Vote in the poll. Stoke the fans of our office debate flames. Tell us which Die Hard sequel you think is superior, and why!
Live Free or Die Hard Synopsis
Fourth movie in the Die Hard series. Bruce Willis reprises his role as John McClane, this time trying to stop a criminal plot to destroy the world's computer infrastructure. McClane is aided by a young hacker, played by Justin Long.
If Harrison Ford isn't too old to play Indiana Jones, then why not let Bruce Willis Yippee-ki-yay his way back into the broken and battered body of tough cop John McClane. Besides with terrorism now at the top of everyone's biggest fears list, the once fantastical scenarios of city destruction familiar to the Die Hard series only seem incredibly more plausible. Hell, Kiefer Sutherland re-enacts most of them at least once a week on television. Anticipating sudden annihilation by guerilla forces has become the new American way of life. It'd be nice of John McClane were to get off his ass and save us, preferably sober.
The difference this time around is Len Wiseman, the guy responsible for Underworld and worse, for taking Kate Beckinsale off the market. Not that any of us had a chance, but at least before Len we had the dream to comfort us.
Wisemen's work so far hasn't exactly been embraced lately. People seemed to like Underworld, but Underworld 2 was met only with a chorus of boos. It's somewhat surprising the a guy responsible for low-budget indie movies which aren't all that liked should end up in the director's spot for one of Hollywood's biggest, baddest, and most enduring franchises. I'm not sure what Fox was thinking.
Still, Bruce Willis is back and that's what matters. As long as Len isn't tempted to tinker with Die Hard's already established formula, audiences should be content to sit back, relax, and Die Harder than ever.