Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Fab first half and then all of sudden there's a Truck vs Fighter Jet scene that is so beyond ridiculous that I wanted to put my fist through the TV screen! How Bruce Willis miraculously survives that is anybody's guess. Only thing that let an otherwise very cool movie down!

'Die Hard 4.0 (2007)' is enjoyable in a different way to the prior titles in the series. It's a much more glossy action flick, still fun despite being heavily watered down and featuring a protagonist who's almost indestructible. Still, it essentially captures that 'Die Hard' spirit for most of its run-time and is rather entertaining throughout. 7/10

It seems as if the movies are starting to get further and further apart, but then again even though number three basically started off really good and progressively went downhill after that first explosion, this latest installment, 12 years after the previous one, doesn't even seem to get off the ground. In a sense it seems as if a producer was reading a script for a completely unrelated film and realised that they hadn't done a Die Hard for a while, and gave Bruce Willis a call. Discovering that Bruce was more than happy to bring McLane back onto the big screen, completely rewrote the characters to centre the film around the hero of Nakatomi plaza.Mind you, a lot has changed since we last met with John McLane – everything has gone digital, and everything is connected by computers. Also, this is post September 11, so suddenly terrorists are more on our mind. Anyway, we have this young computer hotshot (and the fact that he seemed so young really annoyed me in a way) who had worked for the US Government. However when we pointed out all of the security flaws and how vulnerable they were to a cyberattack, they took it on advisement. So, he decided to go public, but the government wasn't all that impressed and basically made sure that he had a really bad rest of his life. Well, being somewhat upset at being dumped like that, he somehow got together heaps of money, and a team of crack soldiers, and then pretty much took down the system.The way I see it, Die Hard one has terrorists taking a building hostage, number two an airport, number three a city, and number four the United States of America. Mind you, as well as getting progressively lame, they also become progressively unrealistic. For instance I am always astounded at the resources that these criminals have at their disposal, though we must accept that at least in number two we were dealing with a South American Drug-lord (and number one and three did suggest that the thieves were actually pretty well resourced). However, come number four, I am still scratching my head and wondering where on Earth this computer geek managed to get his hands on enough money to pull this off, and also make the connections that he did (as well as acquiring FBI uniforms and a helicopter).The film begins with a group of computer hackers progressively being assassinated, and in a way this sort of suggests that maybe, just maybe, including it into the Die Hard franchise is not really a good idea. However, it could just have been the case that they felt that if it was a stand alone movie then maybe it wouldn't have worked as well as it did. However, adding it to the Die Hard franchise really doesn't do all that much as well. Okay, while the film does address issues with how interconnected our society has become, and how reliant we are now on computers, in the end I sort of look at it and think, well, The Net dealt with this issue so much better, and while I didn't think all that much of that film, it was certainly superior to this one.

Bruce Willis (and the Die Hard franchise he perpetuated) will always be judged next to the other famous action franchises of the 1980s, such as "Rocky", "Rambo", & "The Terminator". While all those series got re-booted in the 2000s, they also contained a heavy dose of nostalgia for the past. In "Live Free or Die Hard", however, it is "full steam ahead" with little time for remembrance.For a basic plot summary, "Live Free" sees John McClane (Willis) pulled into another tense criminal situation when villain Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Oliphant) executes an event of cyber- terrorism severe enough to bring Washington to its knees. Along with "hack-boy" Matt Farrell (Justin Long), McClane sets out to find the perpetrators and bring them some 1980s-style justice.This film really works primarily due to airtight direction & pacing. Director Len Wiseman never lets the pace flag whatsoever. When the action dies down, the wisecracks & humor ramps up. Suffice it to say that there is never a boring moment what with all the action, chases, explosions, technology, & typical Willis humor.The main plot ("cyber-terrorism") also serves to usher McClane into the 21st century. McClane's old-school justice provides a nice counterpoint to the tech-nerd played by Long (who is actually, on a rare occasion, watchable in this effort).Actually, the only negative thing I can say about this movie is that I almost wished it would have harkened back to the themes of the original even perhaps a bit more. There is a subplot involving the daughter of McClane, but little more is mentioned (besides a few "easter egg moments") regarding the original Die Hard trilogy.Overall, though, "Live Free" is a great addition to the Die Hard cannon (already better than parts two & three). For an action-oriented film, it really holds its weight.