User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 347 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 40 out of 347
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 8, 2012
    0
    Terrible CGI climax scene, censored catchphrases and lame action. The villain was entirely forgettabe and got no time to grow at all and the plot was ridiculous. McClane himself went from an everydayman action-hero to superhero in this movie as well, at no point did it feel like a Die Hard movie.
  2. EddieE.
    Feb 27, 2009
    4
    Mildly entertaining action flick with no originality what so ever. Started off well and looked like it was heading in the right direction but lost its way in the second half of the film. Stunts though entertaining were farcical, Film ended with a whimper and was very predictable. Can't be compared to the original which is an all time classic by the way. The 4th die hard the best in Mildly entertaining action flick with no originality what so ever. Started off well and looked like it was heading in the right direction but lost its way in the second half of the film. Stunts though entertaining were farcical, Film ended with a whimper and was very predictable. Can't be compared to the original which is an all time classic by the way. The 4th die hard the best in the series- Not by a long shot Expand
  3. BruceW.
    Sep 23, 2007
    2
    The film is a joke! "Comments will be reviewed and may be edited prior to posting". Right :)) that's why we call this democracy and that's why the lower than 7 rating is so rarely displayed... the movie is a joke. should be a cartoon. ppl write here all kinds of crap to justify their stupidity and lack of interest in the real world, like fire sale and f-18 and hack this and The film is a joke! "Comments will be reviewed and may be edited prior to posting". Right :)) that's why we call this democracy and that's why the lower than 7 rating is so rarely displayed... the movie is a joke. should be a cartoon. ppl write here all kinds of crap to justify their stupidity and lack of interest in the real world, like fire sale and f-18 and hack this and that... The hacker guy in the basement was dumb as hell, he is hitting, punching the keyboard like a maniac :)), and can see the 10px letters from 10 feet :)), the wole hacking part/people was pathetic, and not one who ever used a computer for more than to look at emails or porn would believe in these actors. The jet - I believe an F-35B - was the other funny part.. right, because that machine would fly right under the falling/hanging overpass wait to be destroyed instead of sending a few more missiles... then the explosion...common ppl, Nothing in this movie is believable by the actors - while the main idea was not bad they failed to deliver and can entertain the 12yrs old or less only because of the big-kabooms- and-flames-and-stuff It is sad that ppl do not require anything but big booms and out of this world actions to be entertained so they don't even accidentally have to use their head... watch Idiocracy.. it is happening.. soon we'll have the same #1 movie like there. Expand
  4. MarkB.
    Aug 24, 2007
    3
    I don't know about anyone else, but I really, really, really, REALLY miss Bonnie Bedelia. For some reason, fans of the Die Hard franchise don't mention this too often, but her Holly McClane was an essential--even vital--reason why the first two Die Hard flicks worked as well as they did. Not only was New York's finest everyman-turned-supercop's wife a perfect match for I don't know about anyone else, but I really, really, really, REALLY miss Bonnie Bedelia. For some reason, fans of the Die Hard franchise don't mention this too often, but her Holly McClane was an essential--even vital--reason why the first two Die Hard flicks worked as well as they did. Not only was New York's finest everyman-turned-supercop's wife a perfect match for him, a tough, feisty, resourceful woman who gave as good as she got (remember how she handled William Atherton's obnoxious, intrusive TV reporter? Ouch!) but she helped make Die Hards 1 and 2 (NOT the Star Wars movie series) the perfect, definitive action-movie illustration of Joseph Campbell's hero's journey: essentially, the first two movies were as much about John's efforts to reunite with his wife as they were about his attempts to save the world. In the series' third installment, Die Hard With a Vengeance, Holly is reduced to an offscreen presence that John spends the whole movie arguing with over pay phones; in the current Live Free or Die Hard, the divorce papers were filed years ago. Of course, if you choose not to accept The Bonnie Situation, there are lots of other reasons why Live Free or Die Hard is not only a crushing disappointment but a true insult to all those who believe (as Entertainment Weekly clearly does) that the 1988 original is the greatest action movie of all time. Die Hard movies decrease in effectiveness in direct proportion to how large a terrain gets covered: the original took place in a large office building; the second entry, which was only slightly less good, was set mostly in an airport; the markedly inferior third installment covered all of New York City, and this one, the absolute weakest, uses the entire Eastern Seaboard as its McClane-vs.-terrorists playing field. Artificial, all-too-obviously computer-generated action sequences (including a couple that look suspiciously like the dreaded rear-projection shots that went out of style right after the seventeenth time Frankie Avalon faked hanging ten in front of footage of a wave, circa 1965) completely sink this one, all but defeating Justin Long's likable screen presence as a computer geek unwillingly recruited by McClane. But the final blow is dealt by Live Free's selling of the franchise's soul in order to get the almighty PG-13 rating. Not EVERYTHING has to be for the kids, and watching the ridiculously sanitized action in this one reminds us of how gutsy (in both senses) the first two were; c'mon, watching a bad guy take an occasional icicle in the eye or get turned into red coleslaw by a fast-moving jet never seriously hurt anyone. The biggest fraud of all--and one that Ralph Nader might consider investigating, if he's finished bollixing up elections--is Live Free's bowdlerization of McClane's legendary "Roy Rogers quote". In the questionable interest of not burning so-called virgin ears, who hear worse on the playground, or on cable TV, it gets muffled in a despicable act of aural hocus-pocus. In the interest of telling it like it is, let me just describe this trick (and this movie) the way the REAL John McClane would've wanted: "Yippie-ki-yay; mother, we've been f.cked!" Expand
  5. Christosc.
    Aug 21, 2007
    0
    No villains. No plot. No fun. crappiest movie ever. I hope Bruce will put that money to good use. No wonder he has that cynical smile in his face every time he gets unscathed out of the rumble. AVOID PAYING TO WATCH THAT MOVIE AT ALL COST.
  6. RockH.
    Aug 16, 2007
    0
    This was a real mediocre movie. The fact that so many people loved this thing, is beyond me. I've never seen such a stupid movie. It was a very violent live action cartoon. What really bothered me was the way the women in the movie were treated. McClane's daughter is slapped around and called a slanderous name and treated roughly. That's not the worst of it Mai,Maggie Q, is This was a real mediocre movie. The fact that so many people loved this thing, is beyond me. I've never seen such a stupid movie. It was a very violent live action cartoon. What really bothered me was the way the women in the movie were treated. McClane's daughter is slapped around and called a slanderous name and treated roughly. That's not the worst of it Mai,Maggie Q, is brutally beaten in a scene very similar to a domestic violence incident than a actual screen fight. The way he held her hair in his hand after throwing her into a shelf, and being very amused at it, threw me off. It was very misogynistic. Not to mention the racist and sexist comments he makes at her after killing her. That was going to far. I didn't know violence against women was supposed to entertaining. I guess it is to a lot "sick" people. The other women characters were nothing more than props. I mean this movie was misogynistic and had hostile chauvinism throughout. A very poor movie to be shown to kids. I hope people(especially young people) don't imitate what they saw in the movie. Shame on Hollywood and Bruce Willis. Expand
  7. AnthonyS
    Aug 5, 2007
    0
    This is the worst film I've seen in 15 years. I have no idea how its getting such high reviews, I can only assume the general expectation for film quality is steadily decreasing over time... This movie by no means lives up to the Die Hard name. It is pure and simple: an unrealistic action bore-ride (so much action its actually unentertaining) about an invincible man who not only This is the worst film I've seen in 15 years. I have no idea how its getting such high reviews, I can only assume the general expectation for film quality is steadily decreasing over time... This movie by no means lives up to the Die Hard name. It is pure and simple: an unrealistic action bore-ride (so much action its actually unentertaining) about an invincible man who not only dodges bullets -- SPOILER ALERT -- -- he also has the ability to take on F-16 fighter jets with his bare hands. Add on to this the fact that almost every government building looked completely contrived -- (the FBI headquarters looked like it was an oversized bathroom with computers and paid actors standing around having silent conversations.) and that Bruce Willis was the only decent actor in the whole film, and you have a pretty horrible 2 hours to sit through. I think that the PG-13 rating should have been enough of a warning sign, but after reading all these positive reviews I went out on a limb (and I greatly regret doing so.) I actually walked out on this film, despite my great love of the original trilogy. I should also note that I waited 2 weeks before writing this post, so that my anger and outrage wouldn't bias my review. Needless to say, it was a pretty poor film. Expand
  8. MarcK.
    Jul 13, 2007
    4
    Saw it only because most of the reviews were so positive. I'll echo many others and say that many of the action scenes were so implausible and so over the top that you felt you were either watching a cartoon, or that Bruce Willis was secretly Superman, and therefore invulnerable. Reminded me of the Arnold film, "Eraser" of a few years back - somewhat entertaining, but ridiculously Saw it only because most of the reviews were so positive. I'll echo many others and say that many of the action scenes were so implausible and so over the top that you felt you were either watching a cartoon, or that Bruce Willis was secretly Superman, and therefore invulnerable. Reminded me of the Arnold film, "Eraser" of a few years back - somewhat entertaining, but ridiculously implausible. Expand
  9. ChrisC
    Jul 10, 2007
    4
    Weak. The action scenes were too far-fetched even for a kill-em-all action flick. Everybody in the world except Bruce Willis and the Mac guy came off as completely incompetent. Willis continually survives due to complete blind luck, and there is no way in hell a guy in a jet fighter could possibly fail to destroy a truck. They didn't even take the time to make you care enough about Weak. The action scenes were too far-fetched even for a kill-em-all action flick. Everybody in the world except Bruce Willis and the Mac guy came off as completely incompetent. Willis continually survives due to complete blind luck, and there is no way in hell a guy in a jet fighter could possibly fail to destroy a truck. They didn't even take the time to make you care enough about the plot to root for the good guys in the action scenes. It's obvious they just got a few ideas for moments action scenes and then contrived the rest of the plot around creating those moments. So basically, Die Hard 4 does all the dumb stuff most action flicks do, except more transparently, and without tying it together with the plot the way good action flicks do. Collapse
  10. JasonJ.
    Jul 10, 2007
    3
    I am a big fan of Die Hard one and I thought the third one was pretty good as well. How is this 2007 installment getting such good reviews? I left the theatre with about 30 min left in the movie. There was no way that this movie was getting any better. I already didn't care about any of the characters or where the plot was going. They did two things here that were fundamentally I am a big fan of Die Hard one and I thought the third one was pretty good as well. How is this 2007 installment getting such good reviews? I left the theatre with about 30 min left in the movie. There was no way that this movie was getting any better. I already didn't care about any of the characters or where the plot was going. They did two things here that were fundamentally wrong. One, they introduced Kill Bill-type fighting scenes (Bruce Willis fist fighting a hot Asian woman? Give me a break) . At least Hollie Genaro (in the first one) had a certain down-home sexiness to her and, of course, she didn't get involved in any long, drawn out kung fu scenes. The people in this movie are supermodelesque which ruins the movie (people with no sense of taste like that style). Two, the action scenes weren't believable. They were more on par with a fantasy movie, or as another reviewer put it, they belonged in an installment of Terminator. The reason why the first one worked is that the action was not-so-far-fetched, but still very exciting. It's an art form that requires as much restraint as imagination to get it just right. What a horrible movie. It will probably still make money because it is a name-brand, just like a Mike Tyson fight (when was the last time he put on a good show?) RIP Die Hard. Expand
  11. IanC
    Jul 10, 2007
    4
    Very not good, all over the place both in story and geography, rubbish dialogue, bad guys who are mostly pretty benign in action-flick terms and then suddenly turn super-nasty and murderous which just doesn't flow, STUPID stunts that go too far over the top (and one which is pulled straight out of an old Arnie flick so NOTHING new there)... Dumb, empty, sad, and even maybe depressing.
  12. Kyle
    Jul 9, 2007
    3
    Heartbreaking... I love the Die Hard movies but this is a real stinker. So much of what made the others great was the location becoming one of the characters. Here, there is no central stage for all the action. Also, Bruce seems so grumpy and depressed through the whole film that his one-liners come off as failed attempts to become his old lovable self. The stunts were not suitable for Heartbreaking... I love the Die Hard movies but this is a real stinker. So much of what made the others great was the location becoming one of the characters. Here, there is no central stage for all the action. Also, Bruce seems so grumpy and depressed through the whole film that his one-liners come off as failed attempts to become his old lovable self. The stunts were not suitable for Die Hard and belonged in a Schwarzenegger flick. Finally, though there is lot's more crap to talk about, the editing was pure rubbish. How many times can we have dialog out of sync with actors mouths. There was no smooth flow to this film. It's a big stinky, burning paper bag full of doggy-do. Expand
  13. OliverC.
    Jul 9, 2007
    4
    A miserable flick. I'm even a fan of the older die hard movies, i found 1 & 3 good at least. This one was a bunch of nonsense. The plot, the action, everything was absurd. It's hard to get into a movie when it doesn't have to follow the rules of physics.. or reality. Intensely boring! I didn't expect to come out of a die hard movie unthrilled. Transformers owns this.
  14. RamoY.
    Jul 8, 2007
    2
    Horrible movie beyond any logic. I cant believe this movie got some many avid reviews. This movie was a stinker from start to finish. This movie lost its focus creating a movie full of campy dialouge that would make the Governator shake his head. The action was way WAY over the top (a car somehow jumping over a ramp through divine intervention to hit a helicopter... hold on a minute while Horrible movie beyond any logic. I cant believe this movie got some many avid reviews. This movie was a stinker from start to finish. This movie lost its focus creating a movie full of campy dialouge that would make the Governator shake his head. The action was way WAY over the top (a car somehow jumping over a ramp through divine intervention to hit a helicopter... hold on a minute while I cringe). Mclain was suppose to be a everyday man caught in something bigger than himself. Not a bare headed 9 mm wielding terminator full of unlimited ammo. Of course this movie will make money because all the public cares about these days is numerous loud explosions and a few one liners after a few shameless deaths at the hands of the bald assassin. If you want unreality and mindless campy dialouge watch Fox News. Expand
Metascore
69

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 34
  2. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. It's simply old-school stunts and movie magic.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    The sheer quantity of often outrageous stunts should help overcome franchise mustiness to entertain.
  3. Reviewed by: Jessica Reaves
    75
    Early in LFODH, a villain taunts our hero, calling him "a Timex in a digital world"; McClane, characteristically, takes the dig as a compliment. Two hours, countless butt-kickings and hairbreadth escapes later, we know why.