So, you have the PG-13 rating, the absence of Sam Jackson (the utimate McClane teammate), the director of Underworld overseeing the action - and did we mention the PG-13 rating? How can this latest Die Hard possibly be even passable, let alone recommendable? We refuse to believe this. But that's what the critics are saying. Damn them. We used to make our (destitute) living as a film reviewer, so we have more respect for their opinions than most, but we're still baffled.
Yet, here's the proof:
"Inevitable lapses in plausibility and an inflated two-hour, nine-minute running time aside, "Live Free or Die Hard" is a slick and efficient piece of action entertainment, fast moving with energetic stunt work and nice thriller moves."
- LA Times
"The latest "Die Hard" film, the first in a dozen years, is the best in the series, an invigorating return to the style of blockbuster that dominated summers back in the early 1990s."
- SF Chronicle
"There is something very satisfying in this digital age about an action film where CGI doesn't overwhelm, actors are in great physical shape and huge spaces are actual sets rather than virtual environments."
- H-Wood Reporter
"At a time when the action genre has come to be dominated by sleek, matte surfaces and set-'em-and-forget-'em computerized effects, Live Free or Die Hard seeks to remind viewers of the simple, nostalgic pleasures of watching stuff get blown up and bad guys get smoked."
- WA Post
"Gets the action job done and you better believe that Bruce is still the man."
- Rolling Stone
This all sounds pretty fucking insane to us, but LFODH's current Metacritic rating is a strong 71. That'll likely come down in the next few days as more reviews start to roll out, but for now color us completely flustered.
No comments:
Post a Comment