2007 / 130 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

A car inexplicably hangs upside down inside an elevator shaft. John McClane and a sexy, ninja computer hacker struggle inside as the car slips further down the shaft, tangled in wires, inch by inch. It is only near the end of this sequence, just before the car careens down the shaft, that we see the car’s rear wheel wedged on a metal support piece.

That single description should illustrate what is wrong with this latest entry in the “Die Hard” franchise.

The original “Die Hard” was one of the defining action films of all time. Along with the Rambo and “Lethal Weapon” films, it set the template for action moviemaking over the next couple of decades. Those of us who were old enough to shave when the last “Die Hard” film hit theaters remember a time when the films being released could all be described as “Die Hard on a ____”. There was “Speed”: “Die Hard on a bus”. “Under Siege” was “Die Hard on a battleship”. “Home Alone” was like “Die Hard in a house…for kids”. Five of you in cyberspace might even remember “The Taking of Beverly Hills”, one of the most blatant “Die Hard” ripoffs, that was essentially “Die Hard in Beverly Hills”. The point is, “Die Hard” taught a riveting and rather cost-effective lesson: if you keep the action confined to one location, it amps up the suspense. As long as the filmmakers are clever about exploiting every ounce of potential of the location they have chosen, the combination of terrorists and a lone hero in a combined space never fails to entice. “Die Hard” also taught another, more important lesson that a few filmmakers were savvy enough to pick up on: the hero is more interesting if he’s more of an smart-assed everyman and less of a musclebound dynamo capable of deflecting bullets without so much as messing a single hair. John McClane was a great hero, one of the greatest in action film history, because he was so undeniably human. He was cranky, smart-assed, capable of bleeding and crying, he got really, childishly pissed when things didn’t go his way, he wasn’t a very good husband, and he smoked. In short, McClane was such a refreshing change of pace because he had fears and frailties, like all the rest of us. He was good to have in your corner, and he came through when the chips were down, but he still had his problems. Hell, the idea of this character is still revolutionary.

The frailties and fears of that old McClane are long gone in “Live Free or Die Hard”. He’s still crotchety, easily pissed off and something of a smart ass, but now he seems bulletproof. He used to be afraid of heights and flying. Now he’s flying a helicopter. Bruce Willis plays McClane with the same attitude and gusto that he always has, that’s the film’s most important saving grace. Unfortunately, the filmmakers make him far too much of a superhero. When a villain outsmarts the NSA, FBI and Dept. of Homeland Security, only John McClane and the Macintosh Kid can save the day. By the end of the movie, I half expected him to put on a cape and fly.

The plot of “LFDH” is essentially the plot from “Goldeneye” with the standard “Die Hard” twist at the end (Gee, I wonder if the bad guy is really destroying America’s infrastructure so he can make off with millions of dollars…oh, wait, the words “Die” and “Hard” are in the title, of course he is). Actually, scratch that: it’s exactly like the plot from “Goldeneye”. Except that Timothy Olyphant and his team of cyberterrorists actually pull off what Sean Bean only dreamed of doing. They actually manage to cripple the entire Eastern seaboard before John McClane gets pissed off and puts an end to their shenanigans.

Since McClane probably can’t even figure out how to read his e-mail, the filmmakers have saddled him with a sidekick in the form of Mac poster boy Justin Long. I’ve liked Justin Long in past films. I enjoyed him immensely in the TV series “Ed” and I thought he was fine in “Dodgeball”, but that was before those ubiquitous Mac ads. He’s been playing the same affable dork his entire career, and the gig wore thin about five Mac ads ago. In Long’s defense, his character actually becomes less annoying as the film progresses. The writers actually put a bit of character development in there for him, and the results aren’t as bad as one might fear. By the end, he and Bruce have a nice camaraderie going. And it says a lot that I didn’t want to walk out the moment Kevin Smith showed up for his cameo. He does a nice job, though the filmmakers have overdone it a bit by making him and, to a lesser extent, Long into ubergeeks. The whole “he knows his way around a computer…look he’s got a shelf full of Star Wars figures” joke got old a long, long time ago. Then again, now that I think of the computer enthusiasts I actually know, maybe that joke isn’t so far off the mark.

Timothy Olyphant conveys a good deal of menace but he can’t compare to the villains in the other “Die Hard” films. He doesn’t have the flair of Alan Rickman or Jeremy Irons and he doesn’t have the brooding intensity of William Sadler. He’s a prick, sure, but we don’t really care whether he dies or not. He tries hard, but all I could manage was a shrug. I wasn’t rooting for his bloody demise the moment he came onscreen. Also, his henchmen are inexplicably French. He’s not French, his villainous plot has nothing to do with the French, so their inclusion simply begs the question: why the French? The only reason I can think of is because the French, apparently, are adept at the art of parkour (that thing the guy in “Casino Royale” did where he runs and bounces off shit really fast). Parkour is kinda neat and all, but I really hope it doesn’t get shoehorned into every single movie now. It was cool in “Casino Royale” and it was the only thing at all in “District B-13″, but if filmmakers keep it up this martial art (or whatever it is) is going to become as overused as kung fu in the 90’s and anything ninja in the 1980’s.

The movie does manage to entertain. It took a while for the film to really get rolling, but once it does it provides several amusing sequences. The part where McClane smashes a car into a helicopter (Spoiler, Schmoiler, it’s in every ad) is pretty damn fun, especially since McClane takes a few moments to bitch about it first. McClane’s one-liners are also pretty good, though I have the feeling they would have packed a bit more punch if the movie were rated “R”, as the others were. Still, the fact that this is PG-13 is not as big a deal as it sounds. Plenty of people still get killed, though I don’t seem to remember this much talk in the old Die Hards.

This movie has bigger problems than its rating. It’s biggest problem is that its last half is pretty fucking ridiculous. If you think smashing a car through a chopper is ludicrous, then you ain’t seen nothing yet. The finale, involving a semi and an F-35 jet, is as preposterous as anything in the second “Charlie’s Angels” movie. Trust me, that’s a very bad thing. This entire sequence doesn’t seem to exist in the same dimension as our own. There may as well be hobbits hanging off the back of that semi. Also, there’s the sequence with the car in the elevator shaft. It’s like something out of “Jurassic Park” as directed by a complete hack.

And that brings us to the ringleader of “LFDH’s” various problems: King of Mediocrity Len Wiseman. I’ve noticed that Wiseman’s movies all have the same boring look to them. Too much gray, moderately incompetent editing (he’s not the worst offender out there, that would be Simon West) and no sense of style whatsoever. He’s a workman-like director who brings no sense of panache to the proceedings. He also has no idea how to stage an action sequence to maximize the intensity and suspense. If he did, he would have showed us what little were keeping the car from plummeting down the elevator shaft toward the start of the sequence rather than at the end. It’s like someone getting near the end of a joke and then saying “Oh, did I mention the guy was Jewish? Well, he was.” It’s little details like that which MAKE movies like this and Wiseman screws them up at pretty much every opportunity.

Despite all this, portions of LFDH are pretty entertaining. It’s not as good as the other “Die Hard” films, but it’s not as bad as I had feared. If that’s enough of an excuse for you to see it, hey, go ahead. However, it’s not nearly as good as its 76% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes would have you believe. If you want my advice, you’d be better off popping in “Die Hard With a Vengeance” again and relishing the manner in which Jeremy Irons delivers the line “hook, line and sinker”. That’s a simple joy with which no amount of jets and semis can possibly compete.

Share on Facebook

This entry was posted on Friday, June 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm and is filed under Dale's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.