Live Free or Die Hard

[Fernando]

So they're going back to 4.0?  Or is this an early promotional poster?

Domestic has the Live Free... title. International is going with the 4.0.

Right, because the rest of the world has no idea what freedom is... gotcha.   

Haha, I thought that at first but in order to identify this flim as a sequel, at least in spanish the translation of LFoDH can't apply the way Die Hard was translated, so maybe it has to do with that, also not the majority of ppl are aware like us of these sequels being made until they see a trailer in a movie theater.

Die Hard in spanish was translated as Hard to Kill (Duro de Matar) or Tough to Kill could be too, so Live Free would be like Vive Libre o Muere Duro, that doesn't make a direct connection with the franchise, so I guess that's it or maybe they're right and we don't know what freedom is. 

[MacGuffin]

New Die Hard retitled
Source: Moviehole

They say – due to both McDonalds and the fact that our leaders are closer than cooks – Australia is basically in bed with America. Not true on all accounts, it seems.

Yet another big-time U.S movie is about to renamed for Down Under audiences. "Live Free or Die Hard" will now be . . . "Throw another McClane on the barbie".

I kid, I kid...

It's actually going to release here as "Die Hard 4.0", FOX has confirmed.

Yep, the films original title. Seems Twentieth Century Fox will only be releasing – from the sounds – the film under the title "Live Free or Die Hard" in the states ... since they're the ones that fully understand the play-on-words-name there.

I actually quite liked "Live Free or Die Hard" . . . but I guess I understand why its being released under '4.0' in Australia – its for the same reason they retitled "XXX 2 : State of the Union" to "XXX 2 : the Next Level" here : We just 'won't' get it. Or so they think.

A title change for Australia is nothing new ... I can't tell you how many movies there are in my DVD Tower that I own two copies of... only each copy has a different title.

For example : "Shoot to Kill" was renamed "Deadly Pursuit" (which I actually prefer) here; "Point of No Return" (which I own on DVD; Region 1) was retitled "The Assassin" here (which I don't own); the Ed O'Neill comedy "Dutch" was renamed "Driving Me Crazy" here; Jennifer Garner starrer "13 Going on 30" (which I picked up at 20/20 video in Los Angeles on DVD fairly cheaply) was released as "Suddenly 30" here; The Paul Walker thriller "Joyride" was renamed "Roadkill" here; and more recently, FOX decided to retitle "Garfield : A Tale of Two Kitties" to simply, "Garfield 2" for down under audiences. It made a big difference. Heh.

Anyway, "Die Hard 4.0", that's what McClane's latest jaunt's called down under. Like it or Lump it.

[Pubrick]

FOX decided to retitle "Garfield : A Tale of Two Kitties" to simply, "Garfield 2" for down under audiences.

to fox's credit, the new title was found in Dickens' original script notes.

[MacGuffin]

New Trailer here.

[Gold Trumpet]

Fuck, I'm watching this for nostalghia only.

[Pubrick]

why not for solyaris?

[MacGuffin]

Live Free or Die Hard
Source: Entertainment Weekly

Len Wiseman may have cut his fangs on vampire flicks like Underworld, but he grew up watching John McClane rough up a procession of Teutonic bad guys — and when he was given a chance to direct the fourth Die Hard installment, he wasn't about to let it suck. So when he laid eyes on an early draft of the script, he called for a serious overhaul. ''On page 30, John McClane goes into the police department and says, 'What can I do to help?''' says Wiseman. ''That's not John McClane! John McClane is, 'Why the hell do I have to be here?'''

That ear for the character was just a bonus. It was Wiseman's style that won him the fourth Die Hard movie. Bruce Willis himself hand-picked him to direct after watching Underworld: Evolution with his daughters — and Wiseman swiftly developed a plot that fit in neatly with the franchise's history. The story finds McClane goaded into action against terrorists after a member of his family gets herself into trouble — and since wifey had been down that road in the first two flicks, it's time for his daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to have a date with a baddie.

And what a baddie he is: Deadwood's Timothy Olyphant signed on as a disgruntled government employee-turned-cyberterrorist. If this sounds like peculiarly digital territory for the decidedly analog McClane, that's because it is. After all, it's been 12 years since Willis saved New York in Die Hard With a Vengeance. ''A lot of time has passed, and the world's different,'' says Olyphant. ''There's a generation gap between the hero and the villain. You get the impression John McClane's still using snail mail.''

Left to his own devices — fisticuffs and firearms, mostly — McClane might not be a match for Olyphant's evil geek. Fortunately, Justin Long (Accepted; those ubiquitous Mac ads) is along for the ride as a wisecracking computer whiz who helps McClane navigate cyberspace. ''If I'm hacking away at something, I'm the hero,'' says Long. ''But once the action starts, I'm like the water boy waiting for him to come off the field and shower him with praise. A lot of 'Holy s---!' and 'Jesus Christ!' ''

[pumba]

I saw this tonight, and i really gotta say...

Bravo! Bravo to bruce willis. bravo to living free. bravo to YIPEE KA YAY MOTH-(gun bang), bravo to Mclane's witty, smart and cool sidekick: JUSTIN LONG!!!.Bravo for VERY careful ADR sessions and sound editing.  bravo to the COOLEST bad guy ever: timothy olyphant! Bravo to shooting all of timothy olyphants scenes in one day. bravo to a great climax, bravo to breaking the 180. bravo to snickers, bravo to KEVIN SMITH'S AWESOME CAMEO! bravo to Mclane's baldness. bravo for mac's. Bravo for sequels.

[pete]

is that sarcasm?  I want to know.

[Just Withnail]

It's shit. Die Hard should be gritty, but this, of course*, looks super slick. Willis plays himself playing McClane. I don't care who Justin Long plays. Blah. I love Die Hard and Die Hard With A Vengeance, two great films, but haven't seen Die Harder in ages so I dunno how this holds up to that.

Props to Marco Beltrami who tried tried to infuse a bit of Die Hard feeling by borrowing some cues from the first one, but he just drove home the fact that the slick shit you're watching has nothing to do with that film. The music actually manages to show how, in the first film, though the situation is tense, there's a sense of the people actually being in it, walking around; McClane exploring the building, quiet talking scenes. It's use of lensflares gives a sense of a world where the camera "intrudes" and has to film what's already there, whereas in Live Free, everything seems dictated by the camera, and it's characters seem caged in by the calculated slickness (and a shit script). Which of course is symptomatic of pretty much every action film, but the gap between DH 1 and DH 4 shows it perfectly. The music gets no breathing room, and moody cues lifted from DH 1 shows the total lack of mood in 4.

And there's a thousand more reasons this is shit. Rise to the occasion, name 'em.

*Len Wiseman? Who the fuck thought Len Wiseman and Die Hard was a good match?

[Pozer]

i thought it was brilliant.

[Gold Trumpet]

It's the worst Die Hard yet. Some of the formulas from the other Die Hards are here, but this is a condensed version of those films. I thought Vengeance was pretty bad for having little story and character in between the explosians but the new goes even further for having little story to it. MaClane's back history and characterization gets very few nods. The film references the other films in the series, but treats his heroics and escapes from death with little identity. Most of this film is on auto pilot.

It reminds me of Under Seige 2: Dark Territory. Same scenario as far as villian and situation are concerned and same problems as far as storytelling goes. That sequel took the Casey Ryback formula and just exploited it. The idea for the sequel is that if the granduer of the threat is increased, like taking down the capital or the country through computerized means, the story is a worthy follow up to the disaster the heroes faced in the original because this new scenario is more dangerous. It's not true. It just makes the story less believable and more ridiculous because the filmmakers are really reaching to try to include average heroics in overbloated ideas for how to destroy the world. The Bond franchise just made a living out of it, but Die Hard and Under Seige isn't Bond. It's talented men in the wrong situations. Not hired professionals sent out to the save the world everyday. Forcing the storylines together is really hard.

But of course these are just dumb action movies, but dumb action movies need to improve on the qualities that made their originals so good. The original Die Hard had excellent amounts of realism and pacing added to the action exploits. The characters were good and their situations were well handled and the amount of humor added gave the story flavor. I admit I enjoyed parts of the new Die Hard, but it was based on nostalgia for the original. Bruce Willis is a talented action hero. He startd out in comedy and brought the right persona to John MaClane. Nobody else could have done it. Until he commits himself to a better story that makes more sense for his character, I don't see how the franchise will get better. This one was pretty awful.

Spoiler

The way MaClane killed the last bad guy was awesome. Shooting himself in the shoulder to shoot him in the heart was a true Die Hard esque idea.

[The Red Vine]

I pretty much agree with GT on this one. It has that autopilot feel despite some fun stunts. It's a product, not really much of a movie. And at almost 2 and a half hours, that can become tedious. The last 30 minutes in particular feels far too stretched out.

But due to the critical acclaim and strong word of mouth, this might not be the end of the series.

Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker.

[MacGuffin]

This is the worst of the series. It feels less like a Die Hard film even though it keeps making nods to the previous movies. The biggest problem is a weak villian. A bad guy should never be upstaged by his henchmen, but here Maggie Q manages to do so and was the best part of the flick. She was the bad-ass, not Olyphant. In fact, Olyphant's decisions kept being second-guessed and questioned by his computer geek cronie. That's the sign of a guy not in power.

The action scenes were nothing special and contained a lot of "Yeah, right" factors even for a mindless action film. One scene felt like a combination of the SUV in the tree and the motor-home on the cliff sequences from the first two Jurassic Parks.

[last days of gerry the elephant]

I wanted to shoot myself watching this, it reminded me of how bad Spiderman 3 was. This summer is really sucking for movies, but then again, I seem to be watching the worst ones all the time.

Anyone else notice the poor audio dubbing job? or bad footage cuts from one character style, to another and back again?