A Good Film for the Times, But a Disappointment for the Ages

Rating: 6/10 (28 June 2007)

I so wanted to be entertained by the return of John McLean. Die Hard, the original, has recently been named as the best action film of all time. There are many reasons why this seminal film from 1987 is so well regarded. The humour, the sociopolitical subtext, the characters across a broad range of bit parts, Bruce Willis, non-digital special effects, and Alan Rickman as one of the best villains in cinematic history.
I can't say the same for this Michael Bey-ish, blow-em-up opus. I should have been warned when I read that McLean's trade-mark scatology had been looped out to attract the teen-aged, Transformers set. That was the source for much of the original's humour. What we are left with is the "action" scenes.
The plot has the potential to be something topical, but again, it exists to set up the action sequences, rather than the other way around. We get some up-close-and-personal gun and fist fights, but by and large, the focus is on the big boom, whether it is a car flying through the air to take down an in-flight helicopter, a gas line feeding back to blow up most of the eastern seaboard, or, most incredulously, an F-35 strafing a tractor-trailer as the plane simultaneously destroys an above-ground expressway. Preposterous.
The original understood that successful action films use the believable mayhem to ratchet up the tension, the anticipation for what is to come. So, the action serves the plot, rather than being purely gratuitous. In "Live Free", it is almost purely gratuitous.
"Live Free" is most definitely a film for the times: a calculated effort cynically devoid of artistry designed to make money for a studio (Fox? Cheyanne?) that cares about nothing else. Go see "Smokin' Aces" for an example of a low-budget film that does what the original "Die Hard" did nearly 20 years ago. Your heart and your pocketbook will feel better for the effort.