yippe kay critic

It's a popcorn-flick, so why does Claudia Pulg spew cheap spins like these:

Live Free or Die Hard (* * out of four) is diverting enough if you want to see plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up.

If you're looking for a plausible doomsday scenario or sharp dialogue, this is not your movie. But who goes to see a Die Hard sequel for pithy wordplay?

USA Today, Claudia Pulg

My frustration doesn't stem from a blind allegiance to the Die Hard films (though I enjoy them), but from a writer, Pulg, misunderstanding her audience. Die Hard is an action franchise, and has an action franchise audience. People watch these movies to see "plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up." Yet, Pulg has the snobbishness of a film student, building her argument that a couple cheap thrills has its audience, they're just not people with taste.

I won't even get into the pompasity of the "pithy wordplay" comment. Rather, I have a question for everyone: is it better to have real, graphic violence in the case of films like Saving Private Ryan or Irreversible, or to portray the violence in a cartoonish way, like Die Hard, where the narrative strides far from reality? Or, does quality aesthetic qualify graphic brutality?

What if the 'deep messages' of the former is misunderstood, leaving the viewer confused, trying to interpret brutal muck? For example, the suicidal grenade scene in "Letters From Iwo Jima" went on long enough for me to feel confused, check my watch, look at other people's disgust, and still catch another two bloody deaths. Is that any better than John McClain stabbing a man with an icicle?

Really?