Die Hard (1988)

What does everyone think of the sequels? I've always had a mixed opinion about all of them. The 2nd one isn't bad, I just remember it being kind of forgettable, and it's one of those sequels that feels largely like a re-hash of the first film, except it's in an airport, and John isn't forced to sneak around like in the first film.

I also never quite got the "Nobody listens to John Mc Lane" thing. Dudes, he saves a bunch of people's asses in the first film! Did people forget that? And, seeing William Atherton again felt contrived. Like what are the odds the same antagonistic reporter from the 1st film gets involved in another incident related to Mc Lane?

3rd film goes for something a bit different (probably because it wasn't intended to be a Die Hard sequel), and it's interesting to see one of Samuel L. Jackson's first biggest roles, but my biggest gripe with the film is it's too damn long, and suffers from major Ending Fatigue.

4th film wasn't bad, but sorta felt like the standard action film with lots of CGI and green screen shots that were coming out at the time.

5th... I barely remember, and it's the only Die Hard film I saw in theaters. I literally only remember the "John and son have to learn to trust and respect each other" angle, which was cliche, and we see plenty of times in other films (and also, wasn't it already done with his daughter in the 4th film?).

I haven't seen 5 and barely know anything about it, and really have no interest in investigating.

Die Hard 2 suffers primarily from following a flash-in-the-pan amazing action movie and having nowhere to escalate the story, since the "Die Hard" on an X helped keep the suspense tight. So it emulates the same premise, lampshades it, and moves along.

Die Hard With a Vengeance works a little better by just changing the "Die Hard" on an X entirely and focusing on John McClane as an established character with Jackson and Irons filling out the cast well.

Live Free or Die Hard starts falling into generic action movie territory, but a lot of that was already part of the previous sequels. I do think that Bruce Willis' age helped as you really saw this world-weariness building on him, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead was awesome as his daughter.

I have only seen 1 and 2, TBH.

I'm afraid to watch those movies, save for 3. I usually prefer not to mess with the original.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 4th 2020 at 3:32:21 PM

I like the third one and the second one. With the third having the best villain besides Hans. The fourth one was fine. The fifth one is just plain bad.

Edited by Bullman on Jun 4th 2020 at 1:14:10 PM

First Die Hard is a masterpiece. Second is fine but a naked rehash of the first (while being also even more implausible), third is the best after the first, the fourth is solid for a otherwise fairly generic action movie, lifted up by John Mcclane himself. And it kind of works as a finale to John Mcclane himself in a sense since the film features him as a grizzled veteran mending bridges with his daughter.

In short:

I've only ever seen the first one. ^_^;;

Another thing which strikes me about the first, in case I didn't say this, is that John wants someone else to handle the situation, and only acts when he feels he has to, and that engaging in combat against armed gunmen is not a pleasant experience for him like watching it is for the audience. He is not a juggernaut. He is a human fucking being. He actually gets injured in the fray, he actually has feelings, he actually gives a shit.

As for Hans, the man is a chilling portrayal of a glib and superficially charming psychopath. He does not care what anyone thinks of him as long as he can profit off of the results, and the scariest thing about him is that while his actions make him, doubtlessly, a truly ruthless individual, he still has enough charm that you almost forget how ruthless he is.

I read the second draft of the original script online, and I must say, while that version of Hans was more blatantly vicious, this version, in a way, is much scarier.

This film had heart that a lot of films lack.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 14th 2020 at 8:50:15 AM

Click here to see a Die Hard poster I made in High School◊.

I may cosplay as John when the opportunity presents itself.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 14th 2020 at 2:02:00 PM

When does the movie come out?

From what I understand is that the general consensus on the sequels is that the second film was forgettable but fit for purpose, the third was a classic in its own right, and everything after that was trash. I've only actually seen the first two, though.

I would say that the fourth film is not actually too bad as a generic action movie but it doesn't feel much like a "Die Hard" film in some way.

Anyone else think along these lines, or is it just me?

I think most people. That's why they changed it, and why we remember it so well. I might even say it's part of why the whole "Christmas movie" thing started; he kind of feels like the sort of sleazy, manipulative villain you'd see in a Christmas movie.

x29 I think you forgot that Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. exist...

Also, I enjoyed how well it used the Chekhov's Armory trope. Every single thing in the film comes back in some way, even the tiniest details.

Dick Thornburg has a very punchable face. I mean, what kinda asshole tries to get someone deported and risks people's lives to get a lead?

It takes balls to play an asshole like that. I'm sure he's a decent fellow in real life. I was talking about the character.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Aug 5th 2020 at 4:12:59 AM

I kind of feel sorry for William Atherton. Between Thornburg in Die Hard and Walter "Dickless" Peck he somehow ended up as two of the slimiest slimeballs of the 80s and probably beyond.

William Atherton said once that he's had several bad run-ins with fans of Die Hard and Ghostbusters who thought he was a jerkass in real life.

"It's just a movie, guys."

I mean, when I was a child, I was scared of the hyaenas from Lion King, but these are supposed to be adults.

I remember hearing Anna Gunn got death threats because he character would dare to object to her husband's descent into murder and drug trafficking. Seeing trumpists, flat earthers, incels and all other manner of such viral stupidity and ignorance, nothing surprises me anymore.

In the immortal words of Butthead "Some people are dumb."

It's also nice having the hero not be completely fearless, and aware of how insane his attempts at survival are.

Rewatched Die Hard on Christmas 2020. Still awesome.

One thing that puzzles me is how charitable people are in their interpretation of Ellis. I can only assume he had selfish reasons not to sell Holly out. At least Hans—vicious, ruthless, and remorseless though he is—is one of the most horrifically charismatic and intelligent antagonists in cinema. Ellis is a dirty coward and a loser. I felt more sorry for John that he was not able to save Ellis than I did for Ellis himself. Ellis' actions directly endangered every other hostage.

My buddy sent me a meme recently that said "Die Hard isn't a Christmas movie; Bruce Willis sneaks around a tower at night avoiding Alan Rickman. It's a Harry Potter movie."

I laughed, I mean it's kinda true in a sense. Need to watch Die Hard again one of these days.

I think watching Die Hard in December has become a borderline custom for my family.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Dec 26th 2022 at 5:48:40 AM

To go back several years I like Die Hard 2. I'm not sure but I think I may have seen it before I saw the first one all the way through.

It's silly and contrived as all hell but it moves and it's fun and the sentimental schlock at the end is sweet and even after seeing all of the films I do enjoy that they had his character development stick and his rekationship stay fixed and that he moved to LA.

The following sequels retconned it so he stayed in NY and spiralled downwards which is a real shame.