I recently saw "Live Free or Die Hard" and it was one heckuva movie. Being a male who spent his teens in the 1990s, it's only natural that I'm a huge "Die Hard" fan. But my loyalty to the franchise and hatred towards Hollywood studios kept me from seeing "Live Free or Die Hard" when it was release in July. From all accounts I heard and read, "Live Free" was shot as an R-rated movie. But since teenagers can't see R-rated films (supposedly), the studio execs decided to reedit the move into a PG-13 flick. The lower rating allowed to movie to reach a broader audience...and increase the studio's profits.

You can't shoot an R-rated movie and edit it into something more family friendly. Well, technically I suppose you could--but the finished product won't look right. Dialogue has to be rerecorded and dubbed (can't say too many F-bombs in a PG-13 movie). Action sequences have to be cut short ('cause PG-13 movies can't have too much blood). Even the fistfights hafta be toned down. Because of this hack-job, the movie looks nothing like the director intended it to be. The movie always feels sorta incomplete and not right.

I hate when executives stick their noses into business that doesn't concern them (at least that's what I tell suits at my job--yeah, right). Stuff like that shows just much of a business the movie business is. Art and visions have nothing to do with studio pics--it's all about the bottom line. And the last thing I wanna do is encourage that behavior. That's the main reason I didn't see "Die Hard" in July--I wasn't going to succumb to their little game. I wanted Hollywood to know that because of their attempts to sell extra tickets, they lost me as a customer.

Plus, we're talking about Die Hard here--"Die Hard" is not a PG-13 movie. The studio could claim all it wants about "Live Free" being a serious, intense action film. Say whatever you want, but "Die Hard" simply isn't a PG-13 franchise. "Die Hard" movies have lots of cursing and violence. That's not to say I like that sorta thing--but that's sorta the staple of the franchise. Taking all that away from "Die Hard" doesn't seem just--it wouldn't fit in line with the feel of the previous three films. If Hollywood really wanted to make a PG-13 action movie, it certainly could--just don't put the name "Die Hard" on it.

So I waited. I refused to see it in the theater as a protest to Hollywood and the suits. I knew that eventually the movie would get released as an "unrated" DVD (i.e., the original R-rated cut). This way I could see the movie I was meant to see. By waiting for the DVD release I would lose out on the 'movie-going experience' but I really didn't care. I wasn't going to be tainted or jaded by some sorta sanitized version of "Die Hard." I wasn't going to give the studios my money--executives shouldn't be making decisions that should be left up to filmmakers.

It took nearly five months, but I finally got to see unrated DVD version "Live Free or Die Hard" on my HD TV with surround sound. It wasn't the movie-going experience, but it was damn close. I curled up on my couch and got to see "Die Hard" the way it was meant to be seen.

I gotta admit, I was highly impressed. Sure, the plausibility of it was a little bit of a reach (I know John McClane is tough, by my goodness, a Terminator wouldn't survive some of the jumps he made). But overall, the movie was outstanding--easily the best of the year (of course, I've only seen like three movies this year so my opinion might not count for much).

"Live Free" was exciting, intense, funny, and everything else one would expect in a "Die Hard" movie. I was skeptical to see it because I felt like the world didn't 'need' another Die Hard. It was an outstanding franchise in the 80s and 90s, but the last movie came out 12 years ago. To me, it wasn't a case of someone writing a great script for "Die Hard;" it was the executives deciding that a "Die Hard" sequel would make a ton of money (which it did).

While the executive intentions may not be pure, the end result cannot be argued with. I was on the edge of my seat (lame cliché) the entire length to the film. There was nothing I didn't like about the movie. At no point did I feel like I was watching a movie. I was just there--complete absorbed by the film (even though I was in my living room).

That's how I like to evaluate a movie. If I can spent 100 minutes watching a movie without thinking of anything else--if I completely forget I'm watching a movie and just absorb what I'm seeing--then I feel like I just saw a good movie. This says nothing about content or meaning of a movie. I'm not talking about digging deeper or noticing good directorial shots or outstanding acting performances. Because a really good movie doesn’t have you thinking about any of that stuff. You don't notice good acting when it's surround by good actors--if the movie is good, everything blends in together. I used the word absorbed because I can't think of a better one: I'm so engulfed by the film and taken into its universe, I'm not aware of anything else around. I forget I'm watching a movie and feel like I'm watching story. This perspective probably isn't what others judge movie by, but it's sorta what I go by. And since this is my iRANT, I can judge however I see fit.

"Die Hard" sucked me in. I was so unaware of it being a movie, I forgot I was there with The Girlfriend. I didn't think about work stress or Sunday football. I was into the movie and nothing else. Maybe I just long for escape, but "Live Free or Die Hard" was everything I want out of a movie.

© 2007 siknerd.com