LTTP: Die Hard 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 23, 2012
18,265
1
0
#1
Well I never saw the first Die Hard, so I thought I might check it out given its gleaming status as an action movie. Bruce Willis was absolutely fantastic, the irony of the role he played where he was looking up to action heroes when conversing with Hans. He fully embodied the 'American action hero' as Hans put it. It starts off surprisingly slow, with a good 20-30 minutes setting up the characters and the plotlines. I would have liked deeper exploration into the themes it seemed to be trying to explore at the beginning of inequality between the rich and the poor. I loved how deplorable some of the hostages were in their mentality of self righteousness and greed, as well as the media's depiction as a news hungry cooperation. I think they stretched out the mentality of the ridiculousness of the FBI and NYPD head's aims too much, but we had John McClane jumping off a building and murdering a dozen terrorists through vent-holes and shafts. Alan Rickman was perfect as a the villain, no nonsense with the hostages and tactically astute. Great action flick. Now to move on to Die Hard 2.

Yippee Ki Yay Motherfcker

EDIT:

Die Hard 2

So my thoughts on Die Hard 2..... it was nowhere near as good as the first, characters I didn't care about (villains and good characters), characters that were just extras, plot lines carried on from the last film that were't necessary, ridiculous twists, insane stunts, but damn if that wasn't fun I don't know what was.
Die Hard 3:

Finished 3, that was a fun ride. Better side characters, more interesting journey, still not as good as the first, but damn entertaining! Samuel L Jackson was brilliant as usual.

Die Hard 4:

I watched Die Hard 4. It was an average outing. The problem with the 'internet hacking NSA spying' films is that we don't have a point source or reference point to the limitations of hacking capabilities, and as such, the good and bad characters keep outdoing each other with these nonsense hacks (that take up a significant amount of screen time). As an older John McClane, Bruce Willis wasn't bad, but I felt like the role has outgrew him. There were still plenty of entreating action scenes,especially the women ninja scene, which was the best executed and most reminiscent of the older Die Hard films. It wasn't as poor as I anticipated, but it certainly didn't live up to the expectations of the last films. The FBI and government cast were redundant in this film. Justin Long's performance was variable throughout the film, and was mostly disappointing. Easily the worst sidekick of the four films.

I'm not watching 5, and thus ends my Die Hard journey! It's been great.
 
Jun 11, 2004
5,567
0
0
Pasadena, CA
#7
Don't get your hopes up with part 2. Just enjoy it for what it is - a cash grab attempt to duplicate the first. Die Harder was not helmed by the same director. But once you're done with that, go ahead and get your hype on for Die Hard With a Vengeance. So so great. And then stop there.
 
Dec 12, 2013
3,865
2,119
440
#16
Does it dip that much in quality?
Yeah it kind of does. The second movie feels more like a Steven Seagal movie. Remember how Steven Seagal was making bad DieHard-ish movies like the one on the boat and the one on the train well this could've been the one in the airport.

3 is much better and I would say the second best movie after the original. 4 is decent and I consider it way better than 2 but it's just okay. As for 5 it's pretty abysmal. At ;least 2 still had that late 80s/early 90s action movie vibe going for it, but 5 is just god awful, like the kind of shitty straight-to-DVD action movies you often find on Netflix.

Watch 3 and 4 and be done with it is my advice.
 
Mar 31, 2012
1,355
0
0
25
Los Angeles
#19
Boss★Moogle;114817633 said:
Yeah it kind of does. The second movie feels more like a Steven Seagal movie. Remember how Steven Seagal was making bad DieHard-ish movies like the one on the boat and the one on the train well this could've been the one in
Are you talking about Under Siege? You can't be, because Under Siege is fantastic.
 
Dec 28, 2010
5,931
0
0
Pacific northwest
#20
Die Hard is the only one you need to watch, 2 is fun and 3 is the same but none of them ever come close to the first. Also I think you meant LAPD and not NYPD (I'm just being nit picky).

It's funny reading into how they didn't want to cast Willis at first given his TV roles before that but he played the part so damn well it's hard to imagine anyone else coming close.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Jun 9, 2004
24,925
0
0
#23
1 is the best
2 is good
3 is better
4 is Egh, but fun

They made a 5?
This... except I saw 5. That was a mistake. It's a lot worse than 4. A LOT.
Or maybe that was the joke. It's so hard to tell these days.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Jun 9, 2004
24,925
0
0
#27
Such a great movie, but just take this in for a second - this was originally going to be the sequel for Commando!
Ha, just like Taken.
daughter -> wife (unless it was going to be the daughter again)

And Die Hard With A Vengeance was supposed to be a standalone movie.
 
Aug 24, 2007
54,266
0
0
#28
I miss movies that didn't need to be all epic in scope to be a good action flick. Dredd was a great throwback in that way.

the movie came out the day i was born. i'd like to think if there was a 7 o'clock showing around the country, the time i entered this world might have been right about here:

Such an iconic image.
 
Feb 24, 2012
4,941
6
495
#29
I wanna see your face by the time you get to 5.
I genuinely forgot that anything after 3 exists, I was a little shocked until repressed memories came back. I remember very little about the piece of crop that is 4 and I didn't want to waste my time with 5.

For the OP: 2 is quite good. 3 is well worth it. Samuel L Jackson is in it, which means it's awesome.
 
Feb 14, 2013
6,062
0
375
Planet Earth.
#30
Was just reading the Die Hard wiki and noticed, the 4th movie has a much better rotten score (82%) than the 3rd movie (51%) and is also higher than the 2nd movie (66%) - that is just not right at all :(.

The 5th movie score though, LOL
(14%).
 
Mar 27, 2007
3,943
0
920
san francisco
#37
Apparently Die Hard 4 has better reviews than 2 and 3. I've heard abysmal things about 5...
There's no possible universe where Die Hard 4 is better than 2 or 3

You literally have to turn off your brain to even view Die Hard 4



Was just reading the Die Hard wiki and noticed, the 4th movie has a much better rotten score (82%) than the 3rd movie (51%) and is also higher than the 2nd movie (66%) - that is just not right at all :(.
Juts remember Superman Returns and Indiana Jones 4 both got 77% on Rotten tomatoes.
 
Jun 10, 2013
4,009
0
0
www.youtube.com
#39
There's no possible universe where Die Hard 4 is better than 2 or 3

You literally have to turn off your brain to even view Die Hard 4

4 is equal to 2, a little worse than 3 in my eyes. sure the techy jargon is out of this world dumb, but the villains have personality, the action scenes are great, and McClane feels like McClane.
 
Jun 1, 2005
2,159
0
0
#40
The first is far and away the best of the franchise.

Having said that, the first 4 are all fun. Part 2 has grown on me through the years. I didn't like it when it first came out, but I have to say that I rather enjoy it quite a bit these days. And for all the grief Part 4 takes, it's a lot of fun as well. Just turn your brain off and enjoy it as a solid popcorn flick.

Part 5 though - now that was just a disaster.
 
May 13, 2013
16,254
2
470
#42
4 is equal to 2, a little worse than 3 in my eyes. sure the techy jargon is out of this world dumb, but the villains have personality, the action scenes are great, and McClane feels like McClane.
The awful CGI action scenes leave a bad taste in my mouth.
They dont feel authentic.

Case in point:
 
Jun 19, 2013
10,866
1
470
UK
#46
"Now I have a machine gun HO HO HO"

Amazing film, the series stops a three for me though, I have the blu ray box set with 1-4 on which I got for £10, I will not buy 5 EVER.
 
Nov 16, 2008
11,712
0
0
#47
Was just reading the Die Hard wiki and noticed, the 4th movie has a much better rotten score (82%) than the 3rd movie (51%) and is also higher than the 2nd movie (66%) - that is just not right at all :(.

The 5th movie score though, LOL
(14%).
I'm not too surprised about it being rated higher than Die Hard 2. I've never liked that movie, it just feels wrong. It's light and fluffy, full of comic side characters that feel like caricatures instead of characters. Which wouldn't be a problem, but the action just isn't that good either.

But Die Hard 3 is nearly as good as 1. It's just a little bit bloated, and the final climax is a little odd, with the main characters thrown to the sidelines for some reason. But the first hour is especially fantastic.

Die Hard 4 just has the bad luck of a terrible premise and bad guy. And making McClain into a super hero. But it's still rather entertaining, so its hard to be too hard on it.
 

Karu

Member
Jun 22, 2013
3,176
0
0
#49
It makes me sad, that 4 gets even better reception in light of the horribleness that is Die Hard 5. I thought 4 was already garbage.

The first three are all great in their own way though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.