The ' Die Hard ' Movies...Are You A Die Hard Fan?

Die Hard: Great action, terrific cast, and a cracking good script. One of the all time great action movies and no question, among the most influential. How many variations of "Die Hard on a (blank)" followed?
Die Hard 2: Preposterous, but in the best possible way. Another great cast and terrific action - the climatic fight on the plane's wing - make me overlook the plot holes. Good villains, too.
Die Hard With A Vengeance: Love the location work and yet again, a great cast, but the third movie promises more than it delivers. It starts out great - especially the very tense scene with McClane in Harlem - but devolves into too many convenient coincidences (McClane being able to follow the same subway train through Manhattan). Also, I admit to expecting more menace from Jeremy Irons.
Live Free or Die Hard: Liked it, but outside of Maggie Q, the movie lacks a strong villain. Also makes the mistake of the previous installment by giving McClane an unnecessary running partner.
A Good Day To Die Hard: Ugh. McClane and Son. Forgettable villain. Mercifully short.

 

My favorite thing about the first one was that John McClane was terrified while doing this stuff. He didn't tie a fire hose around his waist and jump out the window because he was some unstoppable, fearless badass who does stuff like that... he did it because he had no choice, that if he didn't do it, innocent people were going to die.

The further they got from that, the worse the films got.

 

First is an all time classic.

2nd is an entertaining action movie that I'll stop to watch every time it's on.

DHWAV is ok.

The rest never happened.

 

I concur with views about the original trilogy.
I liked the 4th one right up to the semi-truck - fighter jet encounter. That was the 'really? What were they thinking?' moment

 

The McTiernan ones are easily the best. I love how one is indoors and claustrophobic and the other spans all of NYC. I must confess to With a Vengeance being my favorite, and at one time my favorite action film of all-time. Part 2 grew on me, but there are some definite lulls plus the bummer of a plane going down. Like the snow. The 4th could have been so much better if it wasn't so over the top. Didn't McLane drive a car knowing it would hit a booth, fly into the air and take out a helicopter? C'mon guys, this isn't the Transporter series. The 5th is a distant memory.

 

There's a touch of that in ' Die Hard 2' where he shoves an icicle through a guy's eye. He seems disgusted by it but it had to be done.

 

Exactly. The 1st DH had both the feelings of fear & desperation in it. There's touches of that in the third as well, likely due to having the same director returning.

 

That's producers for you. "We need to top the first one!" "Not enough action beats!"

The first film was credible. It didn't feature more than what an average New York cop could accomplish if he was driven to extremes by circumstances.

That's what so appealing. Somewhere in the back of almost every man's mind is the thought that we could be one bad mofo... if we had to. That if a gang of ninjas had captured our family, we'd be able to rise to the challenge. John was the everyman who did what he had to do.

 

Ho. Ho. Ho.

 

Yep, & they kept it just this side of plausible with the original. Add in the claustrophobic feel it had, & it made for spine tingling cinema, to me still the best action movie ever, & I really like well made action movies, so I watch a lot of them. The humor in it didn't hurt either, as it never seems forced

The third one, as mentioned above is far more spread out, all over NYC, but that works to it's advantage as well, as it lends a sense of urgency to what John & Zeus have to accomplish. My favorite part of the second are that William Sadler & John Amos do very well in the villain department, (especially Amos in a nice twist), but it's too uneven overall. A fun thrill ride, but it never rises above that.

 

....Merry "Die Hard" Christmas! ; )

 

I am a fan of Bruce Willis...I honestly can say I liked the entire franchise
of course some better than others, but there isn't any I would not watch again...when my wife and I revisit the franchise we watch them all...

 

Die Hard 2 still a lot of the humor of the first film that made it the perfect blend of action and comedic moments and one-liners. The 3rd films on didn't have that same element of humor for me.

So many unique things that make the first film such a great film - the cocky FBI guys, great supporting performances by Reginald VelJohnson, Paul Gleason, and Argyle the Limo driver. The quintessential villain with Alan Rickman and so many other fantastic elements to the storyline. Even the dialogue is great, especially between Willis and Johnson. I mean, who would think of the great lines like the Twinkie discussion:

McClane, trying to eat a 1,000-year-old Twinkie: “What do they put in these things anyway?”
Powell: “Sugar-enriched flour, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, polysorbate 60, and Yellow Dye No. 5. Just everything a growing boy needs.”

 

Special Agent Johnson and Special Agent Johnson ............. No relation.

 

I'm FB friends with Grand Bush, one of the "no relation" Agent Johnsons. He's retired from acting & works in the respiratory therapy field now & he's a hell of a nice guy!

 

‘Still better than Die Hard 5’: Bruce Willis returns as John McClane in an advert for Die Hard car batteries

 

I like the first 3, some have said that 2 isn't that great but I really like that one as well. I like the tone of it and I like the subplot that keeps Holly in the movie and better access to the people in the airplanes. With Vengence, you've got the sort of Simon says stuff which is an interesting angle but I like how like the first film they have you rooting for the villains to succeed just a little bit.
I think the subsequent Die Hard movies sort of lost the spirit of Die Hard, he became more of a superhero than an everyman which is especially true of Die Hard 5. I hear Bruce wasn't the easiest to work with on those films but I'm not sure how much of that had to do with it. It could be that he was just frustrated with less than inventive screenplays and the directors were just caught between a rock and a hard place. I'm not entirely sure why they didn't try to bring back Bonnie Bedelia for any movies beyond number 2 but it was a bit of a downer to see that John and Holly's relationship really went down the deep end as a result.

 

The first one is the best one, a classic.
"With A Vengeance," to me, is the best sequel.
2 and 4 are solid.
The fifth one is the worst one, by far.

 

I'm a fan of the series.

I - Simply a classic. McTiernan manages to make the perfect action film that's also a perfectly functional Christmas movie. In sharp contrast to the Sly/Arnie movies of the time, Willis is an everyman who is a believable audience surrogate. Willis (and the script, and the direction) sells the film with his constant self-talk, fear, and doubt. Without his performance, the film is forgettable. By the same token, Rickman delivers one of the most memorable film villains of all time. The film was made during the halcyon days of practical effects, so everything looks amazing. There's not a wasted frame of film, and everything from the look to the score serves the narrative.

II - "Make it bigger!" This works to a certain extent. Take aside all the painful continuity and reality breaks, and II is a fun ride. William Sadler is absolutely chilling as Colonel Stuart, and the shootout in the skywalk stands with anything from the first film.

III - McTiernan is back at the helm, and even though the script was for something else, DHwaV is a gritty return to form. The only exception to that is the "everyman". Holly's left, John looks like crap, but the fear and doubt is gone, and the film suffers for it. That said, this is one of the top 5 action films of the '90s, and it's eminently rewatchable. Excellent chemistry between Willis and Jackson. Irons is just not the baddie that Rickman was.

IV - I so wanted to love this movie. On paper it's got promise, but without a credible villain, and with John being a supercop/pilot, it's a shadow of the prior films. Justin Long is painful to watch in this, and Kevin Smith? Tim Olyphant is usually great in everything he does, but he's just not given much to work with. Hollywood has a terrible track record making movies about computer technology, and this one doesn't reverse that trend.

V - I saw this in the theater, but I'll be damned if I can remember much about it. I was disappointed. Too much CGI, very little story or characterization.

I rate them: I, III, II, IV, V



As a bonus though, forget IV and V. The Die Hard finale is actually 16 Blocks. Crackerjack direction from Richard Donner, Willis plays Jack Mosley (initials 'J.M.', get it?) who's a beaten-down, alcoholic cop at the end of his career. It's a far better film than the last two canonical movies, and with minor tweaks becomes the perfect ending to the series.

 

I reckon only the first one is 'must own'. The rest have their moments, but can't touch the first for quality.

 

That was in Die Hard 4.0

 

Love the series. I still want more but only if Bruce is the star. The one problem with the last one was it felt too much like a set up for the son to take over the series. Stop it Hollywood. If Willis isn’t the star then it’s not Die Hard.

 

I have them all and the only one I don’t miss watching is the second one. I look forward to introducing my son to them when appropriate.

 

I just read through the posts. I’m rolling my eyes at those of you who believe the first Die Hard was plausible. Great movie, but it’s all comic book action along with the villain, who is tremendous.