Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: June 27, 2007
6.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 417 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
297
Mixed:
53
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 characters (5000 max)
7
ArkonBladeOct 27, 2010
a decent fourth film to the die hard franchise . bruce willis for the most part was on target as john maclaine amd justin long did a pretty decent job as his side kick . the film's PG rating kinda held it back i felt . felt it coulda beena decent fourth film to the die hard franchise . bruce willis for the most part was on target as john maclaine amd justin long did a pretty decent job as his side kick . the film's PG rating kinda held it back i felt . felt it coulda been pushed abit further . but its a fun ride while it lasts. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
TokyochuchuSep 3, 2013
Although not on a par with the best in the franchise, Live Free or Die Hard is a fun outing for John McClane. There are some problems, most notably a stilted finale and some ridiculous CGI involving a truck and a jet, but overall this givesAlthough not on a par with the best in the franchise, Live Free or Die Hard is a fun outing for John McClane. There are some problems, most notably a stilted finale and some ridiculous CGI involving a truck and a jet, but overall this gives you a good shot of old-school meathead action. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
grandpajoe6191Sep 18, 2011
"Live Free of Die Hard" is strong and crazy with impressive CGI and the good guy-bad guy dialogue. It is one hell of a roller coaster ride.
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
7
imthenoobJun 9, 2013
A rather enjoyable addition to the Die Hard franchise. Has a good mix of plot and action, The acting is pretty solid as well. I'd recommend it if you are a fan of the old ones.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
LaMagiadeVirueAug 16, 2013
La más grotesca e imponente de la saga. Un ataque generalizado, no como las otras que solo son puntos en las ciudades. Divertida. Buenas escenas de acción y actuaciones.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
EpicLadySpongeFeb 3, 2016
To live free, you must watch this movie. To die hard, hate on it. Ok, sure... there's like more bad films during 2007, but that's only said because there's haters here.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FuturedirectorMar 20, 2016
Live free or Die Hard uses more technology than simple action, not as the three originals, that had fantastically results. So this fourth film for the saga, only uses cool action and enjoyable story-telling to show more unremarkableLive free or Die Hard uses more technology than simple action, not as the three originals, that had fantastically results. So this fourth film for the saga, only uses cool action and enjoyable story-telling to show more unremarkable characters, but with an interesting story to tell. Die Hard fans will like this film. I also did it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
3
KyleJul 9, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JasonJ.Jul 10, 2007
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
MarkB.Aug 24, 2007
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
RamoY.Jul 8, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BruceW.Sep 23, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RockH.Aug 16, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
Christosc.Aug 21, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AnthonySAug 5, 2007
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
NeliOct 8, 2012
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 movieTerrible 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. Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews