Die Hard 4 - Retour en enfer

Une aventure d’action divertissante signée Len Wiseman avec un Justin Long qui prête à sourire et un antagoniste brillamment interprété par Timothy Olyphant. Et on a Kevin Smith en bonus. (19/01/2012)

Le film est bien rythmé, les actions sont parfaitement tournées et parfois même scénaristiquement INNOVANTES (le tunnel), et le vieux Bruce Willis est (étonnamment) toujours ce fantastique John McClane, qui maintient tout ça ensemble et lui donne une bonne vue d'ensemble. J'aurais raccourci le troisième quart du film et raccourci le tout de 5 minutes, mais sinon je n'ai aucune critique. Enfin, à part ce Capitole qui tombe dans la bande-annonce, euh. (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)