Better than 2 or 3, but NOT the best!

Rating: 8/10 (9 November 2007)

Why does EVERY sequel have to try and one up it's predecessors? Die Hard took place one night in one building. Die Hard 2, one night in an airport. Die Hard 3, a one day in an entire city. Now Die Hard 4, a day spread over a few states. What's next, an international Die Hard 5?
Bruce Willis has aged parallel with John McClane, older, balder and more bitter--a great performance. Justin Long does a good job playing opposite Willis, keeping up the humor and providing that much needed exposition, try to get the audience (and McClane) to believe that the cyber-terror plot is plausible. Maggie Q's "smokin' hot" presence alone is worth the price of admission. Even Timothy Olyphant can't ruin this ride, but his performance lacks that much needed sense of irony that the truly great bad guys must have--can one be truly menacing without that "I know more than you" smirk?
Anyway, the film has some great McClane moments, some really decent old school stunts/action, and a good amount of humor and suspense. The plot is utter nonsense, just like DH2 and DH3. But if you want plot you not going into a Die Hard film anyway.
P.S.: Having seen both the PG-13 theatrical U.S. cut and the "unrated" cut, watch the "unrated" cut when it arrives on DVD. Both versions are essential the same film, but Die Hard isn't really Die Hard without the uncensored profanity and violence. Also, I think the few added F-word laced one-liners are pure gems.