My condolences go out to Bruce Willis and his family following his dementia diagnosis. While I'll miss seeing him on screen, his health ultimately comes first, and I hope that he continues to stay strong.
The Die Hard series had the same fate as the Rambo series. Both started out with the hero not looking for a fight yet rising to the occasion when they found themselves in one and then turned those same heroes into invincible killers.
Yeah, it's a fate that hits every great movie (Rocky, too). The disease of more. The first movie is usually good enough that great people are allowed to work on it, but given a decent enough budget. And then the sequels there after have everyone's dirty fingers on them. And a bunch of people that want to suckel at the proverbial cash cow. Budgets get bigger. it has to be bigger than the original, and thus, the problem. The more I think about great standalone movies (especially from the 80's) you just don't find a lot of great franchises that aren't superhero movies nowadays. (And that's to say superhero movies are great, which they mostly aren't.) It sucks that a movie can't just come out and kill it and make an actor into a star. Realistically, when's the last time that happened? I can't even remember. Sandra Bullock and Speed?
1:43 - A blonde babe leaping into the arms of a studly jock (the hero) at the airport is a perfect kicking off point for an action movie of the 80's. So I just realized that this may have been a subtle message to the viewers that by having this scene in the background that John is not your typical 80's action hero.
If you want a realistic sequel to the original, put it on a double bill with Willis's "16 Blocks", which is what you can imagine happening to a real burned-out New York cop. It's like McClaine returned home and the world just forgot about him saving a building full of people. The 1988 original is by far the best. It's a classic that will stand long after the sequels fall from memory.
16 Blocks is a really good film and it has a lot of the same themes of the first Die Hard. I hated how they would just throw McClane into every situation just because.
Die Hard With a Vengence is one of my favorite action movies, it's funny, has a great story, and amazing action pieces. So I don't know, A Good Day to Die Hard wasn't great, but the others are decent.
I agree , it maybe misses some of the character that is lost even more later on but the movie villain even discards the fact that was actually a vengeance giving us a twist , the plan was brilliant , and just uses the main character as a distraction of what is actually going on
@@nvm9040 Agree, 4 and 5 felt like generical action movies of the 2000s with hackers and stuff, it just happens that John McClane is there, they didn't feel like Die Hard to me, in a certain way they were unnecesary.
Fun fact: At one point, 20th Century Fox was considering doing a crossover movie with Die Hard and the TV show 24 entitled Die Hard 24/7. However, the idea was abandoned after negotiations with Kiefer Sutherland soured.
Sad that Bruce had to quit acting due to his health, but he will forever remain as one of the best action heroes from movies. I love Die Hard and even if it's a bit "lesser", I love The 5th Element even more.
These movies fell off for me after the 3rd one with Sam Jackson. A franchise that seemingly gets better with each entry is definitely the Mission Impossible series. They're simply incredible. An honorable mention would also be the "Planet of the Apes" reboot series.
Mission Impossible franchise in my opinion: The first one: absolutely terrible. The second: cool action, nothing else. the third one.: best of them all. Fourth one: good, but could be better, 5: excellent. 6: absolutely awful.
Die hard 4 is actually so fun, enjoyable and has some excellent sequences. Also Justin long wasnt bad and has some human moments. I am gonna miss Bruce Willis
I loved it. It was a departure from original John but, it showed that even when he isn't super clued into what's happening he's gonna show up and do his part. Gonna go watch it now lol
@@raxxie What I like in 4 is that, regardless of the BS we have to suspend disbelief over, he is still a cop, still a reluctant hero trying to do the job. In 5, he goes off doing crazy super hero shit for no apparent reason, for the fun of it. McClain isn't about having fun doing this crap. So, the character is unrecognizable.
I genuinely love Live Free or Die Hard. Its a terrific, fast paced, action movie. I loved the concept of an analog John McClane going up against high tech villains. Maggie Q was badass. Justin Long was pretty good. Sure, some the set pieces were a bit over the top but it was still a lot of fun. DH5 is the real terrible one.
@@nikunjdixit1175 Both are bad movies, but in 4 he was just Superman with a different name. At least he wasn't quite as op in 5. In any case, he was just a killing machine in both films, which was incredibly boring to watch. Die Hard 2 is the only good sequel (though nowhere near as great as the first one). After that, it went downhill real quick.
The original Die Hard is the best film of the franchise and one of the best action (and Christmas) films of all time. The main character is relatable and vulnerable. John had a fear of flying, John thought he was going to die when picking glass out of his feet. The humour was great and the supporting characters Holly, Ellis, Al, Dwayne, Argyle and Richard were fantastic. Loved them or hated them, all of which were well rounded and had depth. Another reason the original was so awesome was because of the Villain. Hans Gruber is arguably the best movie villain of all time. Hans is sophisticated and intelligent. Hans deduced the best place to transmit was the roof. Hans noticed Holly looking at the photo (fortunately the photo with John was facing down). Hans noticed and remembered that John was barefoot and instructed Karl to shoot the glass. The attention to detail was insane. The fists with your toes, feet smaller then my sister, better then getting caught with my pants down, shoot the glass right down to a limp and rag. The rollex watch in the beginning and end. Al’s story about shooting a kid and can’t bring himself to draw his gun again, to drawing his gun to save McClane. Virtually every scene has meaning and is paid off. With each sequel McClane became less vulnerable and less relatable. McClane became the unstoppable action hero. The sequels lacked a great villain. I will say the chemistry between Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson was great. As unrealistic as it was Live Free or Die Hard was entertaining. I prefer to pretend that A Good Day To Die Hard never happened. It’s a shame that Fox/Disney didn’t green light the final Die Hard that Willis had hoped for prior to his retirement/aphasia diagnosis. Bruce Willis has been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia. Unfortunately Bruce probably won’t be with us for much longer. The time that he has left most likely won’t be pleasant. Hopefully Bruce Willis’s final days are happy.
This video hits the nail on the head. Die hard was such a perfect action movie, I wish they had never made ANY sequels. The charm for me is that despite being a cop, Mcclain is just a normal dude, not a super cop, superhero, superspy, or supersoldier. Kinda like a hitchcock everyman in a messed up situation. Once you get into the sequels though, he does become another superwhatever, and makes the sequels as crappy as all the other "superguy" action movies that the original film subverted. Not everything needs a sequel.
A good day to die hard was terrible. John inserts himself into a situation he has no business being in. He literally arrives in Russia and immediately starts attacking people and destroying stuff. In the first 4 films he was dragged into situations which caused him to react. In the last one he actively seeks out trouble.
For me, a lot of what made the first movie great was Allan Rickman. Seeing as his character was killed off at the end, I don't see how a sequel could work as a lot of the film relied on the coincidence and the surprisingly charming villain with an inimitable performance. Every subsequent villain was trying to live up to that, and that only made them worse
Jeremy Irons as Rickman's brother in the 3rd film was the only other villain that worked for me in the series. William Sadler in the 2nd one was cold and cunning, but zero charm and was mostly just a "mean guy" presence for me.
Not everybody can make iconic movies that come out every two years like James Bond. I watched those from 1964 until late 90s. When they just started to make up gadgets instead of getting ideas from The archives.
I audibly said “yep” 3+ times during your video. Revisiting this franchise is a mixed bag of emotions for me. I love how well written the first movie was. I feel conflicted on the other entries because they aren’t as solid. Most of all, with news of Bruce Willis’ diagnosis I feel only appreciation with what he was able to give us in the short time we had him
Fun fact 1: Die Hard (1988) was originally suppose to be a sequel for for 1985's Commando where John Matrix (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) was visiting his daughter Jenny (Alyssa Milano) at her new job in Los Angeles on Christmas Eve at the 40-story headquarters of the fictional company Claxxon Oil Corporation. It would've taken place about 10 years after the events of Commando. Fun fact 2: Die Hard (1988) was already an unofficial sequel to the 1968 movie The Detective (based on the 1966 novel by Roderick Thorp) starring Frank Sinatra as New York City detective Joe Leland (who Bruce Willis' John McClane character was based on). When Hollywood got around to making Die Hard (based on the 1979 Thorp novel Nothing Lasts Forever - the 2nd outing for the Joe Leland character), the producers were legally obligated to offer the role to Sinatra. Luckily, Sinatra passed on the offer - since he was already in his early 70's back in 1987/1988. I always felt that if they were going to make one more Die Hard sequel after 2013's A Good Day to Die Hard, they should've based it on a modernized version of The Detective (even title it 'Detective McClane') where McClane could've slid into a well-deserved retirement with a blaze of glory by solving an actual murder case for the NYPD. He could've done the one thing that we as an audience haven't seen McClane do throughout the whole franchise - some actual detective work and crime-solving. It would've been different for the character to do this instead of the usual 'one man against a group of terrorists' scenario. So sad Willis' health is now on the decline and a shame that the McClane character had to end his legacy with such a lackluster movie as A Good Day to Die Hard.
"Die Hard With a Vengeance" was a terrific film, with some dumb scenes (I'm thinking specifically about the school in danger scene). There was excellent chemistry between Samuel Jackson and Willis. Jeremy Irons was a terrific villain, with a penchant for greed and a personal grudge against McClain. A worthy successor, and easily the second best of the series. And, for me, the only two worth seeing. Too bad they didn't put in the original ending, with the portable rocket launcher, instead of that comparatively safe and more generic ending.
He didn't force himself into the 3rd one...he was targeted by Simon. It was a really good movie and I put it right next to the original. The other ones we garbage.
I understand what you were trying to say about typical action movie heroes of that time but... First Blood and Predator aren't realistic to you and the characters in those movie didn't feel fear ? The f***k ?
Die hard 1-3 (and a lesser extent 4) was huge for tiny teenage me in the early 00s. I'm gonna miss you, Mr Cowboy. Dude brought a lot of light and triumph into our lives.
1 and 2 are the only good ones. Although by it's very existence, the second movie took away one of the most compelling aspects of the original film: An average guy thrown into a situation he can't control, and fighting to survive. In the subsequent movies, he gradually morphed into a killing machine himself. Which was incredibly boring to watch, and become more tedious with each further sequel.
Michael Scott when it comes to Die Hard... "Okay, here's the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard 1, the original, John McClain is just this normal guy, you know? He's just a normal New York city cop who gets his feet cut, he gets beat up. But he's an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter in the air. You know? He's invincible. It's just sort of lost from Die Hard 1. It's not Terminator." I shall never forget these words when it comes to Die Hard.
That's not a good example. Since John didn't do that in the fourth one. He took out an helicopter with A COP CAR, not a motorcycle. How would that even work?
Die Hard was always a weird franchise to me. Obviously the first one was a classic, the second one was OK but disappointing, the 3rd was pretty good and even the 4th was surprisingly great. But the 5th really dropped the ball and was just so bad. And it was a shame considering how good 3 of the films in the franchise were
Die hard was a necessity but it didn't replace or need to replace Arnold or Stallone's types of movies, it was just a balance in mix of them. We loved characters that were almost superhero like but also loves relatable characters like John McClane. This is why 80's and 90s action was so good. We had everything from one end of the spectrum to the other and it was done right, done practical, had likeable characters, one liners and was in an era where the actual superhero genres (and culture that we have today with movies and people being cancelled etc) was less or non existent.
Mission Impossible is the only franchise I can think of from the top of my head that got progressively better with each new film. The first was the worst and the newest was the best, despite the first being a classic. Tells you how good the others are.
I think the 1st Mission Impossible movie did by far the best job giving the look and feel of the original TV series. Having said that, I love the rest of the films. MI has to rank as one of the very best action series out there, succeeding in making each progressive film bigger in scale and action without turning into a silly caricature of itself and losing its soul like the Fast & Furious series has done.
One of my favorite Action movie Franchise. I Loved all its 90s first 3 installments. But the 4th movie of 2007 was not satisfied with it, how it was. 1st & 2nd Die Hard was a perfect example of 80s & 90s Action movie people loved. Die Hard franchise was a treat to audience with Rambo, Predator & Beverly Hills Cop & other such actions movies of that time back to back. Never felt it needed 4th or 5th installments in future. If they wanted to make the 4th movie they would have made in 1998-99 in 90s end would have been a good idea. Thanks for this video sir, Love watching u r movies.
Few scripts really set up their protagonist to fail so neatly as the original Die Hard did. The opening scene on the airplane where John receives some advice from the guy next to him - "When you get to your hotel room, take off your shoes and socks and scrunch your toes in the carpet" - was a simple and brilliant way to make him go through the entire movie barefoot...
I grew up on the Die Hard movies, but the 4th one is the only one where I was old enough to go to a theater to watch. My dad took me opening night, so that movie will always have a special place in my heart.
As much as I love Die Hard, I think the realistic take of an action hero in the first movie got changed as the set pieces gets bigger and focus on huge action scenes. John became a hero like the one's in the 80s where he can't be stopped no matter what. Even though he still uses his wits to survive, the events taking place are just too impossible for such a protagonist to survive. 😬 But still I enjoy it anyway
Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are both great films , but what I don't like about the third movie is that John McClain is divorced and unemployed the villain was great.
The original has always been my favorite action movie. I watched it so many times in the late 80's I wore out my VHS tape. Watched all the sequels, but only really liked #3 w Samuel L Jackson & Jeremy Irons. That one saw McLane back as a real character. Estranged from his wife again, hitting the bottle, in trouble at work, etc, all things to overcome in order to protect & serve. It was the only one I thot lived up to the original.
I disagree with what you said about Die Hard With a Vengeance lacking what 1 had, I feel like Die Hard 3 actually toned back a lot of stuff to ground McClane in a city sprawling action adventure. There is less gun play, a diverse range of vehicular action, gunplay, hand to hand, riddles, cardio/running to other destinations, heists with all of it focusing on John's inner struggles with alcohol and problems with his relationships while still feeling like a die hard film. But overall, this was a good analysis
@@TheQuantum09 I so agree, i don't know what it it, but i still fee that sense of clausterphobia when john mcclane is running around the streets of new york and the subway station. i thought it was amazing how they progress the story and connected it.
Realism was the status quo for American Action films up till about 4-to-5 years before Die Hard. What Die Hard did was follow Lethal Weapon's wake in elevating the 70's style hero (charming, blue-collar, underdog, screw-up) with a grounded and clever script, mid-80's flare and a large budget. The Death Wish series is a great representation of the pendulum swing: a dour, dramatic thriller featuring an average man seeking retribution thru vigilantism in 1974---to---1987 with the craziest shit you've ever seen featuring an unstoppable, geriatric killing machine, massacring entire city blocks because punks-gotta-pay.
"An example of a franchise that got better with each movie?" I'll say that "Mission: Impossible" has shown some consistent quality, except for #2. That one was ... yeah, just not that one. "John Wick" is coming along quite nicely, so far. What's really interesting, is both of those franchises work because of the dedication and hard work of their lead actors. You can tell that both love their craft and really want to make the best possible movie.
Except for the last one with "Jr.", i loved all of them. Specifically Vengeance, Willis & Jackson were hilarious together. I felt they always kept the "i was thrown into this" theme with Maclean
The Die Hard Franchise should closed off with Die Gard with a Vengeance. Plain and simple. The fourth one and the one that came after it should never have happened. They pretty much ruined the franchise. I disagree about Die Hard with a Vengeance. I believe it was actually an improvement from the second one.
Nah, Die Hard 3 was quite good, with dynamic duo of Jackson and Willis. The plot with gruber brother is justified in the movie, just like riddles and games. It's a fun ride
We can whine about Die Hard 5 script, but the scene with the chase through the city streets-perfect. One of the best, if not the best I've ever seen to this day!
Die Hard With A Vengeance was originally going to be a Lethal Weapon Sequel, which after knowing I could clearly see the initial idea for the movie! Still love the first three Die Hard movies!
I actually watched Die Hard for the first time this weekend and loved it! This video came at a perfect time. The 2nd one.... I didn't like too much. I won't bother with the rest. But it's funny to see the cracks starting to form once you watch the 2nd movie.
You hit the nail on the head about the original Die Hard. As a kid, I would watch that movie and think that I could be John McClain. He was a normal guy. I loved that!
1-3 are all highly watchable, 2 is underrated. 4 is bad. 5 is even badder. If you haven't watched any of these, first, what are you doing with your life, but second, just watch the first 3 and pretend the other 2 were never made and be happy.
Don't get me wrong, Die Hard is the best one, but I do really enjoy watching them all. They're all very fun if you can go in knowing it's not right which then leaves you free to just watch and have fun instead of going "oh come on!" the entire movie haha.
After 3, Willis wanted to walk away from the series, but was stuck in a contract with Fox for 2 more that he could not get out of. That’s why so much time elapsed between 3 & 4, Willis’ schedule filled up and he busy on other projects. Fox “kindly” reminded him of their deal, and after litigation fell through, Willis returned for 4 and whatever that other spin-off movie was.
We went from John MClain, a guy who had to sit down and pull glass shards from his feet and was visibly wincing in pain doing so, to a superhuman who can fall from impossible heights without a scratch.
I think it might be great if a (DIE HARD) show series could get made someday. If it does become possible someday; I can imagine some of the former stars if the movies, they could play new characters in it, and I can imagine that a few of them could play villains roles in it.
I love your videos, but hard disagree on the first two sequels. Die Harder and With A Vengeance are fantastic. Willis is at his best, and the stories are great. Die Hard 4 isn't bad. Die Hard 5 is... not good. Again, big fan. Thanks for the content.
I enjoyed all of the Die Hard movies. I'm glad that so far I haven't heard of any plans of rebooting the franchise. Bruce Willis will always be John Maclane. Its sad what he is going thru . Deep respect for him and hope he spends the rest of his days happy with family and friends.
I disagree about Simon being Hans brother seeming contrived. I thought it was a good twist, and it avoids one of the main problems I have with the other sequels. Namely, it’s way too big of a coincidence that John just happens to get caught in these situations over and over again. The other funny thing about DH2 is how easy it would be to thwart the villains’ plan. There are lots of airports on the east coast! Just have the planes land somewhere else!
The second one I mostly remember him in the airport arguing with the airport personnel and sometimes wandering off and fixing everything by himself. The third one might be the best sequel that came from the franchise.
Franchises that get better with each movie: John Wick, Mission Impossible (except for the second one), and are three that I can think of off the top of my head Planet of the Apes
My condolences go out to Bruce Willis and his family following his dementia diagnosis. While I'll miss seeing him on screen, his health ultimately comes first, and I hope that he continues to stay strong.
He has the same kind my Mum has, his family is in for a rough time. Hopefully they can all stay there for each other.
I agree
the last movie was so bad it drove him crazy
🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
@@astroboirap Not the time to be making jokes like this
The Die Hard series had the same fate as the Rambo series. Both started out with the hero not looking for a fight yet rising to the occasion when they found themselves in one and then turned those same heroes into invincible killers.
Yeah, it's a fate that hits every great movie (Rocky, too). The disease of more.
The first movie is usually good enough that great people are allowed to work on it, but given a decent enough budget.
And then the sequels there after have everyone's dirty fingers on them. And a bunch of people that want to suckel at the proverbial cash cow.
Budgets get bigger. it has to be bigger than the original, and thus, the problem.
The more I think about great standalone movies (especially from the 80's) you just don't find a lot of great franchises that aren't superhero movies nowadays. (And that's to say superhero movies are great, which they mostly aren't.)
It sucks that a movie can't just come out and kill it and make an actor into a star. Realistically, when's the last time that happened? I can't even remember. Sandra Bullock and Speed?
@@brianshaker1885
Chris Pratt and GOTG?
... but even that was nearly 10 years ago..
The last blood Rambo home alone was great
1:43 - A blonde babe leaping into the arms of a studly jock (the hero) at the airport is a perfect kicking off point for an action movie of the 80's. So I just realized that this may have been a subtle message to the viewers that by having this scene in the background that John is not your typical 80's action hero.
It’s so sad to hear what happened to Bruce Willis I just hope he’s okay. He gave us one the most iconic film heroes ever
Sad when actors that defined our childhood are in poor health, best wishes for Bruce and his family
Your childhood was defined by actors? Really?
If you want a realistic sequel to the original, put it on a double bill with Willis's "16 Blocks", which is what you can imagine happening to a real burned-out New York cop. It's like McClaine returned home and the world just forgot about him saving a building full of people.
The 1988 original is by far the best. It's a classic that will stand long after the sequels fall from memory.
16 Blocks is a really good film and it has a lot of the same themes of the first Die Hard. I hated how they would just throw McClane into every situation just because.
Loved all four films. The fourth was a very modern take on the genre as well. And yes, there are only four films.
That cheap asylum sequel should be burned
Live Free or Die Hard is actuthe worst out of the five films 🤷🏼♀️
Thanks for all the good times Mr. Willis. I hope your suffering is minimal and you get to pass easy into the great beyond.
Die Hard With a Vengence is one of my favorite action movies, it's funny, has a great story, and amazing action pieces. So I don't know, A Good Day to Die Hard wasn't great, but the others are decent.
I agree , it maybe misses some of the character that is lost even more later on but the movie villain even discards the fact that was actually a vengeance giving us a twist , the plan was brilliant , and just uses the main character as a distraction of what is actually going on
1,2,3 are great to good trilogy while 4 and 5 just lose me as a viewer
Right said. That was the first Die hard movie i saw in 1997 or 98 i think so, man loved it.
@@nvm9040 Agree, 4 and 5 felt like generical action movies of the 2000s with hackers and stuff, it just happens that John McClane is there, they didn't feel like Die Hard to me, in a certain way they were unnecesary.
@@jesustovar2549 exactly
Fun fact: At one point, 20th Century Fox was considering doing a crossover movie with Die Hard and the TV show 24 entitled Die Hard 24/7. However, the idea was abandoned after negotiations with Kiefer Sutherland soured.
That'd have been awesome, because most Die Hard films are set in a timeframe of less than a day!
Gosh, I wish the Die Hard series continued!
Sad that Bruce had to quit acting due to his health, but he will forever remain as one of the best action heroes from movies. I love Die Hard and even if it's a bit "lesser", I love The 5th Element even more.
"Multipass" - Leeloo Dallas
Its one of those stupid quotes that you can't stop remembering from a movie you vaguely remember after all that time lol
Lethal Weapon would be an awesome series to see reviewed by Nerdstalgic. Especially as we grow closer to the 5th one being directed by Mel Gibson.
These movies fell off for me after the 3rd one with Sam Jackson.
A franchise that seemingly gets better with each entry is definitely the Mission Impossible series. They're simply incredible.
An honorable mention would also be the "Planet of the Apes" reboot series.
Mission Impossible franchise in my opinion: The first one: absolutely terrible. The second: cool action, nothing else. the third one.: best of them all. Fourth one: good, but could be better, 5: excellent. 6: absolutely awful.
@@thomasstudstrup5028 Well, you're definitely a very odd one out with that opinion.
Live Free or Die Hard is very underrated, I absolutely enjoyed that movie. To me, that's where the franchise ends
@@Erasureeraser It's alright, but in comparison to the ones that followed it, it's incredible. Justin Long was just a miscast in my opinion!
Die Hard is arguably the greatest action hero movie ever
I argue: The Matrix.
greatest christmas movie ever.
Terminator 2
The Raid (2011).
Die hard 4 is actually so fun, enjoyable and has some excellent sequences. Also Justin long wasnt bad and has some human moments. I am gonna miss Bruce Willis
I enjoyed it too. It was very silly but I had a great time.
Die Hard 4 is a fun, pretty good Bruce Willis movie. But its a bad Die Hard movie, for basically the reasons laid out in this video
I loved it. It was a departure from original John but, it showed that even when he isn't super clued into what's happening he's gonna show up and do his part. Gonna go watch it now lol
@@raxxie What I like in 4 is that, regardless of the BS we have to suspend disbelief over, he is still a cop, still a reluctant hero trying to do the job. In 5, he goes off doing crazy super hero shit for no apparent reason, for the fun of it. McClain isn't about having fun doing this crap. So, the character is unrecognizable.
@@weldsj8847 yes, I agree completely
I genuinely love Live Free or Die Hard. Its a terrific, fast paced, action movie. I loved the concept of an analog John McClane going up against high tech villains. Maggie Q was badass. Justin Long was pretty good. Sure, some the set pieces were a bit over the top but it was still a lot of fun. DH5 is the real terrible one.
Live Free or Die Hard is the worst one by far.
@ You have dreadful taste if you think it’s worse than Die Hard 5.
@@nikunjdixit1175 Both are bad movies, but in 4 he was just Superman with a different name.
At least he wasn't quite as op in 5.
In any case, he was just a killing machine in both films, which was incredibly boring to watch.
Die Hard 2 is the only good sequel (though nowhere near as great as the first one). After that, it went downhill real quick.
@ Then u don’t remember 5 at all. And 4 was a well made action movie.
The original Die Hard is the best film of the franchise and one of the best action (and Christmas) films of all time.
The main character is relatable and vulnerable. John had a fear of flying, John thought he was going to die when picking glass out of his feet. The humour was great and the supporting characters Holly, Ellis, Al, Dwayne, Argyle and Richard were fantastic. Loved them or hated them, all of which were well rounded and had depth.
Another reason the original was so awesome was because of the Villain. Hans Gruber is arguably the best movie villain of all time. Hans is sophisticated and intelligent. Hans deduced the best place to transmit was the roof. Hans noticed Holly looking at the photo (fortunately the photo with John was facing down). Hans noticed and remembered that John was barefoot and instructed Karl to shoot the glass.
The attention to detail was insane. The fists with your toes, feet smaller then my sister, better then getting caught with my pants down, shoot the glass right down to a limp and rag. The rollex watch in the beginning and end. Al’s story about shooting a kid and can’t bring himself to draw his gun again, to drawing his gun to save McClane. Virtually every scene has meaning and is paid off.
With each sequel McClane became less vulnerable and less relatable. McClane became the unstoppable action hero. The sequels lacked a great villain.
I will say the chemistry between Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson was great. As unrealistic as it was Live Free or Die Hard was entertaining. I prefer to pretend that A Good Day To Die Hard never happened.
It’s a shame that Fox/Disney didn’t green light the final Die Hard that Willis had hoped for prior to his retirement/aphasia diagnosis.
Bruce Willis has been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia. Unfortunately Bruce probably won’t be with us for much longer. The time that he has left most likely won’t be pleasant. Hopefully Bruce Willis’s final days are happy.
You’ve gotta admit that the names of the movies kept on getting better and better
This video hits the nail on the head. Die hard was such a perfect action movie, I wish they had never made ANY sequels. The charm for me is that despite being a cop, Mcclain is just a normal dude, not a super cop, superhero, superspy, or supersoldier. Kinda like a hitchcock everyman in a messed up situation. Once you get into the sequels though, he does become another superwhatever, and makes the sequels as crappy as all the other "superguy" action movies that the original film subverted. Not everything needs a sequel.
What the heck... Die Hard with a Vengeance is one of the best films in the franchise. Funny, action packed and one of the best buddy cops movies
This is spot on. Good analysis.
Due hard 1 is one of my favourite movies ever and 2 and 3 is decent but after that it was really hard to watch
Die Hard with a Vengeance is one of my favorite movies.
DHwaV is a fun movie, but it's a movie with a John McClane that is unbreakable as to everyman.
Yeah. Vengeance is the best Die Hard out of them.
Bruce Willis was recently diagnosed with dementia. Thank you for all your movies 🙏🏼🙏🏼!
Moron
That just means he qualifies for Presidency!
thanks for this breaking news from weeks ago
Die hard 2 and 3 were legit, while not great as 1 they were still incredible action blockbusters
That's exactly where I am with the franchise. Die Hard 1-3 make for a great action trilogy. Everything after it is mediocre cash grab dumpster fire.
@@ComedyBros5 Except Die Hard 4 is one of the best Die Hard movie.
Die hard with a vengeance has a soft spot on my heart. I love that movie. Probably my 2nd favorite in the franchise
I like it better than 2
What sucks is the 3rd act. The fact that the studio deleted the original climax just shows that they never really understood the franchise.
It's terrible
I feel like we’ve only got one bad die hard movie .
agreed!
A good day to die hard was terrible. John inserts himself into a situation he has no business being in. He literally arrives in Russia and immediately starts attacking people and destroying stuff.
In the first 4 films he was dragged into situations which caused him to react. In the last one he actively seeks out trouble.
For me, a lot of what made the first movie great was Allan Rickman. Seeing as his character was killed off at the end, I don't see how a sequel could work as a lot of the film relied on the coincidence and the surprisingly charming villain with an inimitable performance. Every subsequent villain was trying to live up to that, and that only made them worse
Jeremy Irons as Rickman's brother in the 3rd film was the only other villain that worked for me in the series. William Sadler in the 2nd one was cold and cunning, but zero charm and was mostly just a "mean guy" presence for me.
Crazy that the diehard battery commercial is the best Die Hard movie in years
Die Hard 4 is underrated imo
Not everybody can make iconic movies that come out every two years like James Bond. I watched those from 1964 until late 90s. When they just started to make up gadgets instead of getting ideas from The archives.
I audibly said “yep” 3+ times during your video. Revisiting this franchise is a mixed bag of emotions for me. I love how well written the first movie was. I feel conflicted on the other entries because they aren’t as solid. Most of all, with news of Bruce Willis’ diagnosis I feel only appreciation with what he was able to give us in the short time we had him
Fun fact 1: Die Hard (1988) was originally suppose to be a sequel for for 1985's Commando where John Matrix (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) was visiting his daughter Jenny (Alyssa Milano) at her new job in Los Angeles on Christmas Eve at the 40-story headquarters of the fictional company Claxxon Oil Corporation. It would've taken place about 10 years after the events of Commando.
Fun fact 2: Die Hard (1988) was already an unofficial sequel to the 1968 movie The Detective (based on the 1966 novel by Roderick Thorp) starring Frank Sinatra as New York City detective Joe Leland (who Bruce Willis' John McClane character was based on). When Hollywood got around to making Die Hard (based on the 1979 Thorp novel Nothing Lasts Forever - the 2nd outing for the Joe Leland character), the producers were legally obligated to offer the role to Sinatra. Luckily, Sinatra passed on the offer - since he was already in his early 70's back in 1987/1988.
I always felt that if they were going to make one more Die Hard sequel after 2013's A Good Day to Die Hard, they should've based it on a modernized version of The Detective (even title it 'Detective McClane') where McClane could've slid into a well-deserved retirement with a blaze of glory by solving an actual murder case for the NYPD. He could've done the one thing that we as an audience haven't seen McClane do throughout the whole franchise - some actual detective work and crime-solving. It would've been different for the character to do this instead of the usual 'one man against a group of terrorists' scenario. So sad Willis' health is now on the decline and a shame that the McClane character had to end his legacy with such a lackluster movie as A Good Day to Die Hard.
Nice, I love trivia like this. Thanks for sharing!
"Die Hard With a Vengeance" was a terrific film, with some dumb scenes (I'm thinking specifically about the school in danger scene). There was excellent chemistry between Samuel Jackson and Willis. Jeremy Irons was a terrific villain, with a penchant for greed and a personal grudge against McClain. A worthy successor, and easily the second best of the series. And, for me, the only two worth seeing. Too bad they didn't put in the original ending, with the portable rocket launcher, instead of that comparatively safe and more generic ending.
He didn't force himself into the 3rd one...he was targeted by Simon. It was a really good movie and I put it right next to the original. The other ones we garbage.
I understand what you were trying to say about typical action movie heroes of that time but... First Blood and Predator aren't realistic to you and the characters in those movie didn't feel fear ? The f***k ?
MI would be a great example of a movie franchise that improved after the 4th installment
Die hard 1-3 (and a lesser extent 4) was huge for tiny teenage me in the early 00s. I'm gonna miss you, Mr Cowboy. Dude brought a lot of light and triumph into our lives.
Die Hard 1, 2 and 3 are the only movies I count in the franchise.
1 and 2 are the only good ones. Although by it's very existence, the second movie took away one of the most compelling aspects of the original film: An average guy thrown into a situation he can't control, and fighting to survive.
In the subsequent movies, he gradually morphed into a killing machine himself. Which was incredibly boring to watch, and become more tedious with each further sequel.
A good day to die hard looks like a straight to DVD film
Michael Scott when it comes to Die Hard... "Okay, here's the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard 1, the original, John McClain is just this normal guy, you know? He's just a normal New York city cop who gets his feet cut, he gets beat up. But he's an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter in the air. You know? He's invincible. It's just sort of lost from Die Hard 1. It's not Terminator." I shall never forget these words when it comes to Die Hard.
That's not a good example. Since John didn't do that in the fourth one. He took out an helicopter with A COP CAR, not a motorcycle. How would that even work?
Die Hard was always a weird franchise to me. Obviously the first one was a classic, the second one was OK but disappointing, the 3rd was pretty good and even the 4th was surprisingly great. But the 5th really dropped the ball and was just so bad. And it was a shame considering how good 3 of the films in the franchise were
Die hard was a necessity but it didn't replace or need to replace Arnold or Stallone's types of movies, it was just a balance in mix of them. We loved characters that were almost superhero like but also loves relatable characters like John McClane. This is why 80's and 90s action was so good. We had everything from one end of the spectrum to the other and it was done right, done practical, had likeable characters, one liners and was in an era where the actual superhero genres (and culture that we have today with movies and people being cancelled etc) was less or non existent.
The Predator franchise had a bit of a recovery with Prey. Maybe you can cover that one.
People forget Bruce Willis even before his diagnosis of aphasia and Dementia he stopped giving a shit about doing good movies over a decade ago.
Really love your videos thanks for all your work. I'd love to see some coverage on the bill & ted franchise and the recent sequel!
Hey Nerdstalgic, the ONLY franchise to get better with each movie is Mission: Impossible!
If I could only watch 1 Die Hard movie I would choose Die Hard With A Vengeance every time. The 3rd was the best.
Mission Impossible is the only franchise I can think of from the top of my head that got progressively better with each new film. The first was the worst and the newest was the best, despite the first being a classic. Tells you how good the others are.
MI 1-3 was was good, now its only about lets see what stunts tom is goin to do, when we all know the stunts are 100% safe for anyone to achieve.
I think the 1st Mission Impossible movie did by far the best job giving the look and feel of the original TV series. Having said that, I love the rest of the films. MI has to rank as one of the very best action series out there, succeeding in making each progressive film bigger in scale and action without turning into a silly caricature of itself and losing its soul like the Fast & Furious series has done.
I loved the first one when it came out, and it still holds a place in my heart. But you're right. I revisited it recently and wow, is it campy!
Rogue Nation is my favourite of the films.
Ghost Protocol is the most *Mission Impossible* movie there is. Also, the Best one
However, *Rogue One* might be the Perfect One
Die Hard is the best Christmas movie ever made
One of my favorite Action movie Franchise. I Loved all its 90s first 3 installments. But the 4th movie of 2007 was not satisfied with it, how it was. 1st & 2nd Die Hard was a perfect example of 80s & 90s Action movie people loved. Die Hard franchise was a treat to audience with Rambo, Predator & Beverly Hills Cop & other such actions movies of that time back to back. Never felt it needed 4th or 5th installments in future. If they wanted to make the 4th movie they would have made in 1998-99 in 90s end would have been a good idea. Thanks for this video sir, Love watching u r movies.
Few scripts really set up their protagonist to fail so neatly as the original Die Hard did. The opening scene on the airplane where John receives some advice from the guy next to him - "When you get to your hotel room, take off your shoes and socks and scrunch your toes in the carpet" - was a simple and brilliant way to make him go through the entire movie barefoot...
Die Hard 3 was the shit, I will not hear otherwise!!!!!!
I grew up on the Die Hard movies, but the 4th one is the only one where I was old enough to go to a theater to watch. My dad took me opening night, so that movie will always have a special place in my heart.
Die Hard 1 and 2 were my favorites. Favorite Bruce, favorite storylines, favorite villains.
As much as I love Die Hard, I think the realistic take of an action hero in the first movie got changed as the set pieces gets bigger and focus on huge action scenes. John became a hero like the one's in the 80s where he can't be stopped no matter what. Even though he still uses his wits to survive, the events taking place are just too impossible for such a protagonist to survive. 😬 But still I enjoy it anyway
Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are both great films , but what I don't like about the third movie is that John McClain is divorced and unemployed the villain was great.
The original has always been my favorite action movie. I watched it so many times in the late 80's I wore out my VHS tape. Watched all the sequels, but only really liked #3 w Samuel L Jackson & Jeremy Irons. That one saw McLane back as a real character. Estranged from his wife again, hitting the bottle, in trouble at work, etc, all things to overcome in order to protect & serve. It was the only one I thot lived up to the original.
I recently watched the first die hard for the first time and it is still so thrilling and engaging even after 36 years.
I disagree with what you said about Die Hard With a Vengeance lacking what 1 had, I feel like Die Hard 3 actually toned back a lot of stuff to ground McClane in a city sprawling action adventure. There is less gun play, a diverse range of vehicular action, gunplay, hand to hand, riddles, cardio/running to other destinations, heists with all of it focusing on John's inner struggles with alcohol and problems with his relationships while still feeling like a die hard film. But overall, this was a good analysis
IMO, I think With a Vengeance is just as good as the first.
@@TheQuantum09 I so agree, i don't know what it it, but i still fee that sense of clausterphobia when john mcclane is running around the streets of new york and the subway station. i thought it was amazing how they progress the story and connected it.
Realism was the status quo for American Action films up till about 4-to-5 years before Die Hard. What Die Hard did was follow Lethal Weapon's wake in elevating the 70's style hero (charming, blue-collar, underdog, screw-up) with a grounded and clever script, mid-80's flare and a large budget.
The Death Wish series is a great representation of the pendulum swing: a dour, dramatic thriller featuring an average man seeking retribution thru vigilantism in 1974---to---1987 with the craziest shit you've ever seen featuring an unstoppable, geriatric killing machine, massacring entire city blocks because punks-gotta-pay.
"An example of a franchise that got better with each movie?"
I'll say that "Mission: Impossible" has shown some consistent quality, except for #2. That one was ... yeah, just not that one.
"John Wick" is coming along quite nicely, so far.
What's really interesting, is both of those franchises work because of the dedication and hard work of their lead actors. You can tell that both love their craft and really want to make the best possible movie.
*Die Hard 4.0 is actually a good film. It was a bad Die Hard movie though. Fans confused the difference.*
Except for the last one with "Jr.", i loved all of them. Specifically Vengeance, Willis & Jackson were hilarious together. I felt they always kept the "i was thrown into this" theme with Maclean
The Die Hard Franchise should closed off with Die Gard with a Vengeance. Plain and simple. The fourth one and the one that came after it should never have happened. They pretty much ruined the franchise. I disagree about Die Hard with a Vengeance. I believe it was actually an improvement from the second one.
You dare call Hans Gruber a thief?
Do you call Leonardo Da Vinci a painter?
He’s a master, a savant, an artist!
Nah, Die Hard 3 was quite good, with dynamic duo of Jackson and Willis. The plot with gruber brother is justified in the movie, just like riddles and games. It's a fun ride
Mission Impossible is an example of a franchise that gets better with each installment
I would have to disagree. You really think that the second is better than the first?
@@cthomas025 you might not like the story line of MI:II, but you have to admit, they get better and better stunts in each installment.
I dont‘t get it- its the closest thing to a perfect trilogy we could have asked for?
Prayers up for Bruce Willis
They turned mcclain into a terminator
I don't even mind admitting this, but Die Hard 4 is probably my favourite in the franchise.
We can whine about Die Hard 5 script, but the scene with the chase through the city streets-perfect.
One of the best, if not the best I've ever seen to this day!
Die Hard With A Vengeance was originally going to be a Lethal Weapon Sequel, which after knowing I could clearly see the initial idea for the movie! Still love the first three Die Hard movies!
Should of stopped at die hard with a vengeance
I actually watched Die Hard for the first time this weekend and loved it! This video came at a perfect time. The 2nd one.... I didn't like too much. I won't bother with the rest. But it's funny to see the cracks starting to form once you watch the 2nd movie.
You hit the nail on the head about the original Die Hard. As a kid, I would watch that movie and think that I could be John McClain. He was a normal guy. I loved that!
1-3 are all highly watchable, 2 is underrated. 4 is bad. 5 is even badder. If you haven't watched any of these, first, what are you doing with your life, but second, just watch the first 3 and pretend the other 2 were never made and be happy.
Personally I think 4 is underrated and better then 2 but 3 is the 2nd beat
Don't get me wrong, Die Hard is the best one, but I do really enjoy watching them all. They're all very fun if you can go in knowing it's not right which then leaves you free to just watch and have fun instead of going "oh come on!" the entire movie haha.
After 3, Willis wanted to walk away from the series, but was stuck in a contract with Fox for 2 more that he could not get out of. That’s why so much time elapsed between 3 & 4, Willis’ schedule filled up and he busy on other projects. Fox “kindly” reminded him of their deal, and after litigation fell through, Willis returned for 4 and whatever that other spin-off movie was.
We went from John MClain, a guy who had to sit down and pull glass shards from his feet and was visibly wincing in pain doing so, to a superhuman who can fall from impossible heights without a scratch.
Len Wiseman is also behind the John Wick spin-off
It's called BALLERINA
8:23 Perhaps the Lethal Weapon franchise (though it did stumble a bit in the 3rd movie but picked up in the 4th)
I think it might be great if a (DIE HARD) show series could get made someday.
If it does become possible someday; I can imagine some of the former stars if the movies, they could play new characters in it, and I can imagine that a few of them could play villains roles in it.
Great video.
Michael Scott was the inspiration for this video. He spelled this all out to his co-workers while working at the call center.
Mission impossible has gotten better with every film
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE is a franchise that became BETTER AND BETTER with every new movie!!!!!
I love your videos, but hard disagree on the first two sequels. Die Harder and With A Vengeance are fantastic. Willis is at his best, and the stories are great.
Die Hard 4 isn't bad. Die Hard 5 is... not good.
Again, big fan. Thanks for the content.
I dunno, Die Hard with Vengeance is my favorite... when that basketball thug sees his sign, I lose it.
I enjoyed all of the Die Hard movies. I'm glad that so far I haven't heard of any plans of rebooting the franchise. Bruce Willis will always be John Maclane. Its sad what he is going thru . Deep respect for him and hope he spends the rest of his days happy with family and friends.
Happy trails Hans
I disagree about Simon being Hans brother seeming contrived. I thought it was a good twist, and it avoids one of the main problems I have with the other sequels. Namely, it’s way too big of a coincidence that John just happens to get caught in these situations over and over again.
The other funny thing about DH2 is how easy it would be to thwart the villains’ plan. There are lots of airports on the east coast! Just have the planes land somewhere else!
The second one I mostly remember him in the airport arguing with the airport personnel and sometimes wandering off and fixing everything by himself. The third one might be the best sequel that came from the franchise.
I agree, the 3rd was the superior sequel
@@raxxie yap i liked it.
Can you do a video were you go over your idea for a great Die Hard movie ?
I had hoped that the potential 6th Die Hard would be going back to a more intimate setting, so as to at least end the franchise on a high note
Remember when we first met John Mcclane
The third one is amazing
Love how Michael Scott noticed this all those years ago haha
Franchises that get better with each movie: John Wick, Mission Impossible (except for the second one), and are three that I can think of off the top of my head Planet of the Apes