The prospect of a fourth installment in the Die Hard franchise originally made me nauseous; barely a month after Shrek 3, At World’s End, and Spider-Man 3, suddenly John McClane returns from a twelve-year hiatus in a big-budget action sequel, only noticeably older, bitterly divorced, and estranged from his children. I expected a slew of material for tasteless geriatric jokes (Die Hard with Excedrin), but after the first ten minutes—the requisite character development for a man who’s already fought terrorists on a skyscraper, in an airport, and deep inside New York City—I was elated to see the badass juggernaut cop back in full form.
The plot, for the most part, is inconsequential—an ostracized computer genius and his dispensable underlings devastate the country with a firesale, while John McClane finds an ally in a twenty-something slacker hacker. There are no great performances, no telling revelations about any of the characters; Justin Long’s sarcastic loner is barely tolerable, while Timothy Olyphant’s villain pales under the standards set by Alan Rickman. What sustains the film are the action sequences, in particular one staged in a Washington, D.C. tunnel, though they become somewhat overdone in the last fifteen minutes. (Still, kudos to the filmmakers for abandoning the rapid editing techniques of most action films.)
Perhaps the consistent appeal of John McClane, and why he’s appeared again after more than a decade, is because he is a reassuring, albeit fictional, presence. In contrast to all the Jack Bauer rip-offs that populate so many films and television shows, McClane is an everyman, someone you might come across on the street or in a supermarket. Jack Bauer is covert, relying on a secret government organizations; McClane is a New York City detective and succeeds in spite of them. With the nightly news more terrifying than ever, maybe bringing McClane back wasn’t such a bad idea.
by Adam Balz | Source: 35MM Theatrical Print
04 Jul 2007 10:44 PM | Comments (2)
McClane was an everyman in the first two “Die Hard” films, sure, but not in “Live Free”. He’s become another unattached (or barely: there’s his daughter), down-on-his-luck cop. There’s no moment where we can really sympathize with the “Live Free” McClane; his short, “what am I doing here” lines fall flat. He’s now an unstoppable, Terminator-like cop now, not the guy who gets his car towed or can’t find shoes that fit.
I don’t get all the complaints about McClane being an unrelatable, unstoppable Terminator in this movie. He’s portrayed in Live Free the same way he’s portrayed in the first movie. He’s trying to bandage his fucked up family life, he was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he’s no more of a Terminator in this movie than he was in Die Hard. He jumps out of a moving car and he’s in such pain afterwards he can’t move. He gets shot in the shoulder and he’s down on the ground instantly, unable to move. At the end of both movies, he’s covered in blood and dirt; he’s gone through hell and it shows. I can understand the complaints about hanging on the jet being a little too ridiculous and over the top, but there’s no inconsistency between the McClane of Die Hard and the McClane of Live Free.
Lucas
5 July 2007
1:51 PM