rubbish 4.0

Rating: 4/10 (6 July 2007)

Another exercise in boredom (running for no less than 130 minutes), another case of megalomaniac budget and minimalist results (the children in Africa are still hungry), another hack director going through all the political correct action routines (with two exceptions). It might be a good time to give the genre an honor funeral in the big flag waving Hollywood style.
I'm surprised that not more people are crying out against the abomination that is "Live Free or Die Hard". Frankly, after the credits rolled I couldn't remember what made me go into that theater in the first place. Part curiosity, part stupidity I guess, the drizzly weather might have had something to do with it as well. Also, it got very high ratings from both the crowd at IMDb.com and America's top critics on rottentomatoes.com. Call it blind faith then. Other than that, I was just hoping for a decent action flick in a long row of indecent action flicks. Sadly, "Live Free or Die Hard" turns out to be one of the biggest disappointments in recent memory. In retrospect, the signs were all but too clear. First of all, the swearing is gone, the holy grail for every die hard "Die Hard" fan. No f-word, no fm-word, instead a whole lot of computer lingo for the technocratic audience. Now, if there has ever been a movie beside "Deadwood" that elevated swearing to an art form, it was the "Die Hard" series. But let us sympathize with the dilemma of the producers, it's kind of hard to get a PG-13 rating - and you want to get that PG-13 rating - when your protagonist chooses to express is his inner turmoil in four letter words, not that there is much of that pathos left in Willis' character anyway. Which indirectly brings us to the next problem. They compromised. Simply put, "Live Free or Die Hard" was tailored for the widest possible target audience, which for better or worse also includes every type of nerd under 18. Gone is all the blood spilling, guts carving gusto of it and instead they moved us to a cozy little CGI place, CGisland, where nothing ever really hurts, except maybe a grain of maize that did not bust open. Which brings us directly to the next problem. The CGI sucks. I remember that "Live Free or Die Hard" was supposed to deliver some good old physical action stunts. Well, it doesn't! Especially, the sequence in which a fighter jet is chasing Willis driving a big truck is so ludicrous and over the top, that you will find shaking your head in disbelief. Plus the same sequence was already done to near perfection in James Cameron's "True Lies", not that the underage audience is bothered by such historic details. Let's talk about the villain then. Admittedly, it was fun seeing Timothy Olyphant moved out of the dirty old West and put right smack in the middle of a clear-cut techno-thriller. Personally, I think they chose the wrong bad ass from the "Deadwood" cast. Ian McShane might have made a much better antagonist in the old "Die Hard" style, instead they went for the evil grinning gentleman type, must have had something to do with target audience. Which brings us to the next obstacle. The techno-thriller genre. "Live Free or Die Hard" is about as much a "Die Hard" movie as "The Bourne Identity" or "Mission: Impossible 3" are Oscar material (okay, I got that rhetoric all wrong here). At best, it's an upgraded version of "Hackers", with more action and more explosions. It's the "Lawnmower Man" without a lawn to mow. Of course, we get the irony, analog veteran pitched against a virtual enemy he can hardly see or even smell. It's hard to knock your enemies teeth out when they hide behind a firewall. Now, there was plenty of sarcasm in the originals, sure, but they never sported this witty irony that in the latest installment abounds at nausea. How many clever one liners can you stomach before the whole thing gets ridiculous? Which brings us to another problem. The "nerdiness" of it all. Yet another cheap trick to widen the target audience and win over all the internet nerds, discussion board junkies and if they get really lucky their girlfriends as well. Formula: Throw in a goofy sidekick that will make it easier for those who were born with a dial up plugged into their cradle cushion. In every other "Die Hard" movie Matt Farrell would have been killed, probably in a particularly sadistic manner, within the first 10 minutes of the movie, and the audience would have loved it. Now instead, he gets cheered on and even is allowed to save the day, yippy ka yeeeee They even stooped so low as to play the funny guy card as well. In "Mission: Impossible 3" it was Simon Pegg who got to show his mug for a few minutes, in "Die Free or Live Hard" it's Kevin Smith! Why? Well, I'll take a wild guess here and say it might have something to do with widening the target audience. As a mere side note, I want to add that it was kind of annoying how the blue tints of the "Underworld" universe at times spilled over into the "Die Hard" universe or what's left of it. To all of this add director Wiseman's terrible timing in action sequences and Bruce's absent minded screen presence and you get a disaster of a movie. I'm enjoying a mindless thrill ride at the movies, but "Live Free or Die Hard" is flat out insulting my good taste in bad movies. With two exceptions. I liked how the Asian gal gets beaten up, that was mildly affronting. The second exception is the terrorist announcement using mash-ups of speeches from the U.S. presidents. They should separately release it on the DVD extras, it might make a good clip for You Tube.