Perhaps you, like myself, made the assumption that a 12-years-later sequel to an action series noted for its significant fluctuations in quality and the PG-13 sequel to an action series noted for its violence and rough language, would be a feeble excuse for anything other than assuaging its over-the-hill star's ego, and ultimately a fair waste of summertime moviegoing energy. Perhaps you made that assumption. If you did, you would be just a flat-out wrong as I have turned out to be, because Live Free or Die Hard, for all its flaws (and they are not insignificant) turns out to be pretty much awesome. Like, "best American action movie in years" sort of awesome.Here's a weird little observation: if you'd asked me ten years ago what I thought the biggest problem was with American action movies, I would have replied that it was the genre's inability to break out of the formal shackles of the 1980s: a wisecracking cop, ex-cop, ex-Army, or some other damn gun-trained fellow who just wants to get out of the game, probably with a minor substance problem, squares off against some sort of embittered genius, probably foreign-born, with an improbable small army. There are quips, there is gun play, lots of things shatter, and some comfortably R-rated blood splatters all about. And by the late 1990s, it was pretty old. I'm not sure what the final straw was - Lethal Weapon 4, maybe - but there comes a point when a change, any damn change, seemed extremely important.
Now I'm ten years older and wiser and much more cynical, and in those ten years we've had The Matrix and its normalisation of wire-fu; the Besson School, which ranges from very good to unwatchable, usually within the space of a single film; Vince McMahon and his troupe of WWE cardboard standees have managed to turn countless mediocre scripts into tedious video game pastiches; and along with every other movie genre under the sun, the action film has been sanitized and scrubbed and turned into a Disneyland experience when it isn't far worse. In that environment, the return of those very same tropes that once made me so extraordinarily bored feel like the freshest winds that e'er have blown through the immortal halls of the cinema.
Live Free or Die Hard is a throwback, in other words, but it's an extremely proud throwback that has the basic decency to steal from the very best. To begin with the story, New York detective John McClane (the inimitable Bruce Willis, who has changed from 1988, 1990 and 1995 only in his baldness) is tasked to find a hacker (Justin Long) and bring him safely to the FBI; easily ignorable contrivances and McClane is chasing the notorious computer genius Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphaunt), who has orchestrated a massive countrywide crisis to hide the theft of an almost unthinkable sum of money. It's basically the same notes as Die Hard with a Vengeance, then, and many other movies besides, with Long stepping in for Samuel L. Jackson, Olyphaunt nicely taking over for Jeremy Irons and the destruction of the East Coast power grid replacing the demolition of Wall Street.
Not that With a Vengeance was a model of originality in 1995, any more than people didn't instantly recognize that Die Hard 2 was a fairly alarming retread of Die Hard. That's not why we go to movies like these. If anything, the complete lack of narrative surprise is a major part of the appeal: if you're not busy trying to figure out what is going on, you're better able to enjoy the particular explosions and postmodern quips that make this film different than the other films just like it (I hope to be forgiven for saying that in this respect, action movies are like slasher films, where the tiny details make all the difference; although there's a whole lot more brain-rot attached to one genre than the other).
With that in mind, how are the specific explosions and quips in Live Free or Die Hard? Pretty damn good. There's a lot more fantasy to the action setpieces than in the previous installments, maybe (a standout: McClane rides a fighter jet from the outside), but that does not inherently mean they are less exciting, especially given that the CGI is mostly not obvious. And there are plenty of scenes, especially in the first half, especially an elevator shaft fight, that are just plain good old-fashioned gun 'n' fist choreography.
Director Len Wiseman (of Underworld, but more importantly, the other Underworld) is no John McTiernan, and the action sequences are not remotely so tight as in Die Hard (though they are about as good as the third film), but neither is he Renny Harlin, and the film is unquestionably more exciting than Die Hard 2. It's too long, by a solid fifteen minutes of explanatory scenes in the final third, but if one is sufficiently starved for good 'splosions (as your humble blogger), one will tend to forgive those fifteen minutes because of the film that contains them.
Not that anybody goes to see a film with Die Hard in the title because of their hope for rare and subtle craftsmanship, but it won't hurt anyone if I briefly mention: the mostly serviceable visual direction and cinematography by Simon Duggan never looks particularly bad, but there's one shot in particular that uses the 'scope image in a way that I had long since given up hoping for in American summer films, putting two patches of light on the extreme sides of the frame, a building in between them, and forcing us to constantly divide our attention between them. It's an amazingly tense moment. On the downside, the film is plagued by really sloppy overdubbing, made worse by some very peculiar editing.
But editing and cinematography are beside the point. Any true believer can tell you that the reason to see this film is to see Bruce Willis kick ass, which he does very well for his age (and his age is referenced in the film, without ever being smart-alecky, for which I am grateful), and he kicks much ass. Indeed, he kicks enough ass that one only intermittently notices the absence of the R rating, and while I'm of the opinion that bloodless PG-13 violence is actually more problematic because it is so desensitized, this is a film that still manages to get some pretty visceral shocks in here and there. It's altogether less cool that McClane has been denuded of his traditional potty mouth, but those are the breaks, and it would take a real crank to let the absence of the word "fuck" spoil an entire movie for you. This is a damn fine mindless summer action film; it is indeed a potent reminder of the days when mindless action films were brilliantly fun instead of tedious drudge work.
8/10
God, I'm glad we didn't disagree on this.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm a little late to the party, what with the tenth anniversary of this twelve years delayed fourthquel fast approaching, but I enjoyed reading your reviews of the three Die Hard films you've tackled so I wanted to add my thoughts. Until the fifth film skewed the results, I was always surprised by the average entertainment value of this series; Die Hard 2 is definitely my least favorite of the first four, but it's still a solid 7/10 in my book, contrivances and plot holes of the unique Renny Harlin fashion be damned.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I put Live Free or Die Hard third overall in this series (per entry number, I'd rank them 1, 3, 4, 2, 5) -- it's a very good action movie in its own right. But, as has been debated to death at this point, the newer Die Hard films have marked a change in the John McClane character from everyman to superhero. Sure, there were elements of the character's increasing aversion to damage in the original sequels but the his personality was still intact. This McClane doesn't act like the one I remember; he's all brawn and no brains. I get the "analogue watch in a digital age" theme, not to mention an ignorance of complicated computer codes and terminology, but Matt Farrell literally has to explain to this man who has foiled three separate terrorist/heist plots with only his gun and wits what GAS LINES are at one point. I get that Farrell and McClane are meant to compliment one another's strengths and weaknesses, but come on -- surely that could have been accomplished without neutering the idiosyncrasies of the classic character. He was never a genius and even played a very obvious second fiddle to Samuel L. Jackson's Zeus Carver in the third film in terms of academics, but John McClane had traditionally been portrayed as hyper-capable up to this point. Hell, he even figured out Colonel Stuart's plan in the second film before anyone else (a strong contender for the beginnings of that superhero transition, even if die hard Die Hard fans would beat their chests and bray otherwise) -- in Live Free he's something of a blunt instrument. He doesn't even need sleep or food over a several day period, just point him in the right direction and set him loose. What was that about shooting the glass because he's barefoot?
It'd be neat if you did a retrospective on this series and revisited each entry, or at least the four sequels. I know that you tend to address alternate versions when applicable, and the unrated cut of the fourth film returns some of the violence and a LOT of the language to the proceedings, which canonizes this film more than the PG-13 version allows. No, the absence of the word "fuck" does not spoil the theatrical cut, but it sure sharpens the divide in tone and aesthetic from the original trilogy to this film. Having it back adds a continuity to the dialogue that this bald, denser and grumpier McClane lacks otherwise, even if it's embarrassing to admit that cursing seems to be a big part of that connective tissue. Side note: ludicrous as it may be, I think this just might be my favorite use of the "yippie-ki-yay" catchphrase, even trouncing the first film (the only one where it makes any objective sense).
ReplyDeleteNot that anyone will ever top Hans Gruber, but I found Timothy Olyphant's Thomas Gabriel to be exceptionally weak as a villain. This is partly the fault of the writing but also Olyphant himself, who gives his all to a persona that comes across as equal parts bratty and aggressively constipated. We hear a bunch of silly exposition about how dangerous this character is and what he can do, yet all we see is lackeys doing most of the work and Olyphant brandishing a perpetual annoyance at everyone and everything. When he tells McClane "you have no idea who I am or what I'm capable of" with the expression and inflection of suppressing a huge fart, he ceases to embody a threat. Maggie Q's henchwoman (whose only personality is that she's beautiful and deadly and Gabriel's girlfriend) is a more effective antagonist. Even Colonel Stuart, dull as he was, served his purpose more admirably.
Still, problems aside, I give this one a solid 8/10 as well. It doesn't feel much like the films that preceded it, but it has the benefit of being well-made and fun, as you note, which the next film lacked entirely.