Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

I have to be honest, guys. I think it’s really, really, reeeeeeeeeeally silly to either praise or condemn a film sight unseen based only on its rating. I have seen fantastic G rated films and absolute dogshit that’s been rated R. I don’t think ratings really matter as long as the filmmaker made the film they set out to make.

Having said that, yes... I think it’s an odd choice for Fox to chase the kiddie demographic with a DIE HARD film, since most of the audience they’re chasing probably doesn’t remember the last time DIE HARD was in a theater (1995), and probably doesn’t care.

All that ultimately matters to me is the film. Is it good? Is it fun? Is it really DIE HARD? Here’s one more reaction, this one from a reader in Japan:

Just got back from an advance showing of Die Hard 4.0 in Yokohama which retains the original working title on this side of the pond. Having seen Die Hard on DVD a few weeks back and still being blown away by its superiority amongst modern offerings of the action hero genre which I think many would agree the film helped cement, I went into the theater with high expectations having seen the trailers which rocked my soul. Many of these expectations were initially met, and exceeded, only to be left dangling at a little more than halfway through the experience.

As this is an action film, I suppose said scenes should be addressed first and foremost. Somewhere between McClane shooting fire exntinguishers, dodging cars in a blacked out tunnel and one of the most creative elevator shaft scenes I've seen since...well....Die Hard, you'll realize you got your 9 dollars worth. Unfortunately for me, I live in Japan and the movie was just barely over halfway over by that point which meant I still had 9 dollars (yep, $18 a ticket here) unaccounted for which I won't be seeing again.

I think when you see the film, you'll want to like it because of how fantastic and simple the initial action pieces are. Despite the multi-State scale of the film (something that seems to have been increasing exponentially with each installment) the initial action pieces are dealt with in relatively small and contained area(s). This creates a fantastic sense of claustrophobia that we can share with McClane and sweat bullets right alongside him. Unfortunately by the end of the film we see McClane charging down a collapsing underpass 'fighting' a jet while dodging rockets and yes, jumping onto said jet. Notice 'underpass' and 'jet' used in the same sentence.

It's absoutely absurd.

But looking beyond that, it's really damn cool and isn't that what you wanted to see? You went to see a movie about a one man army and one way or another, that's what you get. It is indeed FAR too over the top but if this were any other film series I'm sure we'd all be enjoying it. Such grandiose logic-suspending stunts just don't feel right in the Die Hard universe where we once had a shoeless, sockless hero that took time to grunt at centerfolds between shooting Germans the size of a small shed. In that aspect the film fails to live up to its predecessors by delivering a proposterous second half. But I'm sure the first half will have you on the edge of your seat and laughing with McClane as he takes out that helicopter.

As far as the script is concerned, everything seems just right on the 'good guy' side. Willis reprises his role with JUST the right zest. He doesn't play the 'down on his luck former hero' card that would have been remarkably easy. He accepts his current situation(s) as you'd expect a considerably aged John McClane to, with a chip on his shoulder and a sense of humor that only needs a few pumps of the primer to get running again smoothly. The various suits in the film deliver line reading which I think everyone expects from them, but its a shame there's no 'Dwayne' of the film to serve as an interesting or useful sidekick in the background. That doesn't mean there aren't characters intended to fill that role, including the cameo of NJ's famous director, they just don't do it as well which is less their own fault and more of a lack of useful things to do in the background. As for the sidekick who is by McClane's side throughout the film, Matt is actually an interesting nerd. They spend some time on the whole, 'wow, you're a creative/amazing action hero and I only use computers' scenario for a few laughs but luckily they don't beat it into the ground and managed to pace the 'changes' the character goes through quite well. You can read what the character will do and how he well progress like a book but I actually enjoyed his presence.

The villains here are lacking. The biggest problem is with motivation, while it always seems that Die Hard's have a 'reveal' to show the real scheme, the reveal here is basically throwing away Plan A for a Plan B that's really Plan A with a different name. I had to chuckle to myself thinking who thought it would be an interesting scenario because it fails miserably which is a shame. Regarding the villains themselves, McClane manages to take out the one physically threatening and fully developed villain right around the halfway point. What's left behind for him to inevitably whittle away at is remarkably unthreatening except for perhaps one severley underused and athletic actor whose spryness is something of Bond Villain proportions. The main villain although one cold SOB is unfortunately as harmless as a gnat and has a finish which gets points for creativity but is nowhere near as satsifying as previous installments' finishers.

And the story/progression? Well, you just know a story is in trouble when it includes internet and technology beyond more than a research tool. It starts believable and very rapidly escalates to a level of INSANITY that only people who don't know what a Google is could swallow. Our antagonist can instantly access and activate your webcam from his secret base while simulatneously broadcasting to you from his own location without activating futzing with drivers or things like software, and yet he cannot utilize
video cameras to secure his own base of operations. Die Hard 2's manipulation of a single airport was pushing the limits of believability even considering it was waaaaaaay before how things are today. But the bastardization of what's possible with technology at the expense of creating a story is sad here. It detracts from the enjoyment of the film which is awful.

Lastly, the film isn't the same without creative insults, usually including slang for male or female genetalia, and of course the F bomb. I wouldn't bother mentioning this but for the fact that I went into the film unaware of the PG-13 rating and the drama the ensued overseas. I only found out about it after I got home and did a little reading on the film. It's very strange watching a nearly PC McClane control his language AND, if you can believe it, save one of the badguys who is unarmed. Not cool.

All of that said, the first half of this movie WILL rock you and the final big sequence will thrill you in a certain way, but it feels far too updated and thus unbalanced. It hasn't completely lost the feel thanks to the strong start, but the end simply deteriorates into the spastic and unfocused 'blow up as much shit as possible aimlessly' trend that is a dime a dozen today. If this was designed as such to be a transition of sorts for the series, part familiar and part 'WTFOMG!!11' then I can't imagine going to see a fifth.

Thanks for your time! Hope this was helpful. I apologize for any spelling errors and grammatical misses. I'm sending it without proofing which begs punishment but I'm also very tired and I'm Greg W from Japan

^_^