkable and a carbon copy of other recent action films. Someone here said that the movie was "completely forgettable but fun" and considered that complementary. Die Hard, as far as many of us are concerned, shouldn't be forgettable. We should want to torture our loved ones with quotes from it for years to come. People still get goosebumps when anyone mentions Hans Gruber, for goodness sake! So to see what should have been the rebirth of a classic franchise be so underwhelming, well, forgive us if we may not be happy about that.

As far as your "two people saying two different things" complaint, your analogy doesn't hold water, because nobody was supporting Riggs' suicidal urges, least of all Riggs himself. The statements you complain about are two issues that are put against each other: patriotism vs. lack of faith in the system. Your "Lethal Weapon" example is one guy trying to kill himself but not having the guts, and another guy trying not to die. Those don't exactly butt heads.

If you had read carefully, you would have seen that most of the people here (including some people who liked it) did not have high expectations for the flick. They were not going to see it UNLESS there was a positive review. They made the decision to skip it already, and the review only justified that decision to them. And there are still those who read this review, understand that it may suck, and will still go and see it. So your complaint really has no merit, and a second review wouldn't make a difference.

And to ask for a second, more positive review is insulting to the commenters and the reviewers, because it sounds like their opinions don't matter to you. Do you honestly feel that anyone who chooses to not see this movie is biased or somehow losing out? I sincerely hope not, because if you are, that is really insulting. You are basically saying that mature (for the most part) adults can't make their own decisions about a movie. If they see it or not, unless you really do work at Fox, it isn't any of your concern. You expressed your liking of the movie; you expressed your disappointment in the review. That is it. That's all you can do.

What killed it for me was how poorly edited the movie was! There were lines being said when people's lips weren't even moving, continuity gaffes, and cuts that jumped in odd places (and I don't mean in an artistic or stylized way). It was so distracting! It seems the whole thing was put together rather lazily. I expected much more care from a such an expensive flick.

Jen. W-No I'm not saying that just because critics and people like it that Pajiba should conform. I am merely suggesting a secondary consensus from someone else on the Pajiba staff. A lot of the comments has these people so downtrodden because they think this movie is going to be horrible. Again for those people who only seem to be reading snippets of my comments and replying here it is in big letters: SECOND CONSENSUS FROM SOMEONE ON THE PAJIBA STAFF. There now reply away.

Vermillion: "I liked it so much I am going to have to say this review is perhaps biased and request a secondary review because my fellow Pajibians are missing on a actual worthwhile flick." That would be a quote from me. I'm sure somewhere along the line I was trying to be apologetic and maybe tripped up so your confusion makes sense. You're right about the Lethal Weapon analogy. I was trying to think of a buddy cop movie where the two partners are at odds. But still while the analogy may not hold water the point still does. It's two different characters expressing two different viewpoints. Not a covering of all bases. I actually did come up with several reasons as to his bias. Whether they are good or not is in the eye of the beholder but I personally found them (And the wailing cries within the comment section) enough to influence my comment. So you know...look that up.

But I guess you're right. My attempts to console the disappointed people here with a second review that would surely be somewhere among reasonable is selfish and I'm just a son of a bitch for it. I suppose I'm getting nowhere with this aside from people who just read select sentences and think I have some goal other than for the disheartened fans of Die Hard. Aside from you Vermillion. You actually managed to point out a bad analogy. Also I've been commenting for a while but I suppose I have no way other than that to prove I'm not a studio plant.

Just to clarify and I guess finalize my comments here assuming I won't have to further defend myself: I don't think it's the best movie of the year. Not even the best action movie of the year. Maybe the best action movie of the summer so far in a season that's giving us you know...Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Carribean 3. Doesn't mean much but these are the scraps we're getting these days. The opening scene is awkward and as mentioned the editing is all over the place. But it does evoke the Die Hard feel better than you'd expect from someone who made trash like Underworld. Seriously Die Hard fans...it's worth watching. Don't let the PG-13 rating scare you. That is all.

You know what? I did reread all your responses here. And I did acknowledge that you were trying to do a good thing. Honestly, I really did consider seeing the movie after reading your assessment. I can freely admit, you had a good thing going there, until you said that Dustin had a bias, and that there should be another review.

My issue is this: since when did there ever need to be a second opinion on a movie? They have been doing this for three years, and not yet have I seen them ever do that. So why now? Why this particular movie?

In fact, by your comment, YOU act as that second opinion. Sure, you don't work for Pajiba, but you still presented another viewpoint to the movie, and recommended it. Just like the second reviewer you requested. And while I am still not convinced of this 'bias' you picked up, your opinion would be just as valid as his.

Nobody was upset with you for not agreeing with the review. They were upset because you implying that they were somehow wrong for listening to Daniel. After three years, quite a few people have built up some trust in the reviewers. To call their integrity into question (which you did by saying there was a bias) is going to be incendiary to say the least. And really, your comment could have made the same points without the 'bias' or 'second review' remarks.

So, at least for myself, I apologize for my part in making you feel like you were under attack. It was not my intention. But understand, your comment could have been a bit more diplomatic and avoided all this. Nobody likes being told they were wrong, and unfortunately, your comments could be read that way. I sincerely hope this doesn't sour you somehow. This site needs folks who can carry their own.

I am just happy you didn't resort to "Tis moive rawks, U guys sux azz" type comments.

I suppose I'm getting nowhere with this aside from people who just read select sentences and think I have some goal other than for the disheartened fans of Die Hard. Aside from you Vermillion.

Travis, I think I was among two posters who responded directly to what you've said and you're feeling attacked? Wow.

I am a Die Hard fan, and saw this movie before reading the review. Trust me, my opinion would have been the same even if Daniel had been singing its praises. As Vermillion stated, your opinion is a mini-review in and of itself. I don't agree with it, but my issue isn't with your opinion of the movie. Your comments, coupled along with the some of the comments in Agent Bedhead's last review, about getting a second opinion or having someone else write the review just isn't necessary - you're essentially telling someone how they should review a movie. That's a step beyond disagreement, and that's what I have a problem with. It's rather presumptuous as well. Vermillion is much more gracious than I am, as I have no intention of apologizing for what I said. Especially since you didn't bother to extend courtesy to Daniel as author of the review.

Well Vermillion I thank you for being civil and for seeing my intentions as good. I guess my opinions just differ with people on this point. I think Daniel went into the movie with an aversion to it since he was such a huge fan of the original and all of the PG-13, Len Wiseman, etc. that he just did not want to like it. I'm not trying to insult his integrity directly. I'd be totally vulnerable to fanboy bias myself. For instance the forthcoming Watchmen movie. It could be Citizen Kane but I'm probably going to hate it simply because the script so far is calling for an ending where Adrian Veidt is killed.

I simply didn't want Die Hard fans to be influenced out of a movie they could probably enjoy. I wasn't asking for Daniel Carlson's review to be thrown out or for HIM to re-review it and say it was good. Just a secondary review to see if it simply doesn't appeal to Pajiba and it's readers. I fail to see how that's disrespectful to anyone except maybe Daniel. I'm actually doing it for the Pajiba readers.

All I'm getting is that this movie does not ROCK, it just SUCKS.

BAM!

I wouldn't say it was the best die hard but still an above average summer action flick. Willis did a good job and Long was in his element.

I did have a problem with the selection of the bad guy. Olyphant has been great in the past with his dry witty delivery but it wasn't really showcased in this film. I think in the past the main bad guys in the Die Hard movies were charming yet cruel, which made the McClane final showdown even more satisfying. I don't think Olyphant was given a chance to pull it off here.

I couldn't stay awake for this movie.

When Metallica bases its career on heavy thrash metal and then all of the sudden releases a hard rock or alternative rock album, it doesn't matter if its good by hard rock/alt rock standards. It still sucks BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING METALLICA, GOD DAMMIT.

When a new Superman series comes out in which he never flies around, wears the iconic blue and red costume, or beats up any bad guys, but has a great, deep, dramatic plot about his relationship with Louis Lane, it doesn't matter if it is good by drama's standards. It still sucks because IT'S FUCKING SUPERMAN, GOD DAMMIT.

And finally, when the new Die Hard movie comes out in which they take out all of the blood and there is no longer liberal amounts of swearing to the point where John McClane can't even finish his own god damn catch phrase, it doesn't matter how good and interesting the plot is. It still sucks BECAUSE ITS FUCKING DIE HARD, GOD DAMMIT.

I want my nine bucks back.

And right there, madamz has pretty much summed up this entire thing in one comment.

madamez-
so you don't like Metallica, Superman, or any of the Die Hard flicks.... if you already knew it was going to suck, why did you go see it, GOD DAMMIT?

Nancy, 2 things:

1) My point about those 3 things is that they were all awesome BEFORE the change occurred, with the exception of the Superman thing which, thankfully, hasn't happened yet (Not to my knowledge anyway.) You missed the point entirely.

2) I went to LFODH because I like to see movies before I judge them so that I actually know what I'm talking about instead of some asshole who bashes the shit out of it based on one review he read on the internet that one time.

The bad dubbing (for language) and squeaky-PG-13-ness of it all left me feeling like I just paid to watch a movie on the Superstation. You remember, where the line in Lethal Weapon was changed to "All dressed up and no one to date."

Rent it if you must, but don't go.

This was as great review, and it really does hit the mark in its comparison to the three past DH's. But I purposely waited until after I saw the movie to read the review, and I'm glad I did.

The only trilogy I own is Die Hard. I've been a Bruce Willis fan since his old 'Moonlighting' days when he stole the show out from under Cybill Shepherd. He is a Jersey boy like my other favorite Bruce, and I've seen him in some really shitty movies, but I've loved HIM in every one of them. To paraphrase and refute madamz's remarks:
It still rocks BECAUSE ITS FUCKING BRUCE WILLIS, GOD DAMMIT.

Well of course Bruce Willis rocks... he's Bruce Willis (GOD DAMMIT!)

But liking Bruce Willis IN the movie and liking the movie itself are two different things.

Yes, madamz, you're right. Hudson Hawk was a stupid movie, but I loved Bruce in it. Maybe by critical standards LFODH isn't the best of the DH movies, but for anyone who's got the slightest interest I'd say do go check it out for yourself.

I say with pride that I also enjoy Hudson Hawk, in fact, it gets better every time I see it!

"I'll torture you so slowly you'll think it's a career..."

I thought the movie was pretty good to be honest. The old ones were great but come on Die Hard 3 with Fort Knox was pretty ridculus thats the kind of movies they are. All the movies are great for what they are and this movie was great as well.

the old die hards were rated R??? Does R mean the same thing in America that it does in Australia because they were only rated M15 here which meant that pretty much any1 over 10 could hire it with out mummy and daddy having to go with them even though i doubt they would care

BTW the magic 8ball comment was classic

Say what you want, Bruce is a dirty, dirty boy... and I'll pay $9.50 to watch/listen to him read the phone book, let alone this movie.... Not every movie has to be frickin Citizen Kane, you know!

Alex @ 6:49..will you marry me? Seriously? Not many people are even aware of Moonlighting, let alone can reference it. Those other silly girls can have Brad Pitt and George Clooney, in my book Bruce is the perfect blend of tough man with a brain and heart :-)

I saw this over the weekend and enjoyed the shit out of it. When I left the theater I wanted to kick some ass, shoot some guns and save the planet. To be honest I didn't even notice the lack of blood and swearing.

One continuity problem I noticed is after McClane broke out the driver's side window to steal a car, later when they were driving in that same car, there were reflections off the "broken" window.
Otherwise, I rather enjoyed the movie, and the lack of swearing didn't really bother me. I equated that with the change in McClane's character: a tired worn-out cop, looking forward to retirement or death.
Circumstances force him into one last lone ranger/superman type role of standing up to the bad guys.
That is all.

My train got delayed so I actually went to see a screening of it. I know, I'm a bad person. I can't decide whether my fellow audiencemembers made it better or much, much worse. I should have known what I was in for when the woman sat next to me came out with "I've never seen any of the others, will this ruin it for me?". I could have cried.

I've got to say that I agree with the review completely. However, as I'd already read it I was hyper aware of every time a character used "jerk-off" as an insult which made me giggle every time someone said it. It made the movie infinitely more fun.

One thing that really got to me is one particular scene which is made up of long shots of Bruce and Justin Long having a conversation cut in with close ups of the actors, the sight lines and angles were completely different for the two different viewpoints and it really got to me. And when even I notice bad direction it's a very bad sign indeed.

Die Hard 4...COMPLETELY entertaining and in no way a jarring departure form any of the previous in the series-even with a PG-13 rating.

This movie was the best Die Hard yet. Bruce Willis does an exelent job as usual and you would be stupid not to go and see this movie. It was funny and action packed and the special effects were great. You will not walk out of the theatre with that dissapointed feeling you can somtimes get. Also, lets show alittle suport for Bruce Willis.

A good movie is a good movie and a bad movie is a bad movie. Who gives a total shit if a movie is PG-13 or R? If you actually care, you must be too young to see an R rated movie. Honestly, I haven't cared about the rating system since I was of legal age. If all you care about is wether someone says motherfucker or not or if it isn't violent enough for your tastes, then by all means stop watching movies and learn to read. You might not believe this, but reading a book let's your imagination be as gory and twisted as you want...

And it'll keep you home, unlike those idiots who sat next to me at Grindhouse and whooped and hollered at everything and just wouldn't shut the fuck up.

As for this review, I hope you were just being hard on the film, cause I'm so amped up to love it.

A good movie is a good movie and a bad movie is a bad movie. Who gives a total shit if a movie is PG-13 or R? If you actually care, you must be too young to see an R rated movie. Honestly, I haven't cared about the rating system since I was of legal age. If all you care about is wether someone says motherfucker or not or if it isn't violent enough for your tastes, then by all means stop watching movies and learn to read. You might not believe this, but reading a book let's your imagination be as gory and twisted as you want...

And it'll keep you home, unlike those idiots who sat next to me at Grindhouse and whooped and hollered at everything and just wouldn't shut the fuck up.

As for this review, I hope you were just being hard on the film, cause I'm so amped up to love it.

wow, everyone's so passionate.

marywoo-you're super funny.

i enjoyed the review.

never really had any intention of seeing it. already assumed what daniel confirmed.

i just wanna know when rescue 'dawn' comes out.

that'll be good.

As far as the R/PG-13 rating goes I wouldn't have minded so much if it weren't so obvious that the film makers had decided to try for the lower rating about half way through filming - the dubbing for language (and the forced nature of some of the dialogue to keep it "cleanish") was really distracting. When you have a character you know and love and suddenly in this new installment they're totally toned down it really throws you.

Ok, it is NOT as good as the first one. But no sh*t, that was DIE HARD. But I've come to realize, most movies with Samuel L. are crap at best, and DH2 doesn't even deserve mentioning in comparison to the first or third. I was pumped to see LFDH, just as I was pumped to see Rocky a few months ago. The difference? Rocky was an old man who went through the same motions. Obviously DH was great, but when they tried the same idea--trying to save Holly from wherever--it failed the second time around. What made it a little better in the third? Have him run around a city and blow sh*t up. So they did the same thing but with a different twist. And I thought Lucy was metal--'Daddy?' 'Yea baby?' 'There's only five of them now'--that wasn't sweet as hell to you?? I've been a fan of the nerdish Justin Long since Ed, anyone remember that show?, and he pulled off the same character here, but it worked. I thought the fire sale was a bit of a basic premise, but I didn't think it was forced. The only thing that sucked was Gabriel. Dude was lame and looked like he had a fist up his as* half the film whenever McClane beat him at his own game.

Actually, the original screenplay for this movie was supposed to become Enemy of the State 2, so they only added John McClane and his trademark style after they decided to turn Enemy of the State 2 into Die Hard 4. Still, as somebody who is a big fan of the series, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

McClane ain't even smoking for Christ's sakes.

your review of this film was entirely too pretentious. it seems as if you have forgotten that every once in a while, its okay to watch a film purely for entertainment. i dont expect this to win best picture, but it accomplished entirely what it set out to do, entertain the audience. this is a summer blockbuster, not an arthouse film.

I dont care how old or dead this review is, its the biggest sack of shit I have ever sifted through... Encouraging film viewers to avoid one of Bruce Willis' greatest performance is crime... You should be crucified, brought from the brink of death, only to be crucified a final time.

Stick to generic crap like the Incredibles you fruit cake.

Absolutely loved this film, could stare at Bruce Willis all day! How fantastic is that man, has the most amazing eyes i have ever come across. That suit at the end...... Stunning!

If you want to download Live Free or Die Hard Movie, advice you to take a look at Movie Downloads Library.

Finally watched this now that it's out on video. I'd rate it okay, modestly entertaining fare.

Here's the issue with the rating, which I think influenced some plot elements that really bothered me.

To preface, here we have John McClane, the badass of all badass cops. He's dispensed with some of the all-time cretins in cinema, and done so with aplomb. Yippee ki ay, mo-fo, indeed.

Now, how many times does McClane overwhelm an opponent in this film, only to turn his back on them? Suspense is indefensible as a plot device when the implication is that McClane is an idiot. He knows he's battling villains with zero consideration for human life, villains that have killed tens of people in the last 48 hours. I just have to believe that John McClane would've put a bullet through the oriental chick's skull the first time he KOed her. Even if that's unconscionable, how about tying her up, John?!?!

His lack of instincts, instincts so perfect in Die Hards past, is an insult to the institution. I nearly turned it off when he turned his back on her. But, fortunately, I stuck it out. Dispensing of the Raphaelli character was awesome.

This issue is a generic peeve of mine. Lethal Weapon makes the same mistake at the end. You know Mr. Joshua is a homicidal psychopath, why in god's name would you entrust him to a couple uniformed cops?

This suspense mechanism is fine for horror flicks. The characters are going to get whacked specifically because they are stupid. That's not how we should walk away thinking about our supercop icons.