Second best in the series

Rating: 8/10 (1 July 2007)

It was with extreme cynicism that I entered the fourth Die Hard film. The original is a classic, the second is late 80's/early 90's over indulgence at its guilty pleasure best, and the third left me horribly disappointed. Twelve years later and I'm seeing pictures of a bald McClane, reading that the Underworld director is helming this, hearing all this talk of a PG-13 rating, watching lackluster trailers, and wondering why of why are they further desecrating this franchise? The film started and I began to worry that all my fears were not irrational. Something was a little off. From the under-whelming opening titles to the awkward introduction of John's character I thought it was true: it was going to be a Die Hard film that felt nothing like a Die Hard film.
Fifteen minutes later and this baby finally found it legs and delivered an intense and gratifying ride that literally left me exhausted by the time it faded to black.
It wasn't without its flaws. I'm a fan of Timothy Olyphant but his casting as the lead villain was a mistake. In the pantheon of Die Hard villains he ranks as the blandest. This is due in no small part to the script which never bothers to make him anything more than a cardboard cut out with a cliché motive and long expository chunks of dialogue. There is no hint of a personality, just endless spurts of information.
And yeah, it gets a little bit too over the top at some points. I personally took little issue with this but I can certainly understand where some might feel that they've turned McClane into a superhero without a costume.
The music is nothing to write home about. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it's certainly no better than average.
As for the PG-13 rating... I didn't mind it one single bit. I'm surprised they got it. The lack of profanity is apparent but honestly- it's a strange thing to complain about. And an easy fix once the unrated DVD is released. The violence on the other hand is sufficiently brutal. The blood doesn't spray as explicitly as it did in the second film but truth be told it's more violent than the third. It's definitely a Die Hard film in that capacity.
Len Wiseman... I was not a fan of this guy. The Underworld movies are boring and unimpressive. But he really delivers here. You don't understand how surprised I am to be admitting that. The action sequences in this film are nothing short of spectacular. The tunnel, the elevator shaft, Matt's rescue... not only are these scenes busting at the seems with adrenaline but they also manage to incorporate something sorely missing from action films these days: genuine suspense.
But for me the best part of the film was that John McClane was BACK. It was always so obvious that the third film was not written as a Die Hard film originally and they just changed the names of the characters. It didn't feel like John. His sidekick in that film was more of a bad ass than he was and that was just wrong. But this is McClane in all his familiar glory. It was nice to have him back.
I loved Justin Long as Matt. A popular criticism is that his character is whiny and annoying but I disagree. I'm a big fan of that actor and his style of humor so it completely worked for me.
I'm not as enthusiastic about Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy. Here scenes were pretty hit or miss. The "That would be my dad" line was probably the worst one in the movie. And she goes from hating her father to having him be the only person in the world she wants to talk to with no explanation. But for the most part she was pretty good.
Kevin Smith. I don't know. He seemed out of place and he's definitely not an actor. But I didn't find him as awful as some people seem to.
Overall, this was the most fun at the movies I've had yet this summer. I'm anxious to see it again. I know Die Hard fans are all over the board with their reactions but face facts: if you're a fan you know you're going to see it eventually. I'm just hear to say that if your experience ends up being anything like mine quit waiting.