La jungla 4.0

La historia es trepidante, las escenas de acción están perfectamente rodadas y, a veces, incluso INVENTIVAS (la escena del túnel), y el viejo Bruce Willis sigue siendo, sorprendentemente, el mismo gran John McClane, que mantiene la película unida y le da la justo ingenio irónico. Editaría un poco el último tercio de la película y lo acortaría unos cinco minutos, pero por lo demás no tengo quejas, aparte del Capitolio caído en el tráiler. (26.06.2007)

The nightmare of every IT specialist, or rather, the best comedy of their lives, depending on how you look at it. Wiseman totally blew it. It's definitely an above average action film, but that's about it unfortunately. If I were a hardcore fan of the Die Hard franchise, I’d wonder where are the cynical, dry wisecracks typical of John McClane, and where are the plot twists that worked so well in the second and third films. Wiseman's film is closest to the first in its directness, but unlike it, it lacks tension, because Willis has a skeleton made of titanium and wouldn't be stopped even if a Boeing fell on him. In other words, the almost comic-book exaggeration kills the movie. This is especially true of McClane's adversaries, a dashing guy, undoubtedly Spider-Man's older brother, who falls 10 metres from a helicopter onto concrete and it's all good. But that's nothing against Maggie Q – you can punch her several times with your fist (without breaking her make-up), slam her against the wall several times (her make-up still sticks) and then hit her with a car at full speed and she won't even flinch and will still kick your ass. Sorry, Wiseman, but I'm not interested in Aeon Flux 2, I'm getting a bit bored of these feminist superheroes. (29.07.2007)

Die Hard for kids. History repeats. As in the first Die Hard, John has to regain the lost trust of a woman (and which surname is used again plays a role) and, as in Die Hard with a Vengeance, the labyrinth in which he finds himself and in which he toys with the villain is an entire city (Washington this time instead of New York) and, as in all three of the previous films, he faces a band of terrorists from around the world (France, Italy, the United States). Now, however, because of the PG-13 rating, he curses a lot less and kills only in such a way that cuts down on the blood spatter (i.e. sometimes imaginatively, sometimes like in a shooter game from the last century). In comparison with the previous films, the pace is significantly more laid-back, John and the people around him aren’t constantly under stress, there aren’t several things happening repeatedly in parallel (the third film particularly excellent in that respect) and quite of lot of time is taken up with somewhat sentimental talking. Of course, John’s primary objective – other than eliminating the bad guy – is to prove himself a capable father (where Matt serves as his training aid before he reunites with his daughter), but haven’t there already been enough action dads in other movies? ___ As in every buddy movie, here the narrative is given its dynamics by conflicts between opposite natures. John and Matt are separated by a few generations and by their varying scope of knowledge of modern technologies and pop culture (John’s dialogue scenes with Kevin Smith, the guru of all nerds, are among the film’s highlights). They reverse the unfavourable course of events only by joining forces, which is a pleasantly nostalgic aspect from today’s perspective, when analogue heroes have clearly fallen behind the geeks. Information still wasn’t everything back then. It was sometimes necessary to stop staring at a monitor and do something. John has all of the necessary skills; he just lacks information. Muscly tough guys like him are shown to be invaluable. By contrast, the hackers, cut off from the world of real (not virtual) action, are given one ethical slap in the face after another, and whereas John imparts important life lessons (“face your fear”) to his younger partner, he himself remains the same BFU at the end as he was at the beginning. ___ Live Free or Die Hard is the most entertaining when it refers to one of its (better) predecessors or to the action genre as such (the villain’s urging to “Say somethin’ funny”, the ruses that John uses). This would have been a run-of-the-mill high-tech action flick (with action moments sometimes bordering on parody in the vein of True Lies) if it didn’t have the ability to poke fun at itself – and, of course, if it didn’t have John McClane. Because even though this returning American saviour no longer has hair, he still has balls. 75% (31.01.2013)

The fact that Wiseman is an enthusiastic filmmaker who has a lot of experience with action films and then only proves on screen what wonders can be done with a big budget doesn't bother me all that much. What bothers me is that he completely misunderstands the poetics of Die Hard, especially McLane’s character, whose tragic cop with a touch of sad comic relief has become the killing machine that dominated cinema 25 years ago and whose renaissance McLane created as an action hero. Overall, I find the concept of digital terrorism juxtaposed with a 1980s hero rather dull, given that political correctness and pandering to American politics of today are at play. Willis is good at being a tough guy, but the rating tames his vocabulary and character, so the result is ultimately (from my perspective) an expected loss. Die Hard itself didn't deserve this kind of eating of its own stupidity through non-stop action. McTiernan should have got the last crack at it - it couldn't have ended up worse than this. (25.01.2008)

Len Wiseman, the eclectic and soulless vampire son and John McClane? Are you kidding? No! Unless... Bruce Willis was at his best, and Len made fun of what he embodied in his two previous films - from a state-of-the-art action room. Well, miracles do happen. Live Free or Die Hard is exactly the kind of action cocktail that old lovers of the genre like to drink. Explosive, ironic, witty... charming and captivating. How so? In order: Willis is at his best, and his John could carry the film, even if the script was a level weaker. The script is not a level weaker - it is exactly as sparse as it needs to be. Wiseman was being honest and made a film without unnecessary modern buck-passing, and with enthusiasm and a clear vision. In the old way, but also very brisk. Timothy Olyphant is the ideal villain. The perfect contradiction to the bald detective - a guy who doesn't stain his hands with blood, but uses the conveniences of the modern world. A world that will become a deadly arena in which an aging detective, the last Mohican of his kind, must face modernity. He won't be able get around it, he won't dance around it with the elegance of a Kung Fu master, and he won't deceive it with hacking or supernatural abilities... he will break it with his fist, bullets, or simply the manly force we are used to from John. The NYPD detective does not want to make friends with the modern world. He makes his way from point A to point B, says one-liners just like when he was young (and later), skates through jacked and breathtaking action sequences, puts on armor made of clichés and the pathos of "good cops", which is an integral part of the 1980s. Live Free or Die Hard is a whiff of old times - honest filmmaking with a hero who is a loser (and therefore cool), with a hero who is so perfectly incompatible with all hi-tech culture that he resembles an angry Don Quixote. But unlike Cervantes, he flattens windmills to the ground, gets into an ambulance covered in blood and leaves for the Hollywood gold fund. A perfectly good film from a genre that I had thought had died out. Yippee-ki-yay, bastard! (30.06.2007)

"Yippie-ki-yay, motherfu..." A solid action picture? You bet it is. But isn’t it a little too little, in view of the quality that the previous parts had to offer? Not really, no... One year short of the twentieth anniversary of the release of Die Hard, we get part four. And although, in order to get a lower rating, John McClane has gone a little soft, due to his age he wears a hoody instead of an undershirt and in the action scenes he gets a lot of help from the editor, he continues successfully to reel out great lines, shoot, bleed, get a good kicking and flatten everybody like a road-roller in the end. It’s surprising that Len Wiseman, who until now hasn’t manged to film even a mediocre movie, has pulled himself together at last. It’s true, that it’s a bit creaky in places, the screenplay is dumb (especially on the technical side), the end way over the top and camera filters just everywhere... But somewhere deep down under everything you can clearly feel the spirit of the good old Die Hards. It all rattles along nicely, action making way for more action, not many dead moments, John’s little helper doesn’t matter at all (quite the opposite), the action sequences are mostly inventive and the baddies are excellent. Especially the charismatic and nicely flaunty Maggie Q. What more could you want from a summer action blockbuster that turn off your brain and let yourself get sucked in by the return of one of the action legends of the silver screen? Even all these years later this series has managed to maintain its high standard in terms of quality, but it is dragged back from the very top rung by a sequence lasting less than ten minutes with John in a semi truck on a freeway intersection versus a fighter jet. Something that looks like an upgraded version of a notoriously ridiculous scene from the B-grade Rambo III look even worse in the middle of this A-grade action movie. On the other hand, the very end of the movie is very satisfying when the main villain performed nicely by Timothy Olyphant goes out in style. Many of us were hoping, few of us really believed it would happen, but it did. This isn’t the best of the Die Hards - it’s the worst, but it’s still above-average good, although it turned John into precisely what made him different from all the other action heroes. We can at least be pleased for that. If for no other reason then because we aren’t often treated to good old eighties-nineties style action pictures very often any more. If things carry on as they have been, we’ll be getting part twelve in a couple of years’ time. (28.06.2007)

Poor John McTiernan will have to come to terms with the fact that his cult classic original and groundbreaking third installment will remain in the shadow of the fantastic even-numbered films. When I once read in an interview with Willis that the screenwriters drew inspiration from the TV series 24, I had no idea that I would witness almost its feature-length version. McClane has problems with his daughter, he advances in eliminating the villains almost exactly according to their hierarchy - and he is such an amazing action hero that I couldn't help but stare. And after the tired third installment, I expected everything but this. I was looking for a lot of humor and fan nods in the fourth trap, but I also got John as an indestructible dinosaur who beats up women without hesitation and swears at them with all his might. And the viewer feels the desire to cheer out loud. The threat this time is perfectly terrifying and chilling at certain moments. Olyphant adds to this with his delightful performance, his sarcastic remarks full of anger raised my adrenaline, and when he tells McClane that he will destroy his life and kill his loved ones, I instinctively cowered in my seat. Moreover, the connection between the old fox and the young, restrained rebel works, everything is as it should be. Although there are occasionally overly calm moments in those two hours, I still have to convert those 90% into five stars. This matador will not be ashamed of his comeback. (03.08.2007)

On the occasion of Live Free or Die Hard, the 4th film in the series, a brief recap is necessary. In the first part, John McClane saves a group of people in a high-rise building, in the second part, several thousand people at an airport, in the third part, the inhabitants of a metropolis, and in the fourth part, the entire United States. If a hypothetical fifth part were to be made, the brave policeman would undoubtedly save the whole world. From this list, it is evident that this series fulfills all the rules for a sequel, namely a larger budget, bombast, and more action. The fourth installment is certainly not a bad film, but I dare to say that, from a cinematic point of view, it is the weakest of all four and it clearly shows the producers' calculation. It lacks the rawness of the first part, a certain perspective and self-irony, which is replaced by the work of special effects artists and pyrotechnicians. The exaggeration that has always been characteristic of the series here leads to counterproductive absurdity, as seen in McClane's victorious battle with a fighter plane. It is also evident that the work of the screenwriter is more careless, as some of the fights exude a certain B-movie quality, as seen in McClane's confrontation with Maggie Q in the power plant control room, where both opponents take care of each other and then ignore him, only to miraculously revive him shortly after, exactly in the style of clichés from poorly made films. The main villain is also less charismatic than his predecessors, especially the incomparable Alan Rickman. The film has the advantage of Bruce Willis's excellent performance, who shows almost no signs of aging. Fans of the alternative scene will be pleased with the small role of Kevin Smith, who in my opinion should seriously consider going on a diet... Overall impression: 70%. (01.09.2007)

I was a little weary, but yippee, John is back in full strength. Even more wisecracks than before, he’s full of laughs and eliminates baddies one after another. The story is, well in short, fine. Technological advances haven’t hurt John as much as I had feared (what’s more it prompted a couple more wisecracks). Olyphant is one of the best villains to Die Hard and I must say that I understood his motives. I would also be pissed if someone did to me what they did to him. And he had a nice shirt, too. Justin Long was also a pleasant surprise and he makes a pretty decent sidekick (I bet you can’t pronounce the Czech equivalent: “přicmrndávač"). Maggie Q was gorgeous, as always. And if John weren’t John, she would have won, same as the French Spiderboy Cyril Raffaelli who put on a nice show in the little room he was given. Live Free or Die Hard worked out just fine. Wiseman did some great work and you can tell that he’s a fan. Despite all of his blue filters and logical nonsense, you just have to forgive him for that. And maybe. Just maybe I would like to see a Die Hard 5.0. Hope to see you again, John. (16.08.2007)

It can be done without a ton of profanity and hectoliters of blood, but the magic is somehow gone. Len Wiseman, of course, tried as hard as he could and it's a decent action movie, but the airport and skyscraper had something more to them (let’s forget about the third one). Fortunately, Bruce Willis managed to man up, and John is back with a solid array of wisecracks and funny situations. The action is decent, inventive – just a bit too polished and without blood for my taste, and towards the end, there is an annoying overdose of visual effects, but that seems more fitting to the structure of the plot with computers and high-end technology. Hackers and computer manipulations are something an average viewer simply cannot grasp, and that spoils the overall coherence of the screenplay because there are really a lot of smart devices in the film. It's not a thoroughbred comeback, nor is it a pinnacle, but as a dignified conclusion? That could work. (27.06.2007)

Weaker than the previous entries, but it's hard to say what it’s actually missing, probably because there's a lot more stuff. First of all, McClane himself and his famous principles are much crazier and while in the previous films he managed mostly with handguns, here he prefers to run over his opponent with a car and when he shoots, it’s originally through his own person. And secondly, whereas before McClane made do solely with his own wits and the villain syndicate had a limited scope (a skyscraper, an airport), here the whole United States is at risk and the villains are being eliminated with the help of modern computer systems and dumb hackers. But importantly, even these new trends suit McClane, and in concert with a capable director (which Wiseman is within the genre) and a humble script that gets out of the way of the excellent Willis and leaves room for his exquisite pitch-black humour, the result can be an immensely entertaining and story-packed action treat that does the famous Die Hard brand no shame whatsoever. However, I would only award five stars if the film was produced by Marvel, added sci-fi to the list of genres, and McClane was named McMAN – then everything would be perfectly fine. :-) 80% (23.07.2014)

It's very cliché, sometimes really terrible, McClane's daughter is a dreadful character, just like her relationship with her father, but when you compare this to the fifth installment, it's still worlds apart. McClane works even in the modern, technologically advanced world and has the upper hand against cyber terrorists. It's excellently action-packed, the technology is used just right, it's not exaggerated like "Mission Impossible," and on top of that, Bruce Willis delivers lines perfectly and fits great with Justin Long. Yeah, this is excellent entertainment for the afternoon. You laugh and feel relieved with some good action. Nothing more, nothing less. (03.03.2014)