Live Free or Die Hard

2007

Action / Adventure

Synopsis


Uploaded By: bitloks
Downloaded 153,824 times
March 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Director

Cast

Bruce Willis as John McClane
Justin Long as Matthew 'Matt' Farrell
Timothy Olyphant as Thomas Gabriel
Maggie Q as Mai Linh
720p 1080p
924.11 MB
1280*528
English
PG-13
English
23.976 fps
2hr 8 min
P/S 14 / 80
1.80 GB
1920*800
English
PG-13
English
23.976 fps
2hr 8 min
P/S 25 / 39

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by nisdahm-1 8 / 10

Rock solid!

Just went to the world premiere of Die Hard 4.0, and I was positively surprised. It delivers action in abundance, and the movie has a great visceral feel to it thanks to great stunt work, and the fact that Willis really steps up in the fight scenes. The movie keeps up its pace throughout, and the script works quite well, though the tech-talk gets a little heavy at times. I was particularly worried about Wiseman directing, since both underworld movies were a complete mess in my opinion, but he really keeps it tight and disciplined this time around. Is Die Hard 4.0 the second or third best of the series? I don't know, but it is certainly a worthy successor, and all the other blockbusters should look this way to see how its done efficiently, crisp and above all entertaining.

Reviewed by Rick Billman (Rick_Bman) 6 / 10

Just didn't fit...

The first Die Hard was probably the best modern action film ever made. The second Die Hard works because the movie has a major sense of humor about how ridiculous it is to put John McClane through such a similar situation again; it practically makes fun of itself for a lot of the movie. The third one works because you have a bad guy that is out for revenge against John McClane. The fourth one though, it just felt like McClane's character was dropped in as an after thought. I don't think you can just drop John McClane into any story and call it Die Hard and this movie felt more like a Tom Clancy political thriller than a Die Hard movie.

While watching this I at least thought I would let it pass as a generic action movie, because I was having fun. However, then I started thinking about it and I'm sorry I need even my action movies to at least make a little bit of sense. There was just too much stuff in this one that didn't work for me. The first problem I had was that the bad guys created a giant traffic jam in DC causing congestion everywhereÂ… except of course for the streets they need for the major car chase scene. Also during the part of that car chase that took place in the tunnel, how come when the bad guy started turning the lights off in the tunnel not a single person though to turn their head lights on? However the biggest action scene that bugged me was the scene where John McClane is driving the big rig truck and being chased by the fighter plane. This scene was so laughably over the top that it had no place in a Die Hard movie. I know Die Hard movies are known for their over the top action at some points but I just could not stop laughing at how completely ridiculous this scene was. Oh and seriously, since when does the 695 beltway around Baltimore have palm trees? OK, that is a bit too nitpicky, but it was kind of funny.

The film seemed to me to also be extremely inconsistent about whether or not cell phones were working. The cell phones weren't working, so he reprogrammed the phone to use the old "satcomm" satellites instead. Then that stopped working and then a little bit later that is working again. Also I'm still amazed at how Kevin Smith's character is still able to hack into so much stuff even after all the power on the entire eastern seaboard has been shut off. I mean seriously there are a lot of servers out there that have battery backups and stuff, but a lot of the servers he would need to go through to have a good enough connection to do any of the hacking he was doing would have been shut down after the power outage. OK, maybe I am picking at too much of the film, but all this bugged me while watching the film and I wasn't able to just sit back and get sucked in like I would in any other Die Hard film.

The acting in the film for the most part was pretty good, except of course for the main bad guy. He had one facial expression for the entire movie and the tone of his voice never changed. His only way of showing anger was to throw something off his desk. His performance was so wooden; it just paled in comparison to Alan Rickman, William Sadler and Jeremy Irons, who all three just played wonderful bad guys.

The look and feel of the movie didn't feel at all like a Die Hard movie to me either. Sure, John McClane takes a good beating like he does in all the films but all the action seemed to crisp and clean. It didn't feel nearly as gritty as the previous Die Hard films. Also one of the things I noticed was the film seemed to have this predominantly blue color scheme going on. It just felt like there was this blue hue through out the film, where in the previous Die Hard films the predominant colors are very earthy and red. I don't know if anyone else even knows what I am talking about, but that is just something that I noticed that took away from the gritty Die Hard feeling.

Reviewed by zyphex 2 / 10

Really Bad.

I went to see this movie with very high hopes. I loved the first three in the series - they are among my favorite action movies of all time. When I first heard they were making a fourth Die Hard movie I thought - Awesome, what a great way to introduce Die Hard to a whole new generation of fans.

What I saw was a laughable mockery of a Die Hard movie. Let me start by saying the first problem was the rating. Turning a series of R rated gory action flicks into A PG-13 imitation does not work. It was as if Fox was trying to pass it off as some type of family friendly movie. This resulted in the film being minimal in bloody action violence, minimal in language use, and the use of McClane's staple line - "Yippee Ki Yay Mo ******" was made to be slightly distorted so the last word (all Die Hard fans know what it is) was more implied than spoken. The rating also had another effect. Since the aspects listed above were downplayed so much, the movie's style didn't come anywhere close to matching the style of the first three. It didn't Feel like Die Hard.

(This is off topic, but it reminds me of another time the same company took two GREAT! R rated series - Alien - and Predator - and combined them to make the PG-13 mockery we now know as AVP)

I didn't like the villain. The whole movie it didn't seem like he himself really did anything. He didn't really torture or shoot or even severely harm McClane's daughter. He was never really a threat. It was always a henchmen up until the end of the movie. (Unless you count the Tunnel-Helicopter sequence) Which bugs me, where did all the henchmen come from? In the first and third movies they were German militants, and the second movie they were military extremists supportive of General Esperanza. It this movie - they were just kind of there. I mean, Gabriel was suppose to be a DoD government employee - and he just pulled a crap load of henchmen out of no where. Were they terrorists? Wow, nice background check on a government employee with links to terrorist organizations if they were.

The use of technology was just awful. Specifically what you saw on the computer screens was unrealistic and felt like some sort of hi tech fairy tale to me (being a networking professional). I mean, I had no idea hacking was so graphical and straightforward.

To close - if the characters weren't making some cheesy quip or not dying after smashing through multiple plains of glass and being hit with SUV at one point - they most defiantly were contributing to what should go down in history as a sorry day indeed for the Die Hard series.

My advice - pull a matrix and pretend the sequel doesn't exist.

Read more IMDb reviews

136 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment