Thought I'd use this bright and sunny Tuesday morning to publish a blog entry, especially with this blog encompassing such a desolate atmosphere (for my standards anyway). I spent the weekend at my sisters place in the city while she and her boyfriend were on holidays in Mauritius and Seychelles. While I was making myself home in their apartment, I managed to raid their DVD collection. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to watch them all, but I managed to watch a select few. One of those movies watched was the original Die Hard made in 1988, also the first movie I intentionally browsed for. This was probably the 20th time watching this fabulous gem.
I'm going to use this opportunity to discuss the Die Hard movies through the comparing and constrasting of several areas. I must warn you; spoilers may be contained in the following paragraphs.
I'm going to use this opportunity to discuss the Die Hard movies through the comparing and constrasting of several areas. I must warn you; spoilers may be contained in the following paragraphs.
There are currently 4 Die Hard movies:
- Die Hard
- Die Hard 2: Die Harder
- Die Hard: With a Veangeance
- Die Hard 4.0
These are the Die Hard movies in order of personal favoritism:
- Die Hard (by a long stretch)
- Die Hard 4.0
- Die Hard: With a Veangeance
- Die Hard 2: Die Harder
Evidence of the first Die Hard's superiority lies simply in personal observation in that other 3 movies don't come anywhere close. Don't get me wrong, I love the 3 Die Hard movies that proceed the first one, but they fall short of the standard set by John McTiernan and his team in 1988.
Die Hard is most definitely unmatched in terms of action, dialogue and characters and is a movie that set the benchmark for many proceeding action movies even up to now. Die Hard has been one of the most influential action movies and is up there with The Matrix and T2.
For those of you who have not seen the movie (and if there are, please watch immediately), the
story is simple. Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) visits Nakatomi Plaza on Christmas day to visit his wife, however their Christmas celebrations don't go to fruition, as the building is eventually taken over by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) and his men. While everyone is held hostage, McClane happens to escape to one of the building's higher floors as he attempts to figure out what is going on. From then on, it's non-stop action as its McClane vs Hans + 20 terrorists.
The one important characteristic this movie had over the other Die Hard movies was the fluidity of chemistry among characters. It was easy for the audience to attach themselves to characters on both sides of the spectrum, including both the good guys and the terrorists. I thoroughly enjoyed the inclusion of McClane's limosuine driver young Argyle who delivers a humorous dimension. Then there's the 2 terrorist brothers Tony and Karl who have a very sharp rivalry, not to mention the main villain Hans Gruber, who delivers a strikingly elegant performance.
One set of characters I thought were the heart and soul of this film was the blind relationship
between McClane and Sgt. Al Powell that durates through the entire movie - a great example of trust and loyalty. Without even knowing each other before hand, McClane must communicate with Powell who is on the outside via walkie-talkie. The difficult part is on Powell. Since he is communicating to McClane through radio, he cannot see what McClane looks like, therefore he must make the decision whether to believe that McClane is really who he says he, or a terrorist himself. When these two character's finally see each other face to face in the end, it's a chilling feeling. Throughout the movie, you can really observe how the communication on the radio between these two characters really changed each other. McClane realized how important his wife was, and Powell was able to overcome his personal demons of shooting by saving McClane's life in the end.
Action sequences is another area in this movie that dominates the other films. Most of the action is basically an exchange of muzzle flash, therefore it's not as expansive as the 3rd and 4th Die Hard films. What makes the action in this movie just as good is the the manner of execution. Every action scene is direct and straight to the point - no scenes are carried out overly long which can be frustrating for some. No one wants to see an exchange of pointless fire for 20 minutes.
Now I'm not trying to establish myself as a fanboy. Far from that. This is definitely not the best action movie I've seen, but is one that should be recognized and commended. The film is currently #122 on imdb.com's Top 250 movies, and is also 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't use these statistics though, judge it for yourself.
Die Hard 2 was a major disappointment, perhaps the worst of the trilogy. It was always going to be a challenge for this film to live up to the standards set by the previous film, especially with a new director and all. On the same token, the movie is not bad. The movie is basically about terrorists siezing control of an airport and threatening to cause plane crashes if the authorities fail to meet their demands.
Unfortunately the characters that McClane communicates with do not seem to
be equipped with the same chemistry shown in the first movie, resulting in one-dimensional characters that are flat and ordinary, leaving the viewer not even caring about anyone else but McClane. I thoroughly liked the airport shootout between McClane and the airport terrorists. I was susprised to see Robert Patrick being cast as one of the terrorists. For those of you who don't know, Robert Patrick played T-1000 in Terminator 2. Another great action scene was McClane vs a bunch of terrorists on snow mobiles. The frantic blizzard-like weather made it very suspenseful.
Overall this movie has failed to incorporate the substances of the first movie that made it work. Instead we have a film with appalling dialogue and rushed direction. If you're simply watching this for the action, disregarding any form of directional art, then you will not be disappointed, but even on those terms, the action is still lacking. Just watch the ending, and you'll see what I mean. A lot of missed opportunities on this film.
Die Hard 3 would have to be my second favorite movie of the series. This would be the reunion of Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson, only one year after their appearances together in Pulp Fiction. The duo would then go on to star in Unbreakable in 2002. The story in this movie is about a guy named Simon who deliberately calls for John McClane to play a game called 'Simon Says'. For each task that McClane fails to complete, Simon will blow off a bomb hidden somehwere in the city. Throughout this game, McClane teams up with Zeus to run all over New York City completing these deadly tasks.
The action here is definitely more expansive than the first movie containing car chases, bomb defusals, lateral riddle solving all over New York City. I liked the part where McClane and Zeus takes a detour through the park endangering the lives of many civillians. Why do I find that funny? I don't know. There's even a part where McClane is up against a gang of Harlem brovaz' on the street. This whole journey of trickery and deceit during the Simon Says segments make for an interesting build-up to the ending.
Another characteristic that makes a return is the relationships among characters. The
connection established between McClane and Simon is much more prominent than the villain relationships established in other Die Hard films. While they are fighting on opposite sides of the law, we see glimpses of friendship and the sharing of laughter, showing that villains can still have charm over malevolance. I really wish the female villain they casted had a more dominant role. A female villain is something we haven't seen in the two previous Die Hard films, therefore expanding her role would have given the film another original edge.
While the ending of Die Hard 2 was atrocious in its own right, the ending of Die Hard 3 is no better. There was definitely the opportunity for the directors to incorporate some sort of action-packed sequence, but what we've been left with is a lacklustre filler sequence. If you've seen this on DVD, you'll have noticed the alternate ending they put on there. I really wish they had used that ending instead. It would have made it the best ending out of all the Die Hard films.
Die Hard 4.0 is the first film of the series to utilize the services of several high-profile actors
including Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q. The movie also broke a 12 year gap between the last Die Hard movie made back in 1995. If I had to give an award to the Die Hard movie with the best plot, this movie would receive it without question. In this film, John McClane must fight a group of terrorists who carry out their operations in a more unorthdoxed manner. McClane and Matt Farrell team up to stop a group of internet-based terrorists slowly shutting down the United States.
The action sequences featured are very gripping and entertaining, leaving the audience excited and hungry for more. A lot of original ideas were implemented, including the helicopter chase and the tunnel blackout. This movie comes extremely close to matching the superiority of the
Die Hard, but its inconsistency brought it down in the end. The scene where John is up against the air fighter near the end was a really dragging scene, heck the movie would have been better without it. In fact, this scene runs longer than the actual ending itself. There were also stupid segments thrown in, such as McClane driving a car up a toll booth into a helicopter, and McClane shooting himself in the end which in turn killed the villain. All these little things did not help the movie's cause.
I was disappointed in Olyphant's performance as the villain. In fact, he would have to be the worst villain of the series. He just seemed like another lonely hacker, not carrying any qualities of a terrorist group leader. No hints of evil in him whatsoever. McClane even managed to make him crack after the death of Maggie Q's character. Pathetic.
Overall
The Die Hard movies have a nack for containing really short endings. Obviously one's ending has
to be really significant and memorable, for its one of the segments that really dominates the audience's overall impression of the movie, unless of course the director wanted to make an ending open to view interpretation, but even then that's a pain the ass.
While all the Die Hard endings were short, I feel the ending of the first Die Hard was the ending that made the most of its screen time. The way McClane killed the last 2 terrorists with only 2 shots was intense.
Overall, I think I've made it fairly clear as to why the first Die Hard will always be superior to the other films. It simply contains the whole package executed at a higher level - acting, action, character development and humor.
Die Hard is most definitely unmatched in terms of action, dialogue and characters and is a movie that set the benchmark for many proceeding action movies even up to now. Die Hard has been one of the most influential action movies and is up there with The Matrix and T2.For those of you who have not seen the movie (and if there are, please watch immediately), the
story is simple. Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) visits Nakatomi Plaza on Christmas day to visit his wife, however their Christmas celebrations don't go to fruition, as the building is eventually taken over by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) and his men. While everyone is held hostage, McClane happens to escape to one of the building's higher floors as he attempts to figure out what is going on. From then on, it's non-stop action as its McClane vs Hans + 20 terrorists.
The one important characteristic this movie had over the other Die Hard movies was the fluidity of chemistry among characters. It was easy for the audience to attach themselves to characters on both sides of the spectrum, including both the good guys and the terrorists. I thoroughly enjoyed the inclusion of McClane's limosuine driver young Argyle who delivers a humorous dimension. Then there's the 2 terrorist brothers Tony and Karl who have a very sharp rivalry, not to mention the main villain Hans Gruber, who delivers a strikingly elegant performance.One set of characters I thought were the heart and soul of this film was the blind relationship
between McClane and Sgt. Al Powell that durates through the entire movie - a great example of trust and loyalty. Without even knowing each other before hand, McClane must communicate with Powell who is on the outside via walkie-talkie. The difficult part is on Powell. Since he is communicating to McClane through radio, he cannot see what McClane looks like, therefore he must make the decision whether to believe that McClane is really who he says he, or a terrorist himself. When these two character's finally see each other face to face in the end, it's a chilling feeling. Throughout the movie, you can really observe how the communication on the radio between these two characters really changed each other. McClane realized how important his wife was, and Powell was able to overcome his personal demons of shooting by saving McClane's life in the end.
Action sequences is another area in this movie that dominates the other films. Most of the action is basically an exchange of muzzle flash, therefore it's not as expansive as the 3rd and 4th Die Hard films. What makes the action in this movie just as good is the the manner of execution. Every action scene is direct and straight to the point - no scenes are carried out overly long which can be frustrating for some. No one wants to see an exchange of pointless fire for 20 minutes.Now I'm not trying to establish myself as a fanboy. Far from that. This is definitely not the best action movie I've seen, but is one that should be recognized and commended. The film is currently #122 on imdb.com's Top 250 movies, and is also 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't use these statistics though, judge it for yourself.
Die Hard 2 was a major disappointment, perhaps the worst of the trilogy. It was always going to be a challenge for this film to live up to the standards set by the previous film, especially with a new director and all. On the same token, the movie is not bad. The movie is basically about terrorists siezing control of an airport and threatening to cause plane crashes if the authorities fail to meet their demands.Unfortunately the characters that McClane communicates with do not seem to
be equipped with the same chemistry shown in the first movie, resulting in one-dimensional characters that are flat and ordinary, leaving the viewer not even caring about anyone else but McClane. I thoroughly liked the airport shootout between McClane and the airport terrorists. I was susprised to see Robert Patrick being cast as one of the terrorists. For those of you who don't know, Robert Patrick played T-1000 in Terminator 2. Another great action scene was McClane vs a bunch of terrorists on snow mobiles. The frantic blizzard-like weather made it very suspenseful.
Overall this movie has failed to incorporate the substances of the first movie that made it work. Instead we have a film with appalling dialogue and rushed direction. If you're simply watching this for the action, disregarding any form of directional art, then you will not be disappointed, but even on those terms, the action is still lacking. Just watch the ending, and you'll see what I mean. A lot of missed opportunities on this film.
Die Hard 3 would have to be my second favorite movie of the series. This would be the reunion of Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson, only one year after their appearances together in Pulp Fiction. The duo would then go on to star in Unbreakable in 2002. The story in this movie is about a guy named Simon who deliberately calls for John McClane to play a game called 'Simon Says'. For each task that McClane fails to complete, Simon will blow off a bomb hidden somehwere in the city. Throughout this game, McClane teams up with Zeus to run all over New York City completing these deadly tasks.
The action here is definitely more expansive than the first movie containing car chases, bomb defusals, lateral riddle solving all over New York City. I liked the part where McClane and Zeus takes a detour through the park endangering the lives of many civillians. Why do I find that funny? I don't know. There's even a part where McClane is up against a gang of Harlem brovaz' on the street. This whole journey of trickery and deceit during the Simon Says segments make for an interesting build-up to the ending.Another characteristic that makes a return is the relationships among characters. The
connection established between McClane and Simon is much more prominent than the villain relationships established in other Die Hard films. While they are fighting on opposite sides of the law, we see glimpses of friendship and the sharing of laughter, showing that villains can still have charm over malevolance. I really wish the female villain they casted had a more dominant role. A female villain is something we haven't seen in the two previous Die Hard films, therefore expanding her role would have given the film another original edge.
While the ending of Die Hard 2 was atrocious in its own right, the ending of Die Hard 3 is no better. There was definitely the opportunity for the directors to incorporate some sort of action-packed sequence, but what we've been left with is a lacklustre filler sequence. If you've seen this on DVD, you'll have noticed the alternate ending they put on there. I really wish they had used that ending instead. It would have made it the best ending out of all the Die Hard films.Die Hard 4.0 is the first film of the series to utilize the services of several high-profile actors
including Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q. The movie also broke a 12 year gap between the last Die Hard movie made back in 1995. If I had to give an award to the Die Hard movie with the best plot, this movie would receive it without question. In this film, John McClane must fight a group of terrorists who carry out their operations in a more unorthdoxed manner. McClane and Matt Farrell team up to stop a group of internet-based terrorists slowly shutting down the United States.The action sequences featured are very gripping and entertaining, leaving the audience excited and hungry for more. A lot of original ideas were implemented, including the helicopter chase and the tunnel blackout. This movie comes extremely close to matching the superiority of the
Die Hard, but its inconsistency brought it down in the end. The scene where John is up against the air fighter near the end was a really dragging scene, heck the movie would have been better without it. In fact, this scene runs longer than the actual ending itself. There were also stupid segments thrown in, such as McClane driving a car up a toll booth into a helicopter, and McClane shooting himself in the end which in turn killed the villain. All these little things did not help the movie's cause.I was disappointed in Olyphant's performance as the villain. In fact, he would have to be the worst villain of the series. He just seemed like another lonely hacker, not carrying any qualities of a terrorist group leader. No hints of evil in him whatsoever. McClane even managed to make him crack after the death of Maggie Q's character. Pathetic.
Overall
The Die Hard movies have a nack for containing really short endings. Obviously one's ending has
to be really significant and memorable, for its one of the segments that really dominates the audience's overall impression of the movie, unless of course the director wanted to make an ending open to view interpretation, but even then that's a pain the ass.While all the Die Hard endings were short, I feel the ending of the first Die Hard was the ending that made the most of its screen time. The way McClane killed the last 2 terrorists with only 2 shots was intense.
Overall, I think I've made it fairly clear as to why the first Die Hard will always be superior to the other films. It simply contains the whole package executed at a higher level - acting, action, character development and humor.
4 comments:
YIPPIE KI-YAY MOTHER FUCKER
I love the die hard movie critic.
4.0 was the B.O.M.B
Now it makes me want to gather all these
movies and have a marathon!
If you did in fact retrieve all these movies, it'd be worth it.
Some originality still exists in action-adventure movies: how about the way an airborne chopper is brought down by colliding with a car? Great stunts, some wit and humor.
Post a Comment