Actually quite good as far as action blockbusters go - very different from the previous films but benefits from not taking itself too seriously

Rating: 8/10 (1 August 2007)

I was one of many not expecting much from the newest "Die Hard" film. I figured it would be an OK action flick - another forgettable summer fare - and when I read that the film had been rated PG-13 it completely solidified my early thoughts that the movie was going to be more for the teen market.
"Live Free" is interesting for a number of reasons, actually, and the first is its marketing: FOX clearly didn't know how to sell this film. Early on they marketed it as a new-age action film: the trailer showed lots of bodies getting shot, cars flying into the air and exploding, etc. But there was no real humor, sampling of a plot, and worst of all, no indication that John McClane - the seminal everyman hero - was really back.
It backfired and the fans on the 'net complained. One of the most popular suggestions fans offered for another trailer would be to use Beethoven's 9th over the action scenes, which is how the original film was promoted. A few fans (myself included) edited the teaser and replaced the heavy orchestral score with Beethoven's 9th. The result was more in tune with Die Hard - it gave the scenes kind of a lively kick.
The reason I find this interesting is that it turns out both Len Wiseman and Bruce Willis were actively monitoring the Internet forums on various sites and presumably either they, or someone else involved in the production and marketing, actually took the fans' advice for once - the full-length trailer that debuted a few months later featured Beethoven's 9th! Bruce Willis subsequently joined an Internet forum and started chatting to fans. To prove his identity he started a video chat session using his Mac computer - I find this interesting because the same thing is done during one point in "Live Free or Die Hard" when John McClane starts a video chat session over the Internet with the villain.
Bruce's dedication to the movie - and his repeated statement that it was "as good as the original" and his dismissal of the last two sequels as being bad films - actually got my hopes up a bit because I felt this was an indication that Willis (who, it must be noted, really helped get the film's production off the ground to begin with) must have genuinely loved the movie. He kept mentioning that director Wiseman had brought the franchise into the 21st century, and I didn't like the sounds of that, but after seeing the film I know what he means: this is old-school Die Hard in a new-age setting.
The character development is not nearly as strong as the first and third films, but it is better than the second film's dealings with McClane. The film is so fast-paced that there isn't much time to emphasize personal struggles, but there are a few scenes where McClane discusses being a reluctant hero and I felt this was clearly Wiseman trying to establish a link with the original movie, because the second sequel in particular (and the third to a point) focused less on this aspect. It definitely seemed like something you'd read in a fan-written script. I was originally skeptical of Wiseman's claims that he loved the original movie (didn't Paul Anderson say he loved "Alien" and "Predator"?) but after seeing the movie I believe him.
I also think this is some of the most accurate representation of computers/technology I've seen in any mainstream film - of course some of what happens is very far-fetched, but the little details - such as actually using a mouse to operate computers, recognizing IP addresses, establishing cam chat sessions, etc. - is more accurate than most films, where the people just sit at computers and start typing wildly at keyboards and all types of animated stuff pops up all over their computer screens. I am only noting this in my review because one of the biggest concerns of mine was the fact that the whole "Internet sabotage" hacker plot line was interesting for about a year in 1995 when the Internet first started getting off the ground and I really thought using such an old premise for this film would make it feel quite dated, but it's actually rather well done.
And finally, the PG-13 rating: you can see the edits that have been made. You can see the actors mouthing strong obscenities and other words come out of their mouths. And you know, I was really upset at first that the character's catchphrase wouldn't be able to be said in the film because of its rating, but I got so involved in the movie that I didn't _really_ notice the absence of frequent profanity. I do think the fact that they so blatantly edited words out makes the film feel a bit cheaper and less professional, but it's not a big enough deal to make my opinion of the film lower. Y
It is a Die Hard film but it is definitely of modern times and if you really do compare it to the first film, it's amazing how much has changed in about twenty years. The small-scale action in the first film has ballooned into John McClane jumping off an airborne jet and avoiding a huge fireball explosion and taking out helicopters with cars. But it's handled very well and even though it's hugely spectacular and silly it isn't insulting because it doesn't take itself seriously. And the humor is definitely there, too.
I find it hard to consider this to be within the same series of films as the original three, but it's still - on its own accord - a really good action film and I'm actually looking forward to seeing it again, which I never expected to say.