Good, rough fun. Man, I love this movie... despite the awfully stupid cops.

iiuc it's called a Howdy

as in Howdy DoDat 

Sounds like the Joker in Dark Knight, that can anticipate what the Police will do several moves ahead.

On the what makes Die Hard with a Vengeance better than Die Hard 2 has everything to do with coincidence and plausibility. In Die Hard 2, it's John at the center of a terrorist plot. Again. A ridiculous one. One that had no hope of working in the real world. And his wife is in one of the airplanes. And Carl Winslow, an LA cop, is also in DC. The lantern hanging of "how can the same shit happen to the same guy twice" line doesn't come close to covering it. The filmmakers banked on the hope that audience would just accept the replay of senario and enjoy the action and set pieces. Which I don't. Actually, I can't even tell you what the villain's goal was and I've seen that movie at least three times. I do remember naked kung fu though. Die Hard 4 basically has the same problems. The first one is about an average cop who is thrown into extreme circumstances. 2 and 4 just step over the line from what's an acceptable coincidence to the contrived. And now he's anything but an average Joe. He's an experienced badass by 4. Boring.

With a Vengeance, on the other hand, is far more plausible. John is targeted. He didn't stumble into a cab with Sam Jackson. He was forced into it. I'd also argue that it's the best entertainment of all the films. The action, puzzles, and comedy are top shelf. I like that Simon's mission to kill John is more of an aside. I always got the impression he did it to prove that he was better than his brother. He was a well developed villain. But that's me reading into the movie.

I loved die hard the first time I saw it and still see it almost every year. Two things Ive learned that I found interesting were that the role of McClane was originally offered to Frank Sinatra, because of his movie the detective. The other thing was that the man who played Karl, the terrorist who wouldn't die, used to be a ballet dancer. I think this is the pinnacle of action movies because it has great moments of action. It has slower points so you can catch your breath, and this is the point it will make you laugh. It is probably the smartest action movie Ive ever seen as well. I know that doesnt mean that much though kind of like being the smartest kid who has to wear a helmet to school.

Some aspects of Die Hard I feel need to be mentioned more than they might normally be are the tempo of the film and the cinematography. Most Die Hard copies are amped up action films. Die Hard though is really a thriller at heart, and that is also enforced by the score which almost never strays into action score territory. The best word to use when describing Die Hard is tension, and lots of it. Not many contemporary films would be made in such a competent way that the scene where your hero is dangling from a machine gun in an airshaft is one of the best scenes in the film.

And Jan de Bont really knows his shit. The cinematography is superb, bordering on masterclass throughout this film. The anamorphic lenses alone are gorgeous and the use of lens flares are not overt, but used for memorable scenes. When I think of the scene where the vault finally opens to the tune of Ode To Joy, the first thing I think of is the camera push-in on Alan Rickman and a huge gorgeous flare (and a windmachine for good measure).

Personally I don't see how anyone, even those who watch this movie way after-the-fact, could not love it, because it really exels in all areas of filmmaking).

It's that time of the year again! I wrote this last Christmas, hoping to put the "Is Die Hard a Christmas movie?" debate to rest once and for all. Hopefully some of you get a kick out of it

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful

That is delightful! I warmly embrace this as a new Christmas tradition

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful

The New-Yorker: I Watched “Die Hard” for the First Time

Interesting review, but ultimately a view of the film I strongly disagree with.

How does the elevator shaft scene make McClane superheroic? He almost dies here, and almost purely by chance manages to get a grip on a vent opening. The film makes a point of having McClane be resourceful, but human. He doesn't have a "spare, elemental power that disperses ludicrously when the police arrive". He gets things done while he can, but ends up out of his depth. Jeez, watch Die Hard 4 and you'll see a ridicously superheroic McClane.

I don't really like the second part about the pop-cultural references either. The author makes it sound like a completely commercial move and the product of a global wave of nostalgia. What if pop-cultural references are simply a way for the writers to ground their character in the real world? Make them a little bit less an entity of fiction and fantasy, but someone you can relate to more easily? The part about a common nostalgia for the fifties in the wake of the sixties is interesting, but I don't see how it applies to Die Hard. I don't like the underlying feeling of exploitation.

Last thing- the idea of a culture of violence and of violence as redemption. Die Hard is a violent film, there's no denying that. The way for the hero to move things forwards is to kill. But:

I completely disagree. Violence is a side-effect arising from context. McClane doesn't save his marriage by shooting up bad guys. He saves it by coming incredibly close to death, which makes him reflect on his life and realize things. The bathroom scene, his lowest point - it's his moment of resolution. You don't see Holly hanging on to him like the original Star Wars poster, the damsel in distress who's looking up to the hero who just butchered a bunch of german thugs. They have a moment of crisis, fearing for their lives. Anybody will reflect on their life and put aside petty arguments in such moments, at least for a while. McClane and Holly are simply happy to be alive, and get a chance to work things out in a different state of mind from that moment on.
Al doesn't redeem himself by killing Kraut Jesus - again, context. He surpasses a fear, something that had been holding him back for years. It's a matter of self-confidence. Anyone here who has never experienced this? Didn't think so.

Anyway, thought I'd write these few words because this review challenged my view of Die Hard as a flawless and honest movie, but in the end, it remains unchanged and I think its author has a very biased look on it.

Thoughts?

Last edited by Saniss (2017-08-09 08:29:32)

Nice to see this thread get bumped up, just because i love this movie so much.  It's nearly impossible to not see this movie through a 2017 lens if you haven't seen it before, so i can understand if it doesn't hold up to some.

and two things - possibly mentioned in the commentary, i can't remember, it's been a while since i listened.

one thing that always bothered me was the Die Hard 2 doesn't take place during New Years Eve.  one of the last lines in the movie is Argyle saying, "If this is Christmas, I gotta see new years!". 

The other is the shoot the glass scene.  the idea that the german terrorists don't understand "schieß dem Fenster" until Hans says it in english is just nonsense.  but you know what? i don't care.  i'll go to the mat for this movie....i'd guess along with every other 35-50 year old dude.