Current Events > Live Free or Die Hard gets a lot of crap, but you know what? It's damn good.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The set-pieces are fun, it has a cool plot, and its one of the last movies where Bruce Willis looks like he actually gives a shit.

Im surprised it still holds up.
---

Not the best one, but I liked it better than Die Hard 2. It was wildly unrealistic but it was a fun action movie. The one after that is a complete abortion, though.

Agreed. Id take a well-made, over-the-top PG-13 movie over an R-rated generic shitfest any day.

This is about on par with Die Hard 2 for me.
---

die hard 2 was leagues better

intro naked tai chi?? come the fuck on, you can't beat that.
---

True, that was a classic villain intro. If only they gave Timothy Olyphant a hot yoga scene or something, he couldve been a more memorable villain.
---

I guess that aside from its PG-13 rating, people simply didn't like it because of how significantly different it is compared to the previous films. The very modern cyberterrorist plot and even the look of the film itself makes it look like a 21st century reboot rather than a sequel.
---

I can see that. But honestly, I love the analog hero in a digital world angle. I cant think of many action movies that pulled it off as well as Die Hard 4.
---

au_gold posted...

True, that was a classic villain intro. If only they gave Timothy Olyphant a hot yoga scene or something, he couldve been a more memorable villain.

he was a pretty lame villain. hes a good actor too, just didnt have good material to work with. maggie q could have been better used as well.
---

Agreed TC - I think 4 even has the highest RT rating after the first? Correct me if I'm wrong...

One thing I liked (that I didn't expect going in) was the character's aging.. his short monologue on the costs of what he's done so far and why he's "that guy" really made the character arc from 1 to 3 and after complete (plus made it more believable)

The best Die Hard movie. I did see it first though.

Maggie Q had a badass fight sequence at least. Olyphant didnt do much besides sit behind a desk and bark out orders.

Ruvan22 posted...

Agreed TC - I think 4 even has the highest RT rating after the first? Correct me if I'm wrong...

One thing I liked (that I didn't expect going in) was the character's aging.. his short monologue on the costs of what he's done so far and why he's "that guy" really made the character arc from 1 to 3 and after complete (plus made it more believable)

Yeah, though Die Hard 3 is considered rotten for some unfathomable reason. And I agree about McClanes character; even though hes doing laughably impossible stunts, his dialogue humanizes him a lot. He still behaves like McClane should.

Die Hard 5 felt like it had a different protagonist entirely.
---

I thought it was the best one other than the first.
---

Holy shit, I forgot about this scene. This guys like a henchman straight out of a Bond movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wXBmSecjDo" data-time="

Id rank them something like:
1 > 3 > 4 = 2 >>> 5
---

So on the topic of the dumpster fire that was 5 - what do you guys think could have made it better and more Die Hard? Iirc it was the only one written specifically to be a DH movie. I did like the slow introduction of Jack and John's continuing theme of trying to help his family (and somewhat a "that guy" in relation to the situation of the prisoner). Also, the very last scene was well done - the three of them walking with no dialogue.

The script was just all kinds of wrong. It was convoluted to the point of being boring. There were like five different villains with their own agendas. A Die Hard movie should have one main villain and some colorful henchmen, no twists. And if you are going to try pulling a twist like that, make the characters likable or interesting first so we give a shit. Every character was a block of wood.

The action scenes were lifeless and bland; there was no sense of John being in danger. His car crashes and flips like 30 times, then he gets out of his totaled car and immediately starts jogging. Like, fuck, at least limp for a couple scenes. I like to watch it as a comedy because some scenes like that are hilarious.

Jack and John had no chemistry and the script didnt allow them time to develop any. Bruce Willis looked like he couldnt give the slightest fuck.

I have so many problems with that movie, but those are the main ones.

Also, sorry for the wall of text. I love Die Hard and incidentally Im stoned as hell.
---

Wasn't DH5 not even a DH movie to begin with? They just slapped the name on for brand recognition and changed some dialogue and shit

Unless I'm mixing it up with something else
---

I think 5 was the only one intended to be a Die Hard movie, like the other guy said. They just made the shittiest Die Hard movie possible.

4 was apparently a cyber WW3 script that was shelved because of 9/11, then they adapted into a Die Hard movie.
---

Isn't that one the most liked Die Hard outside of the first one?

I enjoy it a lot, but oh BOY did they pick a bad time in technology to do that movie. Seeing people hacking shit on flip phones is hilarious

Still, I love how it's basically like someone said before: an analog hero in a digital age. John was basically acting how I would expect him to act in a contemporary setting.
---

The biggest criticism I hear is that it doesnt feel like a Die Hard movie, which I understand to an extent. John McClane survives some ridiculous shit, like that jet explosion, and killing a helicopter with a car. He didnt do crazy stuff like that in the first three.

But he still felt like John McClane, and he did get injured from stuff. In 5 hes straight up Superman. And hes kind of an asshole.
---

The first Die Hard isnt that realistic. 1 cop killing 10 armed guys on his own?

I love live free die hard. You can tell everyone enjoyed filming it too.
---

au_gold posted...

True, that was a classic villain intro. If only they gave Timothy Olyphant a hot yoga scene or something, he couldve been a more memorable villain.

Faster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_gQbbAlNB0" data-time="

dmorrissey posted...

The first Die Hard isnt that realistic. 1 cop killing 10 armed guys on his own?

At least it portrayed itself a bit more realistically than other action films within its era. At the time, it wasn't unusual to see action heroes managing to slaughter countless bad guys without too much hassle. John McClane on the other hand has to resort to guerilla-like tactics to take on twelve terrorists, since he had thirty hostages to worry about. Despite this, he suffered numerous injuries that have certainly slowed him down instead of shrugging them off.

To be fair, there were some scenes McClane survived in that would've killed him realistically, like the ventilation shaft fall for example.
---

16-BITTER posted...

au_gold posted...

Agreed. Id take a well-made, over-the-top PG-13 movie over an R-rated generic shitfest any day.

Imagine not watching the unrated cut of Live Free or Die Hard every time

Literally no difference.

Miles better than Good Day to Die Hard and its PG13.

1 and 3 are amazing.

The others are pure shit.
---

He doesnt even have a hand to hand fight in Die Hard 5

16-BITTER posted...

au_gold posted...

Agreed. Id take a well-made, over-the-top PG-13 movie over an R-rated generic shitfest any day.

Imagine not watching the unrated cut of Live Free or Die Hard every time

From what I remember, he says fuck like three more times. Are there any other differences?

Zodd3224 posted...

1 and 3 are amazing.

The others are pure shit.

Whats so bad about 2 and 4? 2 is basically the first movie set in an airport.
---

Best Die Hard sequel for sure.
---

au_gold posted...

16-BITTER posted...

au_gold posted...

Agreed. Id take a well-made, over-the-top PG-13 movie over an R-rated generic shitfest any day.

Imagine not watching the unrated cut of Live Free or Die Hard every time

From what I remember, he says fuck like three more times. Are there any other differences?

Zodd3224 posted...

1 and 3 are amazing.

The others are pure shit.

Whats so bad about 2 and 4? 2 is basically the first movie set in an airport.

Why would I want the same movie set in an airport?
---

Im just saying, I dont see how 2 is total shit just because its too similar to the original. Its still a lot of fun.

16-BITTER posted...

They even censor his catchphrase

I only saw the PG-13 version on STARZ. Still, his censored catchphrase is better than his new catchphrase in 5: Im on vacation!

Seriously, who thought that was a good line? Let alone for him to repeat it like twelve times when hes blatantly not on vacation.
---

Oh man, I wouldve been pissed if I saw 5 in theaters. Once I saw the reviews bombing it, I checked out a cam version just to see if it was that bad, and it was.

Now I just view it as a parody. It has some good laugh-out-loud moments, like when John randomly appears in front of Jacks getaway car and starts screaming his name, and thats what alerts the bad guys. Then Jack gets out and pulls a gun on his dad. Then they get ambushed in the CIA HQ and Bruce Willis casually picks up a machine gun and starts mowing down Russians even though he has absolutely no idea whats going on.

Its just a disaster.
---

2 was fun, but god the main plot was awful. Force the planes to run out of gas and crash? Or you know, have them divert to another airport nearby instead
---

It was dumb, but at least you could follow what was happening. The same cannot be said for Die Hard 5.
---

Yeah, I like it quite a bit. Never understood the absolute hatred it often gets.

Now Die Hard 5 on the other hand...
---

au_gold posted...

It was dumb, but at least you could follow what was happening. The same cannot be said for Die Hard 5.

This. If I dont understand the freakin Die Hard movie plot something's wrong.

.

Had some bad ass guns and an f35. And his hot daughter.

Also it was funny when he beat up that Asian chick
---

At best it's a mediocre action movie.

At worst its a terrible Die Hard movie that looks better in retrospect because A Good Day to Die Hard exists now
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

At best it's a mediocre action movie.

At worst its a terrible Die Hard movie that looks better in retrospect because A Good Day to Die Hard exists now

What was mediocre about it?
---

The sidekick, the action, the PG-13 rating, the utilization of its core premise. "Woah he hacked the computer system so he makes the lights go red!" Jurassic Park had more interesting hacker stuff in its plot.
---

1>3>4>2>>>5

DeadBankerDream posted...

The sidekick, the action, the PG-13 rating, the utilization of its core premise. "Woah he hacked the computer system so he makes the lights go red!" Jurassic Park had more interesting hacker stuff in its plot.

Honestly, I thought the action was great and Justin Long was fine. Fate of the Furious recently did the whole hacking cars and lights thing and Die Hard 4 did it a lot better.

The villain and the PG-13 rating were lame, Ill give you that.
---

The action is just CGI nonsense, like Bruce Willis almost getting crushed by a flying CGI car but in the last second two other CGI car in perfect unison drive into the path so that the first CGI car is three centimeters from crushing his head instead of doing it. Or Willis dancing on a fighter jet. It's not Michael Bay levels of braincell killing nothingness, but its a crying shame considering how real and exciting the action felt in the first Die Hard.
---

Its way more over-the-top than the previous Die Hards, yeah, but I was still thoroughly entertained. Those two instances you mentioned were definitely eye-rollers, though.

When I think of the action, I think of the assassination attempt sequence, or the parkour henchman, or the Maggie Q fight. All of that stuff was well done. And hell, even crashing the car into the helicopter was cool.
---