Movie Reviews: Live Free or Die Hard
Many Die Hard fans think that Live Free or Die Hard is missing something. The spirit of the first three movies is just not there. In the first three movies, Die Hard fans liked all the explosions, the well-written story lines, and the actors’ performances. A majority of fans would recommend the first three movies to anyone. The fourth movie is very different, however. Not all fans have liked it, because they say it uses too much computer animation, and that Bruce Willis is getting too old. Two reviewers of Live Free or Die Hard argue about whether the fourth movie is good. Willie Waffle’s review is better than Kenneth Turan’s because of Waffle’s plot summary and professionalism, and his clarity.
Willie waffle’s plot summary is excellent because he gives many details and he does not give away the ending. He understands what the action fans like to see. Waffle says, “At times, Live Free or Die Hard is so over the top and silly the movie borders on campy.” He lets the readers know that the humor in the movie is immature. Also, action fans would want to know that the action in the movie is fake looking. The most important thing in a plot summary is not writing anything that tells how the story ends. Waffle does not tell people how the movie ends. Instead, he asks, “Will John McClane be able to save the day? What do the terrorists want?” He does not like the movie, but he does not ruin it. He is being professional in his review.
Kenneth Turan’s plot summary is not as commendable as Waffle’s because he gives too many movie details, including how the movie ends. In his review, he throws in the history of the actors, basically all the information the movie fans already know. Turan says, “No one winces like Bruce Willis” and that the actor has a “million-dollar grimace.” This information is not necessary. Worst of all, Turan tells people how the movie ends, making it less interesting. He says, “Yet despite considerable odds, not only does McClane stay alive, his movie does too.” Now there is no reason to see the movie. Fans can stop reading right there.
Waffle’s word choice and usage makes it easier for the audience to understand what he is trying to say. Waffle writes, “Life Free or Die Hard will make you laugh at times, and excite you at times with the action, but it’s not what you might hope it will be.” Waffle uses the words “laugh” and “excite” because they are easy to understand. His opinion on the movie is very clear. Waffle says, “Live Free or Die Hard is just like every movie where they blow stuff up, just with some nostalgia thrown in.” This analysis is uncomplicated. People of all ages can read his review and understand it. Because of the PG-13 rating, this movie will have a younger audience. Younger readers can easily understand Waffle’s point of view.
Unlike Waffle, Turan uses too many difficult words and complicated sentences. A younger reader would throw it away because they would not be able to understand it. Turan says, “the result is a shrewd, serviceable premise that feels uncomfortably real.” Many fans will not understand what he is trying to say, and this makes him ineffective as a writer. The phrase “serviceable premise” is vague. What exactly is he trying to describe? He also calls the movie an “implausible stew.” The fact that he compares the movie to stew is an attempt to be funny that actually makes readers confused.
Waffle’s review is better than Turan’s review because it is understandable and knowledgeable. After reading Waffle’s review, fans would go see the movie because his review is interesting. After reading Turan’s review, fans would still not know anything about the movie except the ending.