Die Hard (1, 2, Vengeance, Live Free or Die Hard)

[UnSub]

It came up in another thread.

I saw EDIT: "Die Hard 4.0" a few weeks ago and was surprised it didn't suck as much as I expected it was going to. Still the worst of the franchise though.

UPDATE: I'm dumb - I confused "... Vengeance" and "Die Hard 4.0" because I thought the 4th movie had a different title... which it did in the US. Here in Australia it was "Die Hard 4.0".

[stray]

Vengeance is the one with Sam Jackson and Jeremy Irons right?

I know a lot of people don't like the latest (Live Free or Die Hard), but I thought it was much better than 3. 1 and 2 being the best, of course.


Umm, since there's a thread.. I might as well carry on about it. Die Hard is an influential movie.   I don't know if it's technically the "birth" of a new type of action hero, but at the time, it was cool to see a bald guy who lives next door kick everyone's asses.. without any shoes on at that. It more or less put an end to muscleheads in action movies. Although Arnold still had some cool things left in him -- but even so, they made a Predator sequel without him.

And not to further derail, but Danny Glover was the shit. Predator 2 is awesome. And it wouldn't have existed without Die Hard.

[Riggswolfe]

And not to further derail, but Danny Glover was the shit. Predator 2 is awesome. And it wouldn't have existed without Die Hard.

I'm not sure citing Predator 2 is going to win Die Hard any fans.

My only problem with the last Die Hard movie was that they pussed out. That should have absolutely been an R-rated movie like the other ones were.

[stray]

That's because people need to refresh their memory on Predator 2. It's better than the original.

[HaemishM]

No.

Also, Live Free and Die Hard was blatantly stupid, yet still as much fun as the other movies in the series. I actually rate #2 as the lowest point in the series. It still had all the worst aspects of '80's action movies, with much less interesting villains and setup than the first. The third had Sam Jackson, so I can't diss it too much, but it did have Jeremy Irons in a paycheck role. #4 was just crazy dumbass fun - and you're right, pussing out on the R-rating didn't help it.

[stray]

It comes down with whether you actually like the Predator or not. Predator 1 was an Arnold movie. Predator 2 is a Predator movie, and he's never been so badass as he was in that. You get a better backstory on them, and he's an even bigger threat in the city. Glover as the guy to take him down though makes it hilarious. He really doesn't stand a fucking chance.. but kind of wins on being batshit insane. Also, there's Busey and Paxton.

[Riggswolfe]

Also, Live Free and Die Hard was blatantly stupid, yet still as much fun as the other movies in the series. I actually rate #2 as the lowest point in the series. It still had all the worst aspects of '80's action movies, with much less interesting villains and setup than the first. The third had Sam Jackson, so I can't diss it too much, but it did have Jeremy Irons in a paycheck role. #4 was just crazy dumbass fun - and you're right, pussing out on the R-rating didn't help it.

I'd have to agree with you that #2 was the worst of the Die Hard series. I sort of go back and forth about Die Hard with a Vengeance. It has a soft spot in my heart because of the fact that they essentially scripted Sam's character as a black racist which is quite rare in Hollywood IMO. I also kind of enjoyed the silly puzzle aspect of it and that the whole thing was basically just another get rich quick scheme.

I enjoyed 4 because it was a neat twist on the formula in that it was all done by computer for the most part.

[WindupAtheist]

First was the best, then the third. The third at least looked to the first for a reason to have McClane end up in more shit. It didn't posit him as some sort of magical terrorist magnet that always just happens to be in the right place at the right time. He was in the right place once and then later this other shit came to him as a consequence of that.

By comparison the second one was just sloppy and random. At one point he remarks "How can the same thing happen to the same guy twice?!" and I always have to restrain myself from yelling "Lazy writers!" back at the screen. But John Amos was cool, and it had it's charms. Seeing Robert Patrick as a mook, and Colm Meaney as an airline pilot who dies in 5 seconds, is always kind of a chuckle.

The fourth was just an odious PG rated CGI-filled braindead piece of shit "magic internet" movie.

[Tannhauser]

The last one was OK.  I like how the action hero of the 80's meets the geeks of the aughts and bitchslaps them.  It felt like oldschool vs. teh new hotness and that was fun.  The Apple guy did a good job and BW is still believable as a action hero.

/sequel to Unbreakable now!  "They called me Mr. Glass!"

[Venkman]

First, Third, Fourth, Second. I still remember all the reviewers falling over themselves when #2 came out, just to make up for how wrong and stupid they were about #1.

First and Third are sorta tied for me. Different films from different eras equally assume for different reasons.

I actually thought #3 could have been #1 if they removed the tie-back to Hans (which was irrelevant really), because then the whole series would have shown the steady self-improvements McClane made as a person.

#1 had him as a loner getting back with his family, #2 had him being more responsible still (though I agree with WUA's right-time/right-place annoyance), whereas #3 featured a proto-McClane burnout loser with nothing to live for nor lose, and then #4 showed him largely cleaned up, nearing retirement, taking the longer view on life and family.

But that one minor annoyance about #3 was more than offset by Jackson, Irons, the whole premise and setting, and McClane the character from the billboard sequence on forward.

[stray]

He was still a loser in 4. The only thing he was at peace about is being resigned to his role to "be that guy" who has to do this crazy shit (I think there was line like that) (edit: I also saw that as commentary on movies in general.. He'll continue being John McClane if action movies didn't suck as much these days).

As for the out of touch thing, that's all that turned me off. They used the wrong fucking song to illustrate how out of touch he was. CCR? Really? You're a cockmunch if you don't like Creedance. Has nothing to do with age.

[Sir T]

Jeremy Irons made the third one for me. That thing where up till then he us blowing some "I am doing this fas revenge for my brudder" and then the camera pans up the building and you see him looking down at the scattering policemen. And he smiles "They fell for it. Hook, line und sinker" Then I knew we were dealing with a good villain.

It should have ended when he was on the pier, talking to Jackson, and he said "He beat me" and Jackson goes "So what if he beat you. Look maybe it time to accept you are just a man. Go call your wife and say sorry ffs." and he calling his wife and starting to sort out his life. But no they fucked that up and we had a dumb "we have to beat the bad guy" ending.

[Teleku]

My problem with 4 was that it wasn't a fucking Die Hard movie.  Die Hard is an action movie, with lots of gun play and blood, but it at least tries to keep things somewhat in the realm of possible.  Oh, and actually is kind of fun to watch.  The first 3 were all good fun and basically followed this formula.  4 was nothing like the previous 3.  It was completely over the top unrealistic in every way (the killing the helicopter with the car thing just enshrines that).  Action was boring and cliche.  Plot was horrible (even ignoring the skull fuckingly bad way they portrayed what you can do with technology).  Acting was horrible.  Writing was horrible.  Movie was horrible.

Its like this movie and Transformers were in a competition to see who could make the worst action flick of 2007.

[stray]

Transformers wasn't bad either. 

[K9]

My problem with 4 was that it wasn't a fucking Die Hard movie.  Die Hard is an action movie, with lots of gun play and blood, but it at least tries to keep things somewhat in the realm of possible.  Oh, and actually is kind of fun to watch.  The first 3 were all good fun and basically followed this formula.  4 was nothing like the previous 3.  It was completely over the top unrealistic in every way (the killing the helicopter with the car thing just enshrines that).  Action was boring and cliche.  Plot was horrible (even ignoring the skull fuckingly bad way they portrayed what you can do with technology).  Acting was horrible.  Writing was horrible.  Movie was horrible.

This is more or less my feeling too, Die Hard 4.0 broke the mould, in a bad way. Of the first three I consider two the weakest; probably due to the enemy mastermind being a lot less interesting than Alan Rickman and the plot being less interesting than the third. The dynamic between Samuel L Jackson and Bruce Willis, combined with the series of not-overly-contrived hoops the pair have to jump through makes the third really enjoyable for me, it's not the most sophisticated film, but it twists and turns in a good and itneresting way. The first remains the best of the bunch though.

[Jeff Kelly]

The first one was just a brilliant action movie and an essential eighties action movie. I especially like that it is rather plausible for an action movie and that the hero is not some kind of total unrealistic superman (well he is a little but action heroes have to be larger than life to some respect). He uses the environment and guerillia warfare to get the villains one by one. Also the Nakatomi Plaza makes the whole thing somewhat claustrophobic.

Two suffers from Blockbusteritis. Everything had to be bigger, more explosions, higher stakes, more action, bigger budget, while trying to keep the original formula alive, which they did well, it's a great movie but somewhat superfluous. I like the third because they basically said "fuck it" and made a tongue in cheek, we don't take ourselves seriously buddy action comedy which works extremely well and is somewhat similar to the lethal weapon movies.

The fourth is just "we want to take the most money from you suckers while milking the franchise to death" accountant cinema, where everybody involved is just in it for the paycheck. Which three also was to some respect, but at least the people involved seemed to have fun doing it and made a fun movie.

So my personal preference would be 1,3,2 and then 4.

[shiznitz]

This was on TV last night and despite the gripes about how it isn't a true Die Hard movie, it is still a fun action movie. Way better than Transformers 1 & 2, and GI Joe.

[Slayerik]

1 and 3 are great movies.

2 and 4 aren't.

[WayAbvPar]

1...3......4........2.

2 probably suffered in comparison to 1, but it still is the weakest effort. 4 wasn't really DieHard, but it had some amusing moments. I still have to cover my eyes when the F-22 shit starts though 

[Teleku]

That was an F-35 actually.   

[stray]

I didn't like 2 when it came out, but I suggest giving it another chance.

I like that he fails in it (with the plane). Or rather, the terrorists in that one really weren't fucking around.

[Venkman]

Yea, that's the one redeeming quality of 2 in my mind, that unlike the bank robbers with guns that was the first one, these military cutouts were well trained and motivated. McClane basically lost the entire time, he just got lucky in the end.

[Teleku]

I enjoyed 2, don't really understand some of the hate its getting.  I thought the first 3 were all great.  I just thought 4 was horrible, for the reasons I've already listed (it wasn't a fucking die hard movie).

[Azazel]

Die Hard.So the first one is looking pretty dated these days - and in quite a few ways, not just the late 80s "poodle" hairstyles that many of the women have. The terrorists being predominantly Germanic Eurotrash seems weird now that we're so used to them being crazed Islamists. Hans Gruber is retrospectively hilarious, with some of the best/worst overacting since anything with NicCage in it. Still, and despite all this it's still a very watchable and very fun movie. I hadn't seen this for years, though I'd seen it a few times back in the days. Good fun.

 
The second one - Die Harder
I just remembered as being alright at the time, but not nearly as good as the original one. One of those "ëntertaining in your teens" movies that is otherwise a bad movie. All I could remember was the doublecross, the airport, the snow, snowmobiles and a really tenuous link to old Hans. Oh, and the shooter level from the Playstation 1 game Die Hard Trilogy.
 
In a lot of ways, it's a time capsule.. smoking indoors, South American drug lords, Robert Patrick, a taser allowed on a plane, Bruce Willis with hair.  SWAT guys without Body Armour or Helmets, followed by Counter-Terrorist Delta-Alike guys, also without armour or helmets. The escalator bit was good though. Again lots of retardo movie stuff as we saw in Rambo II and III - lots of hip firing, especially from the Police and Delta/SEAL/anti-terrorist commando guys. 30 second grenade fuses (we timed them!). It's a movie that tries to be a nonstop action ride and just becomes 2 hours of slow-moving, sporadic, almost-random stuff.
 
Yeah, not a great movie by any means, even when viewed through the big action 80’s Hollywood blockbuster lens.


The third one - With a Vengeance
I remember enjoying, and I enjoyed watching it again. Again a little weird seeing explosions go off in NYC along with shots of the towers in the background, along with more non-denominational generic "terrorists" led by the Germans. Quite a few "haha that's fucking stupid" and "well, they're dead now - again" moments starring Sam and Bruce, but since the movie didn't annoy me, I was able to let them pass and just enjoy it. I'm not feeling any need to upgrade the DVDs to Blu-Rays, though. :)


Live Free or 4.0
Started okay, I guess. A little too tryhard in the "computers are everywhere", and the look of the hacker/everyman that McClane hooked up with was seemingly deliberately reminiscent of Keanu, along with all of the typical Hollywood computer screens. "Neon green on black is still in, kids!" Kevin Smith was almost amusing as the “computer nerd in his 30’s who lives in his Mom’s basement” stereotype, but wasn’t quite amusing or likable enough. Sorry Kev.

The whole film was filled with enough bad parkour as performed (apparently) by Spider-Man's cousin and falling from great heights that would normally result in broken bones and/or death that it just became a bad joke after awhile. I did play the start of Uncharted 2 a few hours ago before watching this film, and I'm thinking the Naughty Dog gyus may have watched this film as well, since there seems to be a bit of istrong nspiration there. The car in the tunnel bit though. I can't believe that they tried to sell it being shot at from that distance. It's like a Scooby-Doo style stretching of time, space and physics. It's right up there with the 30-second grenades from the second one.  ...and the entire sequence with the fighter jet and the Semi was..  

Anyway, the film was an odd mix of fucking stupid, predictable and a bit of fun at the same time. I didn’t overly like it, but I also didn’t hate it for some reason I’m not sure of. I hadn’t seen it before, so it was an interesting couple of hours for sure...
 

Oh, I should point out that the fourth film that I watched is apparently the uncut version, featuring "motherfucker" and other stuff re-inserted into the film.

[Jeff Kelly]

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=18537.0

[WayAbvPar]

Merged.

[Paelos]

My favorite part of Die Hard 1 is when Hans Gruber runs out of the office with his pistol after killing somebody and fires a warning shot into the air to startle the crowd. The funny part is the way he does it looks like he burst out of the office with a full on John Travolta Saturday Night Fever Disco move as he pops off the gun into the air.

I call it the Disco shot.

[Teleku]

DH1 doesn't feel dated at all to me.  It's still awesome every time I watch it.

[Azazel]

That's because people need to refresh their memory on Predator 2. It's better than the original.

I found Pred 2 quite disappointing compared to the original when I rewatched it on DVD a few years ago.

As for the out of touch thing, that's all that turned me off. They used the wrong fucking song to illustrate how out of touch he was. CCR? Really? You're a cockmunch if you don't like Creedance. Has nothing to do with age.

As for the Creedence thing - I think it was not used to show that McClane was out of touch, but to emphasise the generation gap thing - older-timers and people who saw the original in the cinema would know (and probably like) Creedence, while (many of) the younger generation that were supposed to identify with, erm, Neo or whatever his name was. It certainbly wasn't to show that he's out of touch, since after all they used Creedence again at the end credits, and it more or less took the formula place that Lovin Spoonfull/Summer in the City took in the third. After all, everyone has heard these songs.