Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: June 27, 2007
6.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 408 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
292
Mixed:
49
Negative:
67
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
5
marcmyworksDec 8, 2013
I call this film 'Die Hard Light' as the villains aren't that villainous, the supporting cast a little bit goofy and a plot taken straight out of a saturday morning cartoon.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
worleyjamersMay 26, 2013
Live Free or Die Hard is actually a strange experience; for a film that strays so far from its franchise's staples and roots, this film is pure, action-packed entertainment nonetheless. While I understand why many fans of the franchise mightLive Free or Die Hard is actually a strange experience; for a film that strays so far from its franchise's staples and roots, this film is pure, action-packed entertainment nonetheless. While I understand why many fans of the franchise might dislike this entry when compared to the others, I still think those people are making a huge mistake. Live Free is a good action/thriller. It hardly feels like a Die Hard film, which is disappointing, but it's very well directed, well acted, and the script is solid. I enjoyed it a lot. I loved the effects; some were over-the-top for a Die Hard movie, but the sequences were extremely well shot and surprisingly original. Sure, this probably isn't the perfect Die Hard sequel, but it's still a good movie worth seeing! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
sinadoomJun 16, 2013
Die Hard 4.0 is an all-out American action film. It's big screen shooting and explosions all the way through. Whilst this is all good and keeps your interest, it's amazing how little focus there is on the story. There's really not enoughDie Hard 4.0 is an all-out American action film. It's big screen shooting and explosions all the way through. Whilst this is all good and keeps your interest, it's amazing how little focus there is on the story. There's really not enough emphasis on the characters and their motivations; nor is there any explanation of how anything magically happens at the touch of a button. Overall it's a good action movie but given the context it could have had a much stronger plot. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
Jedi_JettsonJul 7, 2012
This Die Hard sequel is decent, but it fails to capture several elements of the original. Though Len Wiseman has expertly crafted his action, but those action sequences don't give Bruce Willis a performance that captures the John McClane thatThis Die Hard sequel is decent, but it fails to capture several elements of the original. Though Len Wiseman has expertly crafted his action, but those action sequences don't give Bruce Willis a performance that captures the John McClane that sneaked around a building controlled by terrorists shooting them down one by one or wearing a board saying I hate n--grs to fight the terrorist's brother. That was the TRULY BADASS John McClane, and he was also the most badass element of the franchise. Also, couldn't the antagonists have been better? Timothy Olyphant (Thomas Gabriel) and Maggie Q (Mai Linh) played poorly created antagonists who underestimated John McClane in ridiculous situations. The situations were also more ridiculous than what was ridiculous in the original. Man, it's like Len Wiseman almost ruined Die Hard for me, but he didn't; he just failed to make it great compared to the original due to what changed with John McClane and the action and because of the ridiculous situations. Also, isn't tracking down a computer-slicing terrorists more of a job for an FBI Agent or a spy? because it probably isn't for John McClane. If you like this, that's cool with me, but don't forget it didn't capture the badass John McClane of the original, because when I see Bruce Willis, that's exactly who I see so I still wouldn't recommend it. But at least Bruce Willis's performance in Live Free or Die Hard is still pretty solid and Justin Long did a pretty good performance. ~65/100 Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
IanCJul 10, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
OliverC.Jul 9, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonS.Jul 2, 2007
Only one good scene, Mclain beats down some chick, like a pimp. A PG13 film, Mcclain never uses the F word, not much of a thriller/suspense, just all action and very cheesy unconvincing storyline. Better off watching on DVD, in R rated version.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MichaelRDec 30, 2007
In a nutshell its a fun popcorn movie and nothing special.Its Bruce Willis's best movie ever by far.The acting and dialog was decent.It definitely has a unique and different plot then most action movies which is great and the action in In a nutshell its a fun popcorn movie and nothing special.Its Bruce Willis's best movie ever by far.The acting and dialog was decent.It definitely has a unique and different plot then most action movies which is great and the action in the movie is what makes this movie watchable. Bruce should stop making movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MatB.Jun 27, 2007
Stupid movie, with a good action scene or two. Again when a plot point gets hard to solve, computers can do anything
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
GsSJun 29, 2007
Unlike the previous Die Hard movies which were somewhat reality based this movie goes off to James Bond land. This movie is pure eye candy for the popcorn sub 21 crowd. I enjoyed the movie for what it is. The plot is actually somewhat Unlike the previous Die Hard movies which were somewhat reality based this movie goes off to James Bond land. This movie is pure eye candy for the popcorn sub 21 crowd. I enjoyed the movie for what it is. The plot is actually somewhat borrowed from Die Hard 2 when ex-military hijacked entire air port computer system this time they take the entire countries computer system. Scenes are stolen from movies like True Lies and even Lost World Jurassic Park, among others. The action scenes carry this movie, and are well directed by Len Wiseman. But plot logic is moronic. Why? Why would a NYC detective transport and pick up a computer hacker in Camden, NJ and transport him to DC. It makes absolutely no sense. It is pure horrible writing. I love NJ, my home state, but it makes no sense for McClane to be doing that. The list goes on and on and on. McClane flying a helicopter, etc. Justin Long is pretty good as the sidekick much better than i thought he would be but Timothy Olyphant is a boring villain and McClane's daughter Elizebeth Winstead is attractive but can't act. I like Olphant, he was great in Scream 2 and the movie with Elisa Culthbert but here he doesn't do much. Bruce Willis is McClane and does a decent job but much of the humor and real life quality to his performance is missing.McClane is no longer a real cop but a super hero. I like taking the movie out of one local as they did in Die Hard with a Vengeance but here McClane is driving all over the country while roads are bogged down and then flying a helicopter. Check reality out the door and you'll enjoy the movie for what it is. What the action slows down toward the end of the picture and dumbness of the film comes out. When the action picks up again the movie gives you eye candy so you forgive it's dumbness. The ending is stupid but hey it's entertaining. Don't for one second compare this to the original Die Hard it's not in the same ballpark. There is no sense of reality or real danger for the McClane character. Not nearly as good. The PG 13 rating results in loss of curses but the action is there, so not a tremendous loss. Enjoy the action and laugh at the plot Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChrisCJul 10, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarcK.Jul 13, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JGMSep 17, 2007
If this wasn't called "Die Hard", it would be easier to see it for what it is: a cartoony, computer-aided PG13 actioner with no pretenses beyond giving a few thrills and chuckles. There's no comparison to the first two in the If this wasn't called "Die Hard", it would be easier to see it for what it is: a cartoony, computer-aided PG13 actioner with no pretenses beyond giving a few thrills and chuckles. There's no comparison to the first two in the series, or to the cream of the recent action crop (Bourne and Bond, each of which somehow lived more comfortably within the confines of the PG13 rating). Worth a rental. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ToddJan 1, 2008
Started strong, but went WAY WAY overboard on the believability. Followed the formula of Diehard 2 and 3, but not the original (and only great) Diehard film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EddieD.Sep 21, 2008
I don't care if it wasn't perfect. Its an improvement from what you see these days.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EddieE.Feb 27, 2009
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
AdamS.Sep 22, 2007
If you have nothing better to do or watch give it a try. I am a fan of the prev. DH movies and Willis is a fine actor but this movie was not what I expected. That would be something better than the 3rd and this is not even close except the If you have nothing better to do or watch give it a try. I am a fan of the prev. DH movies and Willis is a fine actor but this movie was not what I expected. That would be something better than the 3rd and this is not even close except the special effects, but if I want to see that I watch Superman or Terminator. This is not an "ordinary" cop in a middle of a s&*&*t storm. The cast could have been ok, if the "bad guy" could act as a bad guy. Even if I understand that he was a good guy who was betrayed by his own people and only wants to get some attention and money of course since he invested so much in the operation, still they kill without mercy so why is the slowdown, hesitating.. They should have looked longer for an actor for the part. BTW this plot was so pathetic that it could have been easily true (Long's remark about FEMA, the known chaos in the system if anything goes down for a half day.. power, stocks.. etc.) Well, of course only if anyone is thinking a bit and not only amused by the big fire, and explosions.. and whatever the media tells you Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful