Live Free or Die Hard

"(Bruce Willis) gets that look in his eye that says: It's going to be a pain in the ass for me to do this, but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't." - Roger Ebert

In the last few years, or ever since the advent of 24, it seems all anyone ever wants to talk about when it comes to saving the world is Jack Baur this and Jack Baur that. Well let us remember that years before Jack Baur came on the scene John McClane was the one responsible for saving our world. And not only would he save the world but he'd be pissed off and irritated the whole time he was doing it.

John McClane is a cynic's perfect hero. I realized this while watching Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth installment of the successful action movies series dating back to the 80's. And the above quote from the esteemed Mr. Ebert seems to hit the nail on the head. Has anyone ever seemed so annoyed to be the hero? He delivers some mumbo-jumbo to his sidekick at some point about divorce and how you get "nothing" for being a hero but, come on, even if John McClane was still married and got "something" for being the hero you know he'd still be ticked off about it. Every action sequence may as well be punctuated by McClane sighing with a shake of his head as he re-loads his gun. "You must be runnin' out of bad guys," he says at one point to the main bad guy. But he's not just toying with the main guy. There's exasperation in that comment, too. What did he say in the second Die Hard? "How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?" Well, here it's how can the same shit happen to the same guy four times?

As the movie opens the FBI's computer system has been hacked into and so local law enforcement has to bring in the most notorious hackers around the country since......it doesn't really matter, I suppose. What matters is John McClane is assigned to bring in Matt Farrell (Justin Long) and, by golly, before they can even make their way out of Matt's apartment the bad guys have already started shooting at them.

A genius hacker, you see, bearing a classic villain name of Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) has set out to perpetuate a "firesale" on America. Much like John McClane I had no idea what a "firesale" is. Apparently it's a three-pronged attack on the nation's transportation, power system, and financial system. But who really cares about all that? This is a throwback to the action movies of my youth. Go, go, GO!!!

Rory, we've discussed the perils of exposition before and I was thankful for near non-existence of exposition here. The movie barely even takes time to slow down and have the Main Bad Guy discuss his motives. We have no time for such nonsense.

This is one of the first times I can recall wanting to cheer a character before the character actually appears. At the very start of the proceedings we see John McClane's daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) with a young man who we know John McClane can't possibly like and then the camera shifts to a Point Of View shot and you think to yourself - hey, that's John McClane's, point of view, isn't it? He's about to show up and kick that young man's ass, isn't he? Woo hoo!

And so what if John McClane's one-liners aren't as crafty as they used to be, and so what if he, apparently, doesn't smoke anymore (or is that too un-PC now)? He's still the action hero to end all action heroes. Slow-motion-bullets and slinging webs and CGI-generated pirate ships and robots that turn into automobiles are no match for a helicopter crashing via unusual tactics.........for real. Or, as McClane declares at one crucial juncture, "Enough of this kung fu shit". Amen, John. Amen.

Live Free or Die Hard is want I personally want in an action movie. I probably won't ever watch it again but it genuinely entertained me for two hours. In fact, at the end I even had a little smile.

Much is made here of John McClane being a little behind the times technologically. Well, so what if he is? He still knows how to save the world. What else is it he says in the second movie? Ah yes, "As far as I'm concerned progress peaked with frozen pizza." And as far as I'm concerned, tentpole "summer-movies" peaked with John McClane.

-Nick

A Response:

I confess I saw this movie on opening night. It has taken this long for my thoughts because I was desperate to find something anything that would allow me to not make this number four in the negative column. I wish I could say that I magically found that thing last night and am here to tell you how much I enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard. I wish I could say all that but I can't. Perhaps this forum is not one in which Nick and I always disagree on movies but one in which I hate every movie we see. Hate is too strong a word for the latest adventure of John McClane. I didn't hate it, I just didn't particularly like it either.

John McClane never saved the world. He saved an office building. Then he saved an airport and its passengers. Thirdly he saved a city (sort of) and now finally we have him doing what Jack Baur does on a regular basis. Now John McClane is saving the nation. It is this escalation and the savviness of his foes that suggests Jack Baur and the boys at 24 have a lot more influence on this film than I think you give them credit, Nick. Without Jack Baur, we might not have this latest from the Die Hard franchise. And where do we go from here? If there is another sequel he has to save the whole planet, and sweet maria if a 6th film were made would he save the solar system? Are we really looking at the possibility of Alien terrorists sometime in the near future? An Independence Day meets Die Hard scenario?

But this isn't about 24. This is about John McClane and Die Hard. Remember what happened in the first film? I don't remember the exact 100% details but I remember that it was about a guy who wanted money and his scheme wasn't that complex. The sequel was about a prison break. The third was about money again but the means to that end had gotten way more complex. This film's villain is after money too but his means are beyond complex. I just stopped caring. Maybe techno savy geeks watching this film enjoy that element but I'm a guy who can barely program all his electronics and has a computer way more powerful than he will ever need, ever.

And what about the villain? Timothy Olyphant? Alan Rickman he is not. Jeremy Irons he is definately not. Hell I wouldn't even rank Olyphant ahead of William Sadler when it comes to mastermind villainy. Oh yeah I said it. So we have the weakest villain from the series to date with the most convoluted plot. We have a new side kick (he always has a side kick did you ever notice that?) in Justin Long. Justin is not suited to this role, he speaks nonsense techno babble and acts pretty poorly (even for an action flick).

But a film like this isn't about the plot (although I would argue it is about the villain), it's about the action. Is the action worth the price of admission? Yes and no. A lot of the early action sequences are high octane and intense and just pure fun. They may stretch the imagination but not so as to take you from the picture. There is also some fancy shots of those French martial arts which were featured in District B13 (a fine (and French even )martial arts action film for those interested). I've been seeing a lot of this recently. The camera for once actually stays still on the action which is a pleasant change from the frequent "let's move the camera so fast no one can know what is going on" motif. Near the end though, the action gets cartoonish. It was so ridiculous that I was literally taken out of the film. A plane under an overpass? I suspect the physics are a bit wonky there.

I agree, Nick, Bruce Willis gives a great wearied performance to John McClane but even he is strained to get through the character development scenes with Justin Long (since when does McClane explain why he does what he does?). In any event I found the recent 16 Blocks a much better angle for what this film could have been. It wasn't big it was simple. This is what this series needs, a back to basics model.

So when we add up everything we get a foolish plot with an unconvincing villain, and a lackluster co-star with okay but not mind wowing action sequences. Bruce Willis' wearied McClane almost carries the film but falls just short. If we used some sort of scale or system to review our movies this one would fall just short of positive but negative nonetheless.

A Rebuttal:

Touche, Rory. John McClane technically did not save the world in the first three or, I suppose, in this one. But, come on, it felt like he saved the world. Or that he could have saved the world, if he really wanted or needed to. And besides, if he doesn't overcome the odds in these movies than the terrorists would win. And if the terrorists win, well, our President can certainly tell you that if the terrorists win, freedom loses. And if freedom loses, the world loses. Am I right, people?

I agree that Olyphant is an amazingly bland villain. As an actor he's bland by nature. And while I felt that served him extremely well on Deadwood, it fails him here. We don't want bland villains. We want, well, Alan Rickman from the first one. A charming but ultimately sadistic rogue. And McClane's sidekick sure as crap ain't no Al Powell. And while his daughter is feisty she just can't match McClane's ex-wife. And........but why am I whining?


I liked the movie and that's really all there is to it. Yes, the big action scene at the end with the plane and the semi and the freeway is utterly absurd but you've gotta' respect the placement of it. Any other action movie made today would have put that sequence at the start. But Live Free or Die Hard actually knows something about pacing.

Perhaps it just that our recent spate of American action films can't hold a candle to what was being churned out in the 80's and early 90's (aside from the Bourne films, that is) and so when something comes along that's defiantly old school, and knowingly one-ups itself as it goes, that I'm much more willing to forgive its clear flaws.

That, and if a movie provides me at least one indelible character, I can roll with it. One character that makes me feel like I'm right there with him (or her) in the muck and the mire. One character that makes me feel what he (or she) is feeling, every step of the way. Bruce Willis does that yet again as John McClane. I thought he did carry the movie.

I thought he strapped it to his back and, even if the wheels were starting to come off and the gas was getting low, lugged it right over the finish line.

(But how about if the series ends? Right here, right now? Does that work for everyone?)

-Nick