Does anyone out there know how Live Free or Die Hard is generally viewed today? It seems to have faded from people’s (and the
internet’s) memory in the last eight years.
Well I decided to check it out again and I think I understand why it
just doesn’t get brought up very much.
Firstly, there are some legitimately cool things in the film
like the first shootout sequence, the hand to hand fight McClane has with
Maggie Q (up until they move to the elevator shaft), the computer shit isn’t as
insulting as it usually is, Bruce is Bruce (even if he plays it way too cocky
in this installment) and the cinematography is very nice including some
particularly fucking awesome camera movements.
I’ll totally give kudos for making all of the action comprehendible
instead of going for the shaky cam with a million quick cuts method which was widely
popular at the time. The overall
technical aspects of the filmmaking are pretty well done here.
But just to be clear I don’t think this is really a good
picture. The way they constantly
contrast McClane’s old fashioned attitude and approach with the modern world is
extremely contrived, most of the action sequences are downright cartoony (like
McClane jumping off an exploding fighter jet and sliding down a collapsing
freeway ramp or launching a speeding car into a helicopter somehow from the
road below), the main villain (Timothy Olyphant (Gone in Sixty Seconds, Justified)) was actually cast well for what
they were going for but the character itself is lame especially compared to the
previous three movies, and the parkour shit is laughably dumb.
There’s one scene in particular that I want to bring up
because I think it’s very interesting.
At one point McClane has a conversation (more like a speech really) with
Justin Long (Drag Me to Hell). He opens up and explains how being a hero
isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. He says
that heroism only leads to shattered relationships and a lonely existence with
little acknowledgement of your honorable deeds.
This is the first time McClane digs into the psyche of his previous exploits
(even though he’s not naming specific events of actions). This seems kinda strange at first because in
parts 2 and 3 McClane shrugs it off whenever someone mentions that “Nakatomi thing
in LA” to him. But he’s getting older
and sure, he’s allowed to philosophize on his life and where he currently is mentally
and with his family and etc. That’s why I
like this new development in the character.
It’s genuinely sad to hear that McClane is still having a hard time at home.
And it sounds like shit has only gotten worse with not only a wife that
doesn’t want anything to do with him but now a daughter that hates his guts as
well. The only minor problem with this
scene is that the dialogue comes off a little too self-aware but it’s not a big
deal.
Moving on, I wonder what made the studio suits choose Len
Wiseman to direct because all he had done up to that point were two Underworld films. And subsequently all he did was the Total Recall remake. I can’t beat on him too much though because
anyone would’ve had a hard time making the next Die Hard (especially coming off of With a Vengeance). The only
possible exception is maybe McTiernan. But
the big problem there is that he was wrapped up in some bad legal shit then which
eventually led to him doing time.
But let’s get back to my main question: how come no one
talks about this anymore? The thing is number
4 here isn’t really terrible or really good or even a forgotten gem. Everyone forgot about it because it lies
somewhere in the middle. There isn’t
enough to get worked up over in any way.
It has some nice moments but it also has a bunch of bad ones, a few
cringe worthy but mostly it’s stuff that just doesn’t stick with you.
So it’s not a total bust if you should decide to throw it
on, but it leaves you with a feeling of “I guess that was sorta fun…maybe”.
No comments:
Post a Comment