"but they certainly killed the franchise" No, it died on its own - and public started to wake up. The first film has lots of great one-liners about how the media works like, "I read about them [Asian Dawn] in 'Time' magazine." Which means that Asian Dawn, like all terrorist groups, are simply an invention of the press and news.
They actually should kill McClane. Years ago there were talks about a sixth installment with Morgan Freeman as a villain, and I always thought that sounded like an epic send-off. Make him fight for his survival in a constricted environment one last time, make him human and vulnerable again, and let him die in the end.
@@mrjones29 it look like he trying hard not to fall asleep, it does not help that both his co star seem to outshine him on scene they together. I'm just saying Bruce Willis now a day seem to phone in most of his performances
@@khanhnguyen-tt3ff khanh nguyen I understand what you are saying. It is partly his acting style too, to appear that way laid back on purpose. It is a pity that Hollywood no longer find use or him anymore and most of his new films end up straight to video like Van Damme and Seagal.
@@mrjones29 that clearly not his style just compares the movie he try like die hard , looper,red you will see put in more effort in these movie then the one he not. Plus as an actor he should try to get more different role, even Arnold and most of star in his era do.
Kinda ironic that both the Die Hard and Fast & Furious franchises both transitioned into completely unrealistic over-the-top action yet the Fast & Furious series has only gained more momentum and popularity over the years while the Die Hard series has sort of faded into obscurity...
That's cuz Fast and Furious started out tame but still had unrealistic tropes in it that made it fun, each film made it more fun and ridiculous but you connect to the characters at least I say after 6 is where they started pushing it plot wise and character wise, but i still enjoy them cuz of the of the topness that's been present in ALL of the films.....but there's a point where ridiculousness turns into b.s. completely Hobbs and Shaw and FF9....😵
It's a shame really. I went to see Die Hard at the cinema when it was released and was totally blown away by it. I was less impressed by No.2 but thought things picked up again with No.3. And that's where it should've been left, as a trilogy, because after that the quality dropped quicker than Hans Gruber from the 83rd floor of The Nakatomi Plaza.
It does in there. The others don’t exist in my head canon. I love 3 and think the buddy team is classic but unique at the same time. Sam Jackson is great and the weird puzzles change things up enough to not make it feel tired.
Think about these two Die Hard movies without any of the others. Consider how GREAT Die Hard with a Vengeance is as a *counterpoint* to the original. A perfect pair, ruined by the filler of Die Harder. (A weak clone of the original)
Love it! I saw the 3rd one first as a kid and it imprinted on me as The Perfect Action Film. The 1st is really excellent but I still prefer the aesthetic and pacing of the 3rd
@@GeahkBurchill While I do agree that Vengeance serves as a perfect counterpoint to the original I still like Die Harder a lot. Of course it is - to some extent - a copy of the original but I for me that works for the movie and against it at the same time. I usually do not appreciate it if the sequel is too close to the original when it comes to the plot/structure (that is the hardest part of making a good sequel: Make the sequel too different people wonder what it has got to do with the original, make it too close and people wonder why they should pay to see the same movie again.) However, in this case I felt that Die Harder is the last "real" Die Hard movie for a number of reasons: McClane is on his own, nobody believes him at first, tone and atmosphere are reminiscent of the first installment, the emotional component of saving his wife's life and the whole action takes place in a contained environment. Vengeance continues the story from the first movie (and does not feel as contrived as Die Harder in that respect) but to me it never really felt like a Die Hard movie. some might argue that Die Harder is too close to the original others (me included) might argue Vengeance strays too far away from what constitutes a Die Hard movie. Don't get me wrong: I like Vengeance as an action movie and it is part of my Bluray collection but I always preferred Die Hard 2. I guess it is time to watch Vengeance again and see if my opinion will change but for now I will defend Die Hard 2 as my second favorite Die Hard movie (There are only three Die Hard movies!).
Glad to see DH2 still getting some love. Interestingly, respected critics Siskel & Ebert considered it to be the best in the series. Roger somehow didn't like the original, while Gene ranked that first sequel as the 6th best film of 1990 above the likes of Dances with Wolves and Godfather 3. Screen Junkies did a couple of "Honest Action" videos for the series, and it was determined that McClane's chances of survival was actually at its most plausible in DH2. It also has one of the greatest finales ever, imo. Throughout the movie, the villains are always ahead of the protagonist. Even though the hero makes progress w/ each action scene, all of them (prior to the climax) ends w/ a trade-off of him losing: no one was left to interrogate after the baggage fight, the antenna array explodes and a plane is crashed after the skywalk shootout, Esperanza escapes after landing, and McClane ends up w/ blank ammunition in the snowmobile chase. All leading up to the plane fight where John loses against Stuart, and it seems that all hope is lost for Holly's plane. This is what Chris Stuckmann likes to call the "Breaking Point" moment, where the hero is at his lowest point in an action sequence and has to come up w/ a way to get out of that predicament. McClane does so after uttering his famous catchphrase and lighting the fuel trail left by the plane. With a single stroke, he finally defeats the bad guys and saves all of the hostages.
Absolutely. I tend to prefer DH and DH3 more than the second film, from a structural standpoint. The 2nd one always felt a little... slow paced and arythmic. Like there's always an action scene that leads to nowhere or nothing great, where the first and third film have the elements tightly interwebbed from one scene to another. But it doesn't mean that's a bad movie, cause that structural "one step forward, two steps back" is precisely what the movie is aiming for, precisely because of the point you're making here. McLane fails thourough the movie, and that's actually a pretty clever thing to do after the first one. Saying the second movie is just a rip off of the first one is not giving it as much credit as it deserves.
@@Guile21 Well, I already said that "the hero makes progress w/ each action scene", so we definitely differ in our assessment of that aspect. I'd say the only pointless one is the brief "eye-cicle" fight, ironically enough. I actually thought that the narrative moved faster then the original since the urgency of the situation didn't make much room for casual talks between characters. Which I understand can be seen as a negative since the relationships in the first film are so beloved.
Damn, this is a _great_ comment. I really like the second Die Hard and this comment hits on something about it that contributes to _why_ I like it, but that I never really noticed.
I agree with your ranking, except I feel With A Vengeance is better than Die Hard 2. Die Hard is a 10/10, while With A Vengeance is a 9/10 and Die Hard 2 is 8/10. I think the fourth is a 7/10, and A Good Day To Die Hard was pretty bad. Probably below a 5, but so long since I have seen it. What is weird about Die Hard is that everything is great about the film, but none of the action scenes are in my top favorite list. I probably could come up with a list of a top 50 action scenes, and none from Die Hard would be there. But the characters are great and are the thing that makes the film.
I remember always enjoying DH3 more than 2, but then returning to the franchise laterI did notice how convoluted the third ends up being compared to the relative simplicity of 2. The reveal the soldiers are on the bad guys' side in DH2 works way better than the reveal for example in Vengeance that the woman is actually on Irons' side. Vengeance just feels a bit more bloated to me, and I do think it lacks something without Holly's presence. That said, I like both.
@@Rossatron But what about the reveal of Irons being Hans Grubers brother? I feel that is the main reveal. I kinda feel that works better than John Amos is a bad guy. Col. Stuart is kinda straight forward. I think the main problem with DH2 is that is very much trying to capture DH1 and instead of doing something new. There are all these jokes about "how can the same thing happened to the same guy again". But I do think the Skywalk shootout is my favourite action scene of all of the Die Hard. The only director that does better squibs than Renny Harlin is Paul Verhoeven. DH2 and WAV does have one thing in common. They all end anti-climax by blowing up the bad guy. You have tons of henchmen and McClane just blows them up, and he doesn't kill any of them in DHWAV. In DH he dealt with all of them, I guess with the exception of Theo, which Argyle took out, and I guess Al taking out the second comming of Karl.
for an action movie, die hard is good but definitely not a 10, probably 8,2, the only movie that can go near a 9,5 is the godfather, there is no action movie that can go above 8,5 not even killbill
@Bobo Boy 4 is the biggest cash grab of them all. Making the movie accessible for younger audiences. Families can watch it together? Give me a break. Die Hard is a violent series about a wise cracking cop who swears, drinks and smokes. He gets entangled in situations he doesn't want to be in but he does what he must. Len Wiseman and his writers had no clue what made Die Hard so special in the first place but hey, there's lots of action and explosions so who cares, right?
Have to agree. The action in Die Hard isn’t terrible but it’s pretty unmemorable. The script however is fantastic and the camerawork, editing, soundtrack and acting are fantastic
I HIGHLY recommend the Unrated Cut of Live Free or Die Hard. It's still got most of the problems you've pointed out in this video, but it's got a lot more John McClane moments, and the action feels a hell of a lot better. It definitely moves it closer into the "With A Vengeance" realm, and farther from the "A Good Day" realm.
Die Hard 1: Awesome, easily one of the best action movies of all time Die Hard 2: Not as good as the first, but still pretty fun Die Hard With a Vengeance: Interesting Live Free or Die Hard: Controversial Opinion, I thought it was pretty enjoyable even if it jumped the shark a bit too much and the PG-13 rating felt out of place A Good Day To Die Hard: Pretty bad. A complete bastardization of the protagonist, relegating him to a sidekick to his own movie, not helping matters is that it's from the same director behind the Max Payne movie.
Yes, Die Hard 5 was bad, but I don't get why people don't like Die Hard 4. His charakter has changed a little bit over the years, like everyone's charakter do, but he is still the hero who doesn't want to be one. He is more confident and experianced in combat but lacks some other traids. I like Die Hard 4 more than Die Hard 2.
I didnt watched any of this die hards movies... But from the parts the video showed it seems pretty obvious that it is just an other "action movie" with i am a hero i do stuff, destroy things ... Explosions chase scene, shaky came, Chaos, "cool words" (no they are not ), Grey filter, Explosions, and boring unrealistic realtionships -interactions ... Explosions
@@majormononoke8958 There is nothing like "just an other action movie". This is a entire genre with good, bad and mediocre films and Die Hard 4.0 was definitely a good one.
@@lars9925 Actually there are just look at every month film releases, similar plot, similar editing, similar music/score, similar characters, similar, studios, similar ... I mean same,,,
The video kinda touches upon a lot of it. More vehicular based set pieces and less intimate fights and shoot outs, McClane having a lot less personal stakes and feeling out of place, lack of grit the R rating provides. I don't know about others, but the jet fighter sequence felt like a pretty clear cut 'jump the shark' moment.
Love the editing effort you put into the background scenery, linking the start of an explosion in one scene to the reaction in another, then an initial fall into the conclusion of one in another, etc.
Well part 3 is as good as it got. It completed what the first one started. It's what a Trilogy should be... But producers and movie execs needs their $$$ so we got two unwanted sequels
Die Hard 1 he saves a building Die Hard 2 he saves a air port Die Hard 3 he savea a city Die Hard 4 he saves the U.S Die Hard 5 he saves the World Lol that escalated quickly...bigger, bigger, bigger.
This is a really good critique! But I feel like one of the things you take issue with also happens in the second and third films (although to a much lesser extent), both towards their endings. In Die Hard 2, it's not really obvious why McClane jumped onto the plane, at least not to me. Now that the terrorists have what they want, the aiport staff are probably set to get some emergency lighting for the planes to safely land, so it really kind feels pointless. I get that the fire from the explosion helped the other planes land, but it doesn't even remotely seem like that was the plan. I think he even says something about "just not wanting to lose" which felt really detached from his character since that has never been one of his motivations before this point. The third film has sorta the same thing going on, the evil dudes essentially win and get away with it, and then he personally decides to give them a visit after everyone's safe. Of course I get why, he's a cop and that's his job and it's not like he went alone, but even if it make logical sense in-universe, it still felt really strange to me in the film because it felt detached from the spirit of the franchise. I think the reasons why those two endings ended up the way they did was that they couldn't think of a good motivation for the McClane to end the final arc of the film without just completely rehashing the first movie, but I really think they could've done a better job. Both of those endings feel kinda hollow to me, even if they're pretty spectacular. I think the alternate ending for the third film was very interesting. It's implied that McClane has gone a little mad from his life falling apart in addition to having been successfully toyed with by the villain, and so he takes him out with an ironic game of his own. It's dark and he still goes out of his way to do it, much more so than final ending even because he states that he's been fired from the police force, but I think it still feels cooler because of the aforementioned implication of him losing his mind a little bit which takes the character to an interesting place.
I totally agree. While some of the action is too epic (jet scene), the movie never breaks the character of John McClane, how he'd react in crazy situations and what he would do in those situations. It was a fun ride, Timothy Olopant was an awesome villain, and Justin Long is the best Die Hard sidekick. It's the third-best Die Hard (behind 1 and 3). The PG-13 rating only ruined one aspect of the movie for me: "Yippie-Ki-Ay Motherfu-"
I thought it was terrible. It turned McClane into a superhero, which was stupid and boring. No more ordinary guy trapped in extraordinary circumstances, but just an indestructable killing machine cracking one-liners for no apparent reason. Yaaaaawn! Plus, the villain was arguably the most forgettable of the franchise. Even the guy in 5 felt more like a bad guy than baby-faced Timothy Olyphant.
I have no idea why people hate 5 so much. It IS a bad movie, but I still think it´s better than 4. In terms of bringing the franchise down, I think Die Hard with a vengeance is the culprit. It´s the one that started the decline, and to this day, the series never recovered.
The first 3 are just masterclasses in action film making. I wonder if John McTiernan will ever return to form and retake his place as the greatest action film director of all time? He seems to be blacklisted in Hollywood. P.S I like how the "The Predator" theme is playing during that short Bruce Willis interview clip around 5mins in for some reason haha....
@@bernierose719 I'll be interested to see how that turns out. He is so good at doing the "macho" thing that having a female lead might not work out, instead being one of these feministic "woman who behaves like a man" flicks that just make your eyes roll into the back of your head.
@Optimus Prime Yeah that'd be great, McClane already must have seen his fair share of action and killings to be able to gun people down without hesitation like he did in Die Hard, so there is plenty of opportunity for tense situations and action set pieces that McTiernan would absolutely excel at. Maybe a bank heist gone wrong situation would be a good set-up, or drug bust.... something relatively low-key but with the potential for firefights and action at it's climax.
@Optimus Prime Haha... maybe he took an interest in architecture as a child/young man, a great film scored by John Williams, starring Paul Newman and Steve McQueen, "The Towering Inferno" has some great setups on crawl space and mechanical areas in large buildings that would make for a killer Die Hard setup. Maybe he had to escape a building like that after a fire/disaster, but I think that'd be too cheesy a setup personally.
"John McTiernan will ever return to form and retake his place as the greatest action film director of all time? He seems to be blacklisted in Hollywood." Or perhaps he never existed, it was a made up name. It's not unusual. After all, many actors work under aliases and most politicians do as well! For example, John Major's (former British prime minister) real name was John Ball - and he was (and remains) Jewish!
I really appreciate your editing. Most people would just slap random footage in the background. You take time to make sure they flow. Great stuff, man.
"Die Hard is about an everyman without a spectacular past, pulled into a situation he doesn't want to be in." Yes but it gives him a spectacular past! Personally I like the way McClane becomes more ruthless, confident etc over the course of the series... It reflects a natural arc of having busted so many heads. He is a kind of superhero after awhile. How could you have him be an everyman film after film??
4 at least tries to be unique and plays in to John’s complete obliviousness to advanced technology as seen in the first movie as well as that the buddy cop relationship between John and Farrell was funny and a nice new interpretation of the buddy cop dynamic he had with Zeus in the third film (better than his relationship with Jack in the fifth film that’s for sure). Die Hard 2 is entertaining and fun but if I’m gonna watch a Die Hard movie it’s gonna be the first or the third one I only really watch Die Hard 2 around Christmas to go alongside a viewing of Die Hard
I rewatched die hard 4 recently and it's not nearly as bad as I remember it. it's a fine movie especially compared to the abysmal 5th installment. my ranking would be: 1, 3, 2, 4, 5
@@frankunodostres473 Sorry, sarcasm doesn't translate well on social media. When I said it's not as bad as 5 I was actually mocking the people who always bring it up when defending the 4th film. Should've used quotation marks because I in no way want to be accused of defending that horrible Live Free or Die Hard which is Die Hard in name only as far as I'm concerned.
That moment when you understand more the character, then the people that are making the movies "about him" Great video Ros, glad i turned the notification bell, totally worth it ♥
I like how The Raid and Dredd took part of the Die Hard formula and made excellent Action movies in their own way. Shows you that you don't necessarily have to go bigger to explore the same themes. For me that was a big Problem with 3, 4 and 5. The felt the need to go bigger every time and it didn't work out that well to various degrees. I'd still want to see the Die Hard movie one guy pitched in a full page add in an LA newspaper. The plot circled around John having to book himself into a South American Prison to get some information and then there was a revolt (I think). That would bring the character back into the better suited claustrophobic setting. Great Video and Keep up the superb work.Would be fun if you explored some lesser Action stars and why they dissappeared. I'm Always curious about what went down with Michael Dudikoff :)
Yeah, I like the simplicity of Die Hard 1 and 2. It's also nice how Dredd and The Raid used that part of the formula as well. It's a set up that adds tension because we know the good guys are trapped in a location with the bad guys.
First Die Hard is an absolute classic and propably one of the greatest action movies of all time,who spawned not only a franchise but also a gazillion rip-offs.(''Under Siege'',''Sudden Death'' etc. etc.) Die Hard 2 is pretty much the same thing,just bigger. Some critics say it's ''uninspired'',that may be the case but goddamned it's a kickass action movie or what?! The showdown,where McLane blows up a fucking Jumbo Jet is just awesome 80's extravaganza at it's best. Die Hard 3 is something completely different,it's basically a buddy-comedy but a goddamn great one.Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson have great chemistry together and humour and violence are perfectly balanced. Die Hard 4 is just a generic,watered down action movie,that tries to copy elements from part 2 & 3 but fails miserably and it's PG-13. Die Hard 5,is just a total dumpsterfire of a movie. Plot doesn't make sense,villain is shit,McLane's son (played by the walking Aussie plank,Jai Courtney) is annoying and uncharismatic and worst of all Bruce Willis looks like he really doesn't give a shit and just wants to get his paycheck. The biggest problem with part 4 & 5 is: they turned McLane from a cynical,blue collar cop,with a heart of gold underneath to a douchebag cartoon-hero.
I would actually like to see a two-season miniseries where the first season covers The Detective and the sequel season covers Nothing Lasts Forever, both written by Rodrick Thorp. It would be much more faithful adaptions of them.
You think 2 is better than 3? 3 felt so natural for the character. The marriage falling apart felt inevitable. The fact that he's smart but not a genius played well in the film and gave a brilliant reason for there to be an Al Powell replacement in Zeus. Zeus himself was clearly a well read man with issues of his own he had to get through (A brilliant arc), and I feel like he was a marvellous counterpoint to John's character. For me, 2 was highly forgettable. There were great moments, but the complete lack of having anyone on his side and for John to riff with lost all the charm of the first film that I feel could only have worked because of the heartfelt moments. If the order of quality for you is 1,2,3,4,5, it is poetic but 3, for me is a much stronger movie than 2. Loved the video by the way. Still baffled by your sound choices but your channel has been one of my favourites since I discovered it last year.
3 was just a generic action flick. They probably should have released it outside of the Die Hard franchise, like they did with films like Last Boy Scout or Hostage. It didn´t feel like a Die Hard movie, and the character also didn´t really feel like McClane. Him chasing down the bad guys after surviving the boat explosion felt pretty out of character. Why would he even get involved? Let the pros handle it, and just call Holly back ;) To my mind, for all its flaws 2 is the only proper sequel to date.
3 was a very underwhelming movie, with very bad and ambitious motives behind it. If it had existed outside of the Die Hard franchise, it would have been fine, but as a part of the Die Hard franchise it's just so out of place. The marriage falling apart was pretty ridiculous to me, considering John and Holly seemed quite capable of fixing issues in their marriage as shown in the previous films. John McClane went from this witty and deadly, yet also relatable cop to practically a superhero solving international issues that the likes of FBI, CIA etc should be solving instead, especially since Simon Gruber was detonating explosives throughout an entire city and looted the federal reserves... I mean, c'mon. The motivation behind John McClane and Zeus working together was very weak also. Too much talking, too little action, dissatisfying ending, and John McClane involving himself in matters that he shouldn't involve himself in, that's probably the best way to summarize Die Hard 3. Die Hard 2 is the only real sequel to the first movie, in spite of its flaws. Even if it was a bit ambitious at times, at least it mostly stayed down to earth and preserved most of the core values presented in the first movie. Die Hard 3 is what started the downward spiral that deeply plagues Die Hard 4 and 5
Having been based on a novel helped the first film avoid some of the contrivances and plot holes riddled through the sequels. I stopped watching with # 3. This analysis brings up the point of an IP being diminished through repetition (a pattern most recognizable with the progression of The Planet Of The Apes and its four sequels released within the span of 5 years). This is especially true of horror. A terror revisited and repeatedly vanquished stops being very scary any more. I agree with the sentiment that some IPs are better off left at just a very few good films and not studio-branded as an open-ended "franchise" to keep milking until it sours.
4 was pretty good actually. I read the Director wanted Bruce to even hold the gun the same way as earlier movies. The music tried to replicate a lot of ambiance. And the action got alittle crazy with the plane. But kinda reminded me of part 3 with the tunnel scene. Driving the truck. Part 5 killed the franchise very Swifty. !!! Enough Said.
I've never seen Die Hard 5. I just can't have my heart broken, again. If Die Hard 6 was to be made they would need to change it up. Have McClane be the guy on the radio talking to a new character (not Jack) seemingly trapped and on his own in an overtaken building. At a Pivotal part, when all seems lost for our new character, McClane reluctantly goes into the building for the assist. Plot Twist: The new guy is in fact Hans Gruber Jr. and has lured John into a trap that is also... wait for it.... a robbery. [dramatic music]
Die Hard, 2 and With a Vengeance are a satisfying trilogy of action flicks with the original being an outright classic. I don't recognize 4 or 5. I guess with Bruce retiring from acting now with his dementia issues that we can at least take solace that they won't be parading John McLane's corpse around any more.
The only thing I liked about 5 was how the villains motives looked political but was actually about a heist, everything else just wasn't Die Hard. I do like 4 however, and as much as I would like to see him live happily ever after, I think the degradation of his family life makes sense.
I think, if they would've stopped after the 3rd one. It would've been alright with most of the fans. There's a lot of things, I liked about the 4th one. But at the same time, if they didn't make it. I don't think, no one would care. Everyone could've done without the 5th one. There's a barely story to it. It's everyone's least favorite one. Another thing about the end of the 3rd one. When John called Holly. A chance they might've got back together, again. It gave the audience hope. But in the 4th one, they were divorced. That's too bad. I figured, after all they've been through. They would've made it!
I must say this was a great analysis of the series. Having seen 4 and 5 (the latter in a theater even) it was sad to watch how they ruined it. As a kid I was a huge fan of Willis, but in the newest DH movies it seems that Willis is just playing himself, maybe that also contributed to the character losing its soul. This might seem goofy, but I sometimes like to pretend 4 and 5 don't exist at all and that the Last Boy Scout and Hostage instead were the 4 and 5 continuations for McClane..
Die Hard 2 to me is the only film in the franchise that felt like a proper sequel. Yes Die Hard With A Vengeance is a great action movie, but it isn't a good "Die Hard" movie. The sequel manages to mix things up, while still capturing much of what made the original so successful. Plus they got most of the original cast back together, even Al makes a cameo. And Richard "Dick" Thornburg is as much of a dick as he was in the original, and I just love that about his character. Am I the only one who thought William Atherton did a better job in Die Hard 2 than in the original? "The truth is far from normal, the truth is terrifying."
Die Hard with a Vengeance is my favourite Die Hard film. Just like Jeremy Irons as a villain & love Jackson's chemistry with Willis. Don't even hate Live Free or Die Hard. Works as a modern day action film, steps over the line into superbadass territory that every long running action franchise does eventually.
I was at a 30th anniversary screening of Die Hard 1 with a Q/A after, and the writer of the first two films said they are the true Die Hard films because of the "one man in an isolated environment and limited help against the odds" aspect.
Die Hard 1 he saves a building Die Hard 2 he saves an air port Die Hard 3 he saves a city Die Hard 4 he saves the U.S Die Hard 5 he saves the World Lol that escalated quickly...bigger, bigger, bigger.
The second film is fucking horrible. I watched it the other night just to remind myself. Stupid dialogue. No wit. The villain has no charisma whatsoever. They were trying way too hard. The first film is a classic for a reason. They had a great story and took their time telling it. By the time they get to the climax it feels epic.
I’m a defender of 4, though your criticisms are spot on and it doesn’t come even close to 1 or 3. I would put it over 2 though, that movie just felt so off to me. And those are all the die hard movies that were ever made. Just four movies. Yes sir.
I do say 4 is a decent enough if forgettable action film for me, where it falls down mainly is in how McClane is treated as a character within it. I'd probably prefer it if it had stayed as an original film instead of being adapted into a Die Hard sequel.
Honestly, I only like the first one. Absolute action classic. Second one was entertaining, sure, but too much of a carbon copy. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the third one is so popular - far too much ridiculous stuff going on there. The less said about 4 the better.
While I rewatched the 5th last year-it was a theatrical marathon played last to first, so, I could tolerate it. What raised my heart rate though, was helping out Mr Willis and family at my job several months back! I see a family come on, hear the guy ask if I can help, I'm walking over to them, and my jaw hits the floor halfway there. While I've heard Bruce can be....something, while helping him, I simply said at one point, "just so you know, you rock." He smiled and said "thanks." That was the most fanboying I was going to let myself do on the clock. Although in a side note, due to a funny thing at my job, I not only got to recieve the Bruce Willis deathglare, but THEN got the Bruce Willis smirk. Oh it was a good day.
As removed from the Die Hard franchise it is, and as generic it may seem for an action movie overall... I always thought that from a logistical/directing standpoint, Die Hard 4's action scenes are way over average. The movie itself isn't that exciting, lacking a lot of likable characters... but the action scenes are wonderfully shot. The first time I saw it, there was some editing choices that I thought were clever, and some framing are amazing. The second time I watched it, I just watched the action set pieces, and payed good attention on how they were shot. There's a lot of logic editing makig the most chaotic sequences flow really smoothly (I love how every new setting has a reaction shot leading to a establishing shot... like the ones when they get in the tunnel). There's a really good sense of control and spatial knowledge on every action scene. I get the movie isn't that great, and it's not much of a Die Hard by this point (the PG13 doesn't help)... but I think the action crafting in it is really underatted because of that. That movie should not have been a Die Hard, and the franchise should have ended at the third one. But man, It's more than decent. And for an over the top action movie, it's polished as hell.
The example : th-cam.com/video/e_v7KCCjxZI/w-d-xo.html How the helicopter is introduced in the roll around shot. The establishing shot of the tunnel entry. Justin long character pointing at it. The drift to go down to it. The shot with the helicopter in the frame shooting them as they go down the ramp. That's just an example of what the movie does constantly.
You are one of the few people who agree with me and put 2 over 3. You have taste. ;) And if they went back to the roots with part 6, I'd be all for it. I wouldn't put my money on it though.
Die Hard 3 should have been Die Hard 2 and they should've stopped there. Die Hard 3 actually feels like a proper sequel since it has ties to the first instead of having McClane coincidentally get involved in yet another action movie. It also does the first justice as instead of being trapped in a building and forced into being the hero, he's in a big city yet forced against his will into getting involved. It really should've been the second movie.
While I do agree that Vengeance serves as a perfect counterpoint to the original I still like Die Harder a lot. Of course it is - to some extent - a copy of the original but I for me that works for the movie and against it at the same time. I usually do not appreciate it if the sequel is too close to the original when it comes to the plot/structure (that is the hardest part of making a good sequel: Make the sequel too different people wonder what it has got to do with the original, make it too close and people wonder why they should pay to see the same movie again.) However, in this case I felt that Die Harder is the last "real" Die Hard movie for a number of reasons: McClane is on his own, nobody believes him at first, tone and atmosphere are reminiscent of the first installment, the emotional component of saving his wife's life and the whole action takes place in a contained environment. Vengeance continues the story from the first movie (and does not feel as contrived as Die Harder in that respect) but to me it never really felt like a Die Hard movie. some might argue that Die Harder is too close to the original others (me included) might argue Vengeance strays too far away from what constitutes a Die Hard movie. Don't get me wrong: I like Vengeance as an action movie and it is part of my Bluray collection but I always preferred Die Hard 2. I guess it is time to watch Vengeance again and see if my opinion will change but for now I will defend Die Hard 2 as my second favorite Die Hard movie (There are only three Die Hard movies!).
I couldn't agree more about 3 feeling more like a sequel than 2. Die Hard 2 felt like some weird dream McClane had while he was asleep on an airplane. Die Hard 3 takes place in New York where McClane is from, has a much better supporting cast, and better plot that's not a rehash of the 1st Die Hard. Die Hard 2 is just a ca$h grab rehash of the original while Die Hard 3 is a great action movie but different than the 1st one.
I actually found the relationship between the guy from the Apple commercials and McClane in Live Free or Die Hard pretty moving. The way McClane told him at the end, "That's why you're that guy," and gently laughed when the kid talked about having some wheezing issues got to me for some reason. I felt like there was something compelling about the way the 'I'm a Mac' guy grew as the movie went on and more so, how McClane came to care about him and perhaps even sort of brought the best out of him. It was a ""two guys from different worlds" relationship that really worked for me. Maybe part of it was that I really bought into the 'I'm a Mac' commercials guy's unease and fear with the situation he found himself in. So when he found it within himself to rise above it on some level with McClane's help, it really meant something.
Some people would consider this blasphemy, but Die Hard 2 is my favorite sequel in the franchise and I prefer it over "with a Vengeance". I guess because it's more of a "Die Hard" film whereas the sequels changed the formula that made the first movie so special. Plus I don't know why but it feels more like a Christmas movie than the first one.
I seem to remember watching at one point in one of those making of documentaries that apparently die hard three was originally not intended to be a die hard movie and instead was going to be a new action movie called Simon says. Which explains why there was such a long gap from die hard two. I guess they just made it into a die hard movie for name recognition.
Technically only the fifth is actually an original Die Hard concept, though that had been kicking around a while before Skip Woods was brought in to do it. The first two films are based on books, and the third and fourth were pre existing screenplays rewritten as Die Hard films.
Not gonna lie, I know a lot of people consider “Live Free” to be the beginning of the end for the franchise, and a crap film because of how invincible McClane is made to be and the lack of an R-Rating, but it’s the first Die Hard I saw in theatres and I saw it Labor Day weekend back-to-back with the ‘07 Transformers movie and had a blast the whole time with both films, so I can’t bring myself to hate it. In fact, it’s one of my favorite action movies of all time.
Michael Scott on Die Hard: "You know what, here's the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard one, the original, John McClane was just this normal guy. You know, he's just a normal New York City cop, who gets his feet cut, and gets beat up. But he's an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter."
3 was definitely better than 2. It pumped up the "adventure" aspect of the "action/ adventure" genre and made it fun as hell thanks to the chemistry between Sam Jackson and Bruce Willis. The ending came too fast and his wife should have been in it, though.
While I do agree that Vengeance serves as a perfect counterpoint to the original I still like Die Harder a lot. Of course it is - to some extent - a copy of the original but I for me that works for the movie and against it at the same time. I usually do not appreciate it if the sequel is too close to the original when it comes to the plot/structure (that is the hardest part of making a good sequel: Make the sequel too different people wonder what it has got to do with the original, make it too close and people wonder why they should pay to see the same movie again.) However, in this case I felt that Die Harder is the last "real" Die Hard movie for a number of reasons: McClane is on his own, nobody believes him at first, tone and atmosphere are reminiscent of the first installment, the emotional component of saving his wife's life and the whole action takes place in a contained environment. Vengeance continues the story from the first movie (and does not feel as contrived as Die Harder in that respect) but to me it never really felt like a Die Hard movie. some might argue that Die Harder is too close to the original others (me included) might argue Vengeance strays too far away from what constitutes a Die Hard movie. Don't get me wrong: I like Vengeance as an action movie and it is part of my Bluray collection but I always preferred Die Hard 2. I guess it is time to watch Vengeance again and see if my opinion will change but for now I will defend Die Hard 2 as my second favorite Die Hard movie (There are only three Die Hard movies!).
3 is a good film and it's good fun. But it doesn't have some of the things I liked in the first two films: it doesn't have one man dealing with the bad guys mainly in one location. It also doesn't have Holly.
I kinda don't like this discussion. It's just continuously comparing the other Die Hard movies to the original as if the sequels or other movies weren't allowed to make some deviations and changes to what has already seen. Basically what I get from this video is, that if the sequel didn't do exactly the same things that made the first movie great, then it's not good. From this, at what point can any "perfect" Die Hard sequel ever be made that its own movie and doesn't feel like an exact copy of the original?
That's kind of the point that I am making, that it would have been better not to make a sequel as the concept doesn't lend itself to ever being possible to match it. The fall though for me was in John becoming something far too unrecognisable by the fifth film, in that they made him exactly what he was a reaction against (an unlikeable superhuman).
The third Die Hard is just a different movie than the first. And it's good, except the ending imo. The movies that came after were again different movies, and they are shit. 1. Die Hard 2. Die Hard with a Vengeance 3. Die Hard 2.
I got to watch DieHard at a drive-in when It came out. I was 3 or 4 then.So when it premiered on HBO my parents took me to one of their friends who had just gotten an HBO subscription.The viewing party was as big of an event as the superbowl.lots of food, drink's and people who hadn't seen DieHard. Everyone all huddled around a 32in top of the line tv for the time.which could also have been used for a boat anchor. I have find memories of the first film.also watched, with a vengeance,at a giant theatre the day came out.my mom took me out of school that day so we could go and watch it.Just the best times growing up!
They can't kill John McLane, but they certainly killed the franchise.
Disney will take care of this franchise with a song,3D animation graphics.
"but they certainly killed the franchise"
No, it died on its own - and public started to wake up. The first film has lots of great one-liners about how the media works like, "I read about them [Asian Dawn] in 'Time' magazine." Which means that Asian Dawn, like all terrorist groups, are simply an invention of the press and news.
@Bob Jones i heard about MacTiernan being in prison for eavesdropping now lol so he is not able to make more of these masterpieces for us.
defvent yeah
They actually should kill McClane. Years ago there were talks about a sixth installment with Morgan Freeman as a villain, and I always thought that sounded like an epic send-off.
Make him fight for his survival in a constricted environment one last time, make him human and vulnerable again, and let him die in the end.
John Mctiernan went straight from Predator to Die Hard. What a master.
Last action hero anyone
Rollerball remake too lol
That's the definition of a one two punch
While I agree that Die Hard 2 is more of a Die Hard film than 3, I still think 3 is more memorable.
Guess I have to give 3 a shot, I lost interest after 2.
@@someguy43210 man go watch it. I think 3 is so much better than 2
I thought 3 began the decline of the franchise.
3 is the best Die Hard film. And it never gets old. Can watch it over and over. There's few films as fun as die hard 3
I really like 2 personally.
Let not forget about Bruce Willis falling out of love for acting
But he still acts. Did you not see Glass in January?
@@mrjones29 it look like he trying hard not to fall asleep, it does not help that both his co star seem to outshine him on scene they together. I'm just saying Bruce Willis now a day seem to phone in most of his performances
@@khanhnguyen-tt3ff khanh nguyen I understand what you are saying. It is partly his acting style too, to appear that way laid back on purpose. It is a pity that Hollywood no longer find use or him anymore and most of his new films end up straight to video like Van Damme and Seagal.
@@mrjones29 that clearly not his style just compares the movie he try like die hard , looper,red you will see put in more effort in these movie then the one he not. Plus as an actor he should try to get more different role, even Arnold and most of star in his era do.
@@khanhnguyen-tt3ff I take your point.
Kinda ironic that both the Die Hard and Fast & Furious franchises both transitioned into completely unrealistic over-the-top action yet the Fast & Furious series has only gained more momentum and popularity over the years while the Die Hard series has sort of faded into obscurity...
Even more ironic is the fact that Die Hard 5 is the worst movie in the franchise while FF5 is by far the best one in the FF franchise.
I watched both of em over the weeks
@@lennynero635 I think the Fast and Furious Franchise has gone on for too long now.
@@LordMalice6d9 I totally agree with you. In my book, there are only two FF movies worth watching. That being the first and the fifth installment.
That's cuz Fast and Furious started out tame but still had unrealistic tropes in it that made it fun, each film made it more fun and ridiculous but you connect to the characters at least
I say after 6 is where they started pushing it plot wise and character wise, but i still enjoy them cuz of the of the topness that's been present in ALL of the films.....but there's a point where ridiculousness turns into b.s. completely
Hobbs and Shaw and FF9....😵
It's a shame really. I went to see Die Hard at the cinema when it was released and was totally blown away by it. I was less impressed by No.2 but thought things picked up again with No.3. And that's where it should've been left, as a trilogy, because after that the quality dropped quicker than Hans Gruber from the 83rd floor of The Nakatomi Plaza.
Die Hard 3 is sooo amazing and underrated, wish it ended there
I kind of agree,but 4 had good things to it
I think it is better than the first!
3 was great movie
It does in there. The others don’t exist in my head canon. I love 3 and think the buddy team is classic but unique at the same time. Sam Jackson is great and the weird puzzles change things up enough to not make it feel tired.
@Maori Boy Nice joke. A lame cash grab made by a studio who had no faith in the series after 12 years.
Sometimes, we just need to let some things end. Even though we love it
Same can be said about video games. Too many sequels.
Resaurus
Like The Simpsons....
Agreed.., I felt the same way about the tv series 24. How many bad days can Jack Bauer have? Gotta end it before the character gets played out.
legit shut up
Amen to that 😇
Despite being the last one being bad, I'd take another Die Hard over a Terminator sequel anytime
Preach!
The best for me are 1 and 3
agreement on that!
I still remember watching 3 in the movie theater I was amazed and happy that we got a beautiful Trilogy
I thought 3 was pretty lame. It was a decent action flick, but a bad Die Hard film. Probably should have been released outside that franchise.
You can’t compete with Alan Rickman. It was always going to be tough to have another bad guy as brilliant as him
idk, jeremy irons was getting somewhere, but he was barely in it (for being the villain)
Irons and Sadler were pretty good, too! The guys in 4 and 5 were completely forgettable, though.
There are only two Die Hard movies.
Die Hard, and it’s direct sequel, Die Hard: With a Vengeance.
Think about these two Die Hard movies without any of the others. Consider how GREAT Die Hard with a Vengeance is as a *counterpoint* to the original. A perfect pair, ruined by the filler of Die Harder. (A weak clone of the original)
Love it! I saw the 3rd one first as a kid and it imprinted on me as The Perfect Action Film. The 1st is really excellent but I still prefer the aesthetic and pacing of the 3rd
I like how you think, good sir. That's exactly how I feel about it
@Cyberdemon Mike it's ok but it's watered down compared to the rest of the franchise.
@@GeahkBurchill While I do agree that Vengeance serves as a perfect counterpoint to the original I still like Die Harder a lot. Of course it is - to some extent - a copy of the original but I for me that works for the movie and against it at the same time.
I usually do not appreciate it if the sequel is too close to the original when it comes to the plot/structure (that is the hardest part of making a good sequel: Make the sequel too different people wonder what it has got to do with the original, make it too close and people wonder why they should pay to see the same movie again.)
However, in this case I felt that Die Harder is the last "real" Die Hard movie for a number of reasons: McClane is on his own, nobody believes him at first, tone and atmosphere are reminiscent of the first installment, the emotional component of saving his wife's life and the whole action takes place in a contained environment. Vengeance continues the story from the first movie (and does not feel as contrived as Die Harder in that respect) but to me it never really felt like a Die Hard movie. some might argue that Die Harder is too close to the original others (me included) might argue Vengeance strays too far away from what constitutes a Die Hard movie.
Don't get me wrong: I like Vengeance as an action movie and it is part of my Bluray collection but I always preferred Die Hard 2. I guess it is time to watch Vengeance again and see if my opinion will change but for now I will defend Die Hard 2 as my second favorite Die Hard movie (There are only three Die Hard movies!).
The _Die Hard_ franchise died hard.
It died ugly.
Nope, Check out Die Hard is Back Trailer!!
Kittens, cats, sacks and wives...Die Hard ended in '95.
SEVEN GUYS WITH SEVEN WIVES!
How many going to st'ives?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I didn’t say Simon Says.
@@droneeveryone, “Shut the f*ck up McClaine.
The first 4 are movies. The 5th is a cash grab. I love Vengeance. Sam Jackson casting makes it soo quotable.
The first is a Friday night tvmovie, the rest are blockbuster video rentals
Glad to see DH2 still getting some love. Interestingly, respected critics Siskel & Ebert considered it to be the best in the series. Roger somehow didn't like the original, while Gene ranked that first sequel as the 6th best film of 1990 above the likes of Dances with Wolves and Godfather 3. Screen Junkies did a couple of "Honest Action" videos for the series, and it was determined that McClane's chances of survival was actually at its most plausible in DH2. It also has one of the greatest finales ever, imo. Throughout the movie, the villains are always ahead of the protagonist. Even though the hero makes progress w/ each action scene, all of them (prior to the climax) ends w/ a trade-off of him losing: no one was left to interrogate after the baggage fight, the antenna array explodes and a plane is crashed after the skywalk shootout, Esperanza escapes after landing, and McClane ends up w/ blank ammunition in the snowmobile chase. All leading up to the plane fight where John loses against Stuart, and it seems that all hope is lost for Holly's plane. This is what Chris Stuckmann likes to call the "Breaking Point" moment, where the hero is at his lowest point in an action sequence and has to come up w/ a way to get out of that predicament. McClane does so after uttering his famous catchphrase and lighting the fuel trail left by the plane. With a single stroke, he finally defeats the bad guys and saves all of the hostages.
Absolutely. I tend to prefer DH and DH3 more than the second film, from a structural standpoint. The 2nd one always felt a little... slow paced and arythmic. Like there's always an action scene that leads to nowhere or nothing great, where the first and third film have the elements tightly interwebbed from one scene to another.
But it doesn't mean that's a bad movie, cause that structural "one step forward, two steps back" is precisely what the movie is aiming for, precisely because of the point you're making here. McLane fails thourough the movie, and that's actually a pretty clever thing to do after the first one. Saying the second movie is just a rip off of the first one is not giving it as much credit as it deserves.
@@Guile21 Well, I already said that "the hero makes progress w/ each action scene", so we definitely differ in our assessment of that aspect. I'd say the only pointless one is the brief "eye-cicle" fight, ironically enough. I actually thought that the narrative moved faster then the original since the urgency of the situation didn't make much room for casual talks between characters. Which I understand can be seen as a negative since the relationships in the first film are so beloved.
Damn, this is a _great_ comment. I really like the second Die Hard and this comment hits on something about it that contributes to _why_ I like it, but that I never really noticed.
I agree with your ranking, except I feel With A Vengeance is better than Die Hard 2. Die Hard is a 10/10, while With A Vengeance is a 9/10 and Die Hard 2 is 8/10. I think the fourth is a 7/10, and A Good Day To Die Hard was pretty bad. Probably below a 5, but so long since I have seen it.
What is weird about Die Hard is that everything is great about the film, but none of the action scenes are in my top favorite list. I probably could come up with a list of a top 50 action scenes, and none from Die Hard would be there. But the characters are great and are the thing that makes the film.
I remember always enjoying DH3 more than 2, but then returning to the franchise laterI did notice how convoluted the third ends up being compared to the relative simplicity of 2. The reveal the soldiers are on the bad guys' side in DH2 works way better than the reveal for example in Vengeance that the woman is actually on Irons' side. Vengeance just feels a bit more bloated to me, and I do think it lacks something without Holly's presence. That said, I like both.
@@Rossatron But what about the reveal of Irons being Hans Grubers brother? I feel that is the main reveal. I kinda feel that works better than John Amos is a bad guy. Col. Stuart is kinda straight forward. I think the main problem with DH2 is that is very much trying to capture DH1 and instead of doing something new. There are all these jokes about "how can the same thing happened to the same guy again". But I do think the Skywalk shootout is my favourite action scene of all of the Die Hard. The only director that does better squibs than Renny Harlin is Paul Verhoeven.
DH2 and WAV does have one thing in common. They all end anti-climax by blowing up the bad guy. You have tons of henchmen and McClane just blows them up, and he doesn't kill any of them in DHWAV. In DH he dealt with all of them, I guess with the exception of Theo, which Argyle took out, and I guess Al taking out the second comming of Karl.
for an action movie, die hard is good but definitely not a 10, probably 8,2, the only movie that can go near a 9,5 is the godfather, there is no action movie that can go above 8,5 not even killbill
@Bobo Boy 4 is the biggest cash grab of them all. Making the movie accessible for younger audiences. Families can watch it together? Give me a break. Die Hard is a violent series about a wise cracking cop who swears, drinks and smokes. He gets entangled in situations he doesn't want to be in but he does what he must. Len Wiseman and his writers had no clue what made Die Hard so special in the first place but hey, there's lots of action and explosions so who cares, right?
Have to agree. The action in Die Hard isn’t terrible but it’s pretty unmemorable. The script however is fantastic and the camerawork, editing, soundtrack and acting are fantastic
I HIGHLY recommend the Unrated Cut of Live Free or Die Hard. It's still got most of the problems you've pointed out in this video, but it's got a lot more John McClane moments, and the action feels a hell of a lot better. It definitely moves it closer into the "With A Vengeance" realm, and farther from the "A Good Day" realm.
It amazes me how many people do not know this cut exists!
Die Hard 1: Awesome, easily one of the best action movies of all time
Die Hard 2: Not as good as the first, but still pretty fun
Die Hard With a Vengeance: Interesting
Live Free or Die Hard: Controversial Opinion, I thought it was pretty enjoyable even if it jumped the shark a bit too much and the PG-13 rating felt out of place
A Good Day To Die Hard: Pretty bad. A complete bastardization of the protagonist, relegating him to a sidekick to his own movie, not helping matters is that it's from the same director behind the Max Payne movie.
A 22 minutes video from Rossatron? Count me in!
Yes, Die Hard 5 was bad, but I don't get why people don't like Die Hard 4.
His charakter has changed a little bit over the years, like everyone's charakter do, but he is still the hero who doesn't want to be one.
He is more confident and experianced in combat but lacks some other traids.
I like Die Hard 4 more than Die Hard 2.
I didnt watched any of this die hards movies... But from the parts the video showed it seems pretty obvious that it is just an other "action movie" with i am a hero i do stuff, destroy things ... Explosions chase scene, shaky came, Chaos, "cool words" (no they are not ), Grey filter, Explosions, and boring unrealistic realtionships -interactions ... Explosions
@@majormononoke8958
There is nothing like "just an other action movie". This is a entire genre with good, bad and mediocre films and Die Hard 4.0 was definitely a good one.
@@lars9925 Actually there are just look at every month film releases, similar plot, similar editing, similar music/score, similar
characters, similar, studios, similar ...
I mean same,,,
The video kinda touches upon a lot of it. More vehicular based set pieces and less intimate fights and shoot outs, McClane having a lot less personal stakes and feeling out of place, lack of grit the R rating provides. I don't know about others, but the jet fighter sequence felt like a pretty clear cut 'jump the shark' moment.
for a moment i thought lol , Macclane has a cameo in transformers ?@@agt_pendergast8899
Love the editing effort you put into the background scenery, linking the start of an explosion in one scene to the reaction in another, then an initial fall into the conclusion of one in another, etc.
1st. Great! Wonderful! Delightful!
2nd. Good jod.
3rd. The Perfection.
4th. Nice work.
5th. 😴
Third is perfection? Really?
@@vicentegeonix yes bitch
The 5th movie would have been better with Patrick Stewart as the main villain, as first organized...
Well part 3 is as good as it got. It completed what the first one started. It's what a Trilogy should be... But producers and movie execs needs their $$$ so we got two unwanted sequels
Die Hard 1 he saves a building
Die Hard 2 he saves a air port
Die Hard 3 he savea a city
Die Hard 4 he saves the U.S
Die Hard 5 he saves the World
Lol that escalated quickly...bigger, bigger, bigger.
Your editing is great as always, Rossatron, and the cut at 11:20 definitely takes the cake for this video.
The first Die Hard is still my favorite Christmas movie. And it's a brilliant action flick.
This is a really good critique! But I feel like one of the things you take issue with also happens in the second and third films (although to a much lesser extent), both towards their endings. In Die Hard 2, it's not really obvious why McClane jumped onto the plane, at least not to me. Now that the terrorists have what they want, the aiport staff are probably set to get some emergency lighting for the planes to safely land, so it really kind feels pointless. I get that the fire from the explosion helped the other planes land, but it doesn't even remotely seem like that was the plan. I think he even says something about "just not wanting to lose" which felt really detached from his character since that has never been one of his motivations before this point.
The third film has sorta the same thing going on, the evil dudes essentially win and get away with it, and then he personally decides to give them a visit after everyone's safe. Of course I get why, he's a cop and that's his job and it's not like he went alone, but even if it make logical sense in-universe, it still felt really strange to me in the film because it felt detached from the spirit of the franchise.
I think the reasons why those two endings ended up the way they did was that they couldn't think of a good motivation for the McClane to end the final arc of the film without just completely rehashing the first movie, but I really think they could've done a better job. Both of those endings feel kinda hollow to me, even if they're pretty spectacular.
I think the alternate ending for the third film was very interesting. It's implied that McClane has gone a little mad from his life falling apart in addition to having been successfully toyed with by the villain, and so he takes him out with an ironic game of his own. It's dark and he still goes out of his way to do it, much more so than final ending even because he states that he's been fired from the police force, but I think it still feels cooler because of the aforementioned implication of him losing his mind a little bit which takes the character to an interesting place.
I will always go to bat for Live Free Or Die Hard. That movie is a ton of fun.
I totally agree. While some of the action is too epic (jet scene), the movie never breaks the character of John McClane, how he'd react in crazy situations and what he would do in those situations. It was a fun ride, Timothy Olopant was an awesome villain, and Justin Long is the best Die Hard sidekick. It's the third-best Die Hard (behind 1 and 3).
The PG-13 rating only ruined one aspect of the movie for me: "Yippie-Ki-Ay Motherfu-"
I thought it was terrible. It turned McClane into a superhero, which was stupid and boring. No more ordinary guy trapped in extraordinary circumstances, but just an indestructable killing machine cracking one-liners for no apparent reason. Yaaaaawn!
Plus, the villain was arguably the most forgettable of the franchise. Even the guy in 5 felt more like a bad guy than baby-faced Timothy Olyphant.
Best: Die Hard
Second Best: Die Hard 3
Decent: Diehard 4
Watchable: Diehard 2
Don't even talk about the other one.
I have no idea why people hate 5 so much. It IS a bad movie, but I still think it´s better than 4. In terms of bringing the franchise down, I think Die Hard with a vengeance is the culprit. It´s the one that started the decline, and to this day, the series never recovered.
Say it! Say it! You was gonna say a good day to die hard weren’t ya?
The first 3 are just masterclasses in action film making. I wonder if John McTiernan will ever return to form and retake his place as the greatest action film director of all time? He seems to be blacklisted in Hollywood.
P.S I like how the "The Predator" theme is playing during that short Bruce Willis interview clip around 5mins in for some reason haha....
AJD OLD CHANNEL ARCHIVE mctiernan is working on a new film with uma Thurman
@@bernierose719 I'll be interested to see how that turns out. He is so good at doing the "macho" thing that having a female lead might not work out, instead being one of these feministic "woman who behaves like a man" flicks that just make your eyes roll into the back of your head.
@Optimus Prime Yeah that'd be great, McClane already must have seen his fair share of action and killings to be able to gun people down without hesitation like he did in Die Hard, so there is plenty of opportunity for tense situations and action set pieces that McTiernan would absolutely excel at. Maybe a bank heist gone wrong situation would be a good set-up, or drug bust.... something relatively low-key but with the potential for firefights and action at it's climax.
@Optimus Prime Haha... maybe he took an interest in architecture as a child/young man, a great film scored by John Williams, starring Paul Newman and Steve McQueen, "The Towering Inferno" has some great setups on crawl space and mechanical areas in large buildings that would make for a killer Die Hard setup. Maybe he had to escape a building like that after a fire/disaster, but I think that'd be too cheesy a setup personally.
"John McTiernan will ever return to form and retake his place as the greatest action film director of all time? He seems to be blacklisted in Hollywood."
Or perhaps he never existed, it was a made up name. It's not unusual. After all, many actors work under aliases and most politicians do as well! For example, John Major's (former British prime minister) real name was John Ball - and he was (and remains) Jewish!
I really appreciate your editing. Most people would just slap random footage in the background. You take time to make sure they flow. Great stuff, man.
John Mctiernan was a good action-suspense director, Die Hard and Predator, 2 movies were you forget to breath.
@Optimus Prime Nothing cheesy about Predator or Die Hard.
@Mammoth Supremacy 55 First Die Hard is great, just watch it.
@@jdxsr85 yeah exactly. Nothing cheesy at all they are 2 of the best action movies ever.
Thank you so much for this, and of course for your love for action movies.
This channel needs way more views.
"Die Hard is about an everyman without a spectacular past, pulled into a situation he doesn't want to be in."
Yes but it gives him a spectacular past! Personally I like the way McClane becomes more ruthless, confident etc over the course of the series... It reflects a natural arc of having busted so many heads. He is a kind of superhero after awhile. How could you have him be an everyman film after film??
Down to earth and human. It's very possible.
1. Die Hard (10/10)
2. Die Hard 3 (9/10)
3. Die Hard 4 (7/10)
4. Die Hard 2 (7/10)
5. Die Hard 5 (2/10)
4 over 2? You've gotta be crazy ;)
@@AJDOLDCHANNELARCHIVE
2 is just a cash grab trying to copy the first one. 4 is quite good.
@@AJDOLDCHANNELARCHIVE 4 is better. 2 felt too rushed.
The same for me
4 at least tries to be unique and plays in to John’s complete obliviousness to advanced technology as seen in the first movie as well as that the buddy cop relationship between John and Farrell was funny and a nice new interpretation of the buddy cop dynamic he had with Zeus in the third film (better than his relationship with Jack in the fifth film that’s for sure). Die Hard 2 is entertaining and fun but if I’m gonna watch a Die Hard movie it’s gonna be the first or the third one I only really watch Die Hard 2 around Christmas to go alongside a viewing of Die Hard
Keep killing it with the videos! Clicked on this as soon as the notification came up. So stoked.
I had to pause it from laughing so hard when I heard Benny's lament at 17:36
The Last Boy Scout is kind of a John McClane movie.
Hudson Hawke too
Shane Black made better films...😏
The Last Boy Scout is awesome. It's my favorite Bruce Willis movie.
The way you cut between the shots is fantastic. Clearly so much effort goes into editing these videos. Great work!
I do try and do something a little different with them, glad people like it
I've become allergic to Disney. Even just hearing the name makes me gag.
You know what I like about your videos? You make me re-evaluate the films I've known for years in a different light. Excellent stuff.
I rewatched die hard 4 recently and it's not nearly as bad as I remember it. it's a fine movie especially compared to the abysmal 5th installment.
my ranking would be: 1, 3, 2, 4, 5
This is the only way people can defend the lame 4th movie. Oh it's not as bad as 5, I guess. Lol.
@@jdxsr85 tbh not even close to 5. 5 was abysmal, 4 wasn't
@@frankunodostres473 Sorry, sarcasm doesn't translate well on social media. When I said it's not as bad as 5 I was actually mocking the people who always bring it up when defending the 4th film. Should've used quotation marks because I in no way want to be accused of defending that horrible Live Free or Die Hard which is Die Hard in name only as far as I'm concerned.
I was today years old learning that Die Hard 2 had a teaser trailer and it looks fantastic 😃
That moment when you understand more the character, then the people that are making the movies "about him"
Great video Ros, glad i turned the notification bell, totally worth it ♥
I like how The Raid and Dredd took part of the Die Hard formula and made excellent Action movies in their own way. Shows you that you don't necessarily have to go bigger to explore the same themes. For me that was a big Problem with 3, 4 and 5. The felt the need to go bigger every time and it didn't work out that well to various degrees. I'd still want to see the Die Hard movie one guy pitched in a full page add in an LA newspaper. The plot circled around John having to book himself into a South American Prison to get some information and then there was a revolt (I think). That would bring the character back into the better suited claustrophobic setting.
Great Video and Keep up the superb work.Would be fun if you explored some lesser Action stars and why they dissappeared. I'm Always curious about what went down with Michael Dudikoff :)
Yeah, I like the simplicity of Die Hard 1 and 2. It's also nice how Dredd and The Raid used that part of the formula as well. It's a set up that adds tension because we know the good guys are trapped in a location with the bad guys.
First Die Hard is an absolute classic and propably one of the greatest action movies of all time,who spawned not only a franchise but also a gazillion rip-offs.(''Under Siege'',''Sudden Death'' etc. etc.)
Die Hard 2 is pretty much the same thing,just bigger. Some critics say it's ''uninspired'',that may be the case but goddamned it's a kickass action movie or what?! The showdown,where McLane blows up a fucking Jumbo Jet is just awesome 80's extravaganza at it's best.
Die Hard 3 is something completely different,it's basically a buddy-comedy but a goddamn great one.Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson have great chemistry together and humour and violence are perfectly balanced.
Die Hard 4 is just a generic,watered down action movie,that tries to copy elements from part 2 & 3 but fails miserably and it's PG-13.
Die Hard 5,is just a total dumpsterfire of a movie. Plot doesn't make sense,villain is shit,McLane's son (played by the walking Aussie plank,Jai Courtney) is annoying and uncharismatic and worst of all Bruce Willis looks like he really doesn't give a shit and just wants to get his paycheck.
The biggest problem with part 4 & 5 is: they turned McLane from a cynical,blue collar cop,with a heart of gold underneath to a douchebag cartoon-hero.
I would actually like to see a two-season miniseries where the first season covers The Detective and the sequel season covers Nothing Lasts Forever, both written by Rodrick Thorp. It would be much more faithful adaptions of them.
You think 2 is better than 3? 3 felt so natural for the character. The marriage falling apart felt inevitable. The fact that he's smart but not a genius played well in the film and gave a brilliant reason for there to be an Al Powell replacement in Zeus. Zeus himself was clearly a well read man with issues of his own he had to get through (A brilliant arc), and I feel like he was a marvellous counterpoint to John's character.
For me, 2 was highly forgettable. There were great moments, but the complete lack of having anyone on his side and for John to riff with lost all the charm of the first film that I feel could only have worked because of the heartfelt moments.
If the order of quality for you is 1,2,3,4,5, it is poetic but 3, for me is a much stronger movie than 2.
Loved the video by the way. Still baffled by your sound choices but your channel has been one of my favourites since I discovered it last year.
3 was just a generic action flick. They probably should have released it outside of the Die Hard franchise, like they did with films like Last Boy Scout or Hostage.
It didn´t feel like a Die Hard movie, and the character also didn´t really feel like McClane. Him chasing down the bad guys after surviving the boat explosion felt pretty out of character. Why would he even get involved? Let the pros handle it, and just call Holly back ;)
To my mind, for all its flaws 2 is the only proper sequel to date.
@@fundhund62 What this guy said. Three, and every subsequent movie, was too much an "action hero" film and not a "regular guy" film.
3 was a very underwhelming movie, with very bad and ambitious motives behind it. If it had existed outside of the Die Hard franchise, it would have been fine, but as a part of the Die Hard franchise it's just so out of place. The marriage falling apart was pretty ridiculous to me, considering John and Holly seemed quite capable of fixing issues in their marriage as shown in the previous films. John McClane went from this witty and deadly, yet also relatable cop to practically a superhero solving international issues that the likes of FBI, CIA etc should be solving instead, especially since Simon Gruber was detonating explosives throughout an entire city and looted the federal reserves... I mean, c'mon. The motivation behind John McClane and Zeus working together was very weak also. Too much talking, too little action, dissatisfying ending, and John McClane involving himself in matters that he shouldn't involve himself in, that's probably the best way to summarize Die Hard 3. Die Hard 2 is the only real sequel to the first movie, in spite of its flaws. Even if it was a bit ambitious at times, at least it mostly stayed down to earth and preserved most of the core values presented in the first movie. Die Hard 3 is what started the downward spiral that deeply plagues Die Hard 4 and 5
@@smaragdchaos Could not have put it better myself.
Having been based on a novel helped the first film avoid some of the contrivances and plot holes riddled through the sequels. I stopped watching with # 3.
This analysis brings up the point of an IP being diminished through repetition (a pattern most recognizable with the progression of The Planet Of The Apes and its four sequels released within the span of 5 years). This is especially true of horror. A terror revisited and repeatedly vanquished stops being very scary any more. I agree with the sentiment that some IPs are better off left at just a very few good films and not studio-branded as an open-ended "franchise" to keep milking until it sours.
4 was pretty good actually. I read the Director wanted Bruce to even hold the gun the same way as earlier movies. The music tried to replicate a lot of ambiance. And the action got alittle crazy with the plane. But kinda reminded me of part 3 with the tunnel scene. Driving the truck.
Part 5 killed the franchise very Swifty. !!! Enough Said.
0:40!!😂😂😂 Get it? The "Fall" of Die Hard title text appears as Alan Rickman is "Falling?"😂😂
Die Hard
Die Hard with a vengeance
Live Free or Die Hard (unrated)
Die Hard 2
A Good Day to Die Hard
I've never seen Die Hard 5. I just can't have my heart broken, again. If Die Hard 6 was to be made they would need to change it up. Have McClane be the guy on the radio talking to a new character (not Jack) seemingly trapped and on his own in an overtaken building. At a Pivotal part, when all seems lost for our new character, McClane reluctantly goes into the building for the assist.
Plot Twist: The new guy is in fact Hans Gruber Jr. and has lured John into a trap that is also... wait for it.... a robbery. [dramatic music]
Great analysis. Time to do the same for Rambo pretty soon.
First blood is class and Rambo 4,but 2 and 3 are shit. Well looking forward to last blood
Die Hard, 2 and With a Vengeance are a satisfying trilogy of action flicks with the original being an outright classic. I don't recognize 4 or 5. I guess with Bruce retiring from acting now with his dementia issues that we can at least take solace that they won't be parading John McLane's corpse around any more.
17:38 - is that a secret audio Easter egg from Total Recall? ;)
Yeah. You beat me to it.
The only thing I liked about 5 was how the villains motives looked political but was actually about a heist, everything else just wasn't Die Hard. I do like 4 however, and as much as I would like to see him live happily ever after, I think the degradation of his family life makes sense.
One person disliked your vid by mistake Rossatron - you put out nothing but hits!
The premise of Die Hard was never going to work beyond just one movie. That's why all the rip offs are much better than the sequels.
Bro the editing on this video is CRAZY!!
A very good friend of mine had this to say about the fifth film: They only made it, to make the 4th one look not quite as bad.
When they explain everything to death and leave nothing for interpretation is what killed aliens. Great video
I think, if they would've stopped after the 3rd one. It would've been alright with most of the fans. There's a lot of things, I liked about the 4th one. But at the same time, if they didn't make it. I don't think, no one would care. Everyone could've done without the 5th one. There's a barely story to it. It's everyone's least favorite one. Another thing about the end of the 3rd one. When John called Holly. A chance they might've got back together, again. It gave the audience hope. But in the 4th one, they were divorced. That's too bad. I figured, after all they've been through. They would've made it!
lol @ Hans falling put with the titlecard. Loved that.
I repeatedly set the speed to 0.25 to see your machtcuts better. Thank you so much for putting so much effort into your videos.
Hopefully it was worth it
I must say this was a great analysis of the series. Having seen 4 and 5 (the latter in a theater even) it was sad to watch how they ruined it. As a kid I was a huge fan of Willis, but in the newest DH movies it seems that Willis is just playing himself, maybe that also contributed to the character losing its soul.
This might seem goofy, but I sometimes like to pretend 4 and 5 don't exist at all and that the Last Boy Scout and Hostage instead were the 4 and 5 continuations for McClane..
Having Alan Rickman as a villain was a very hard act to follow.
Your editing is on point, dude.
Die Hard 2 to me is the only film in the franchise that felt like a proper sequel. Yes Die Hard With A Vengeance is a great action movie, but it isn't a good "Die Hard" movie. The sequel manages to mix things up, while still capturing much of what made the original so successful. Plus they got most of the original cast back together, even Al makes a cameo. And Richard "Dick" Thornburg is as much of a dick as he was in the original, and I just love that about his character. Am I the only one who thought William Atherton did a better job in Die Hard 2 than in the original? "The truth is far from normal, the truth is terrifying."
Disney Die Hard is something fans don't want. Any more than a recast or reboot.
Why is 5 shot so dark and dreary seems like all movies in that time shot in with a tinted lens
1. Die Hard
3
2. Die Hard 1
3. Die Hard 4
4. Die Hard 2
...
99. Nothing
...
999. Die Hard 5
Die Hard with a Vengeance is my favourite Die Hard film. Just like Jeremy Irons as a villain & love Jackson's chemistry with Willis.
Don't even hate Live Free or Die Hard. Works as a modern day action film, steps over the line into superbadass territory that every long running action franchise does eventually.
Please, no more Die Hard movies. They screwed it up enough.
I was at a 30th anniversary screening of Die Hard 1 with a Q/A after, and the writer of the first two films said they are the true Die Hard films because of the "one man in an isolated environment and limited help against the odds" aspect.
Die Hard 1 he saves a building
Die Hard 2 he saves an air port
Die Hard 3 he saves a city
Die Hard 4 he saves the U.S
Die Hard 5 he saves the World
Lol that escalated quickly...bigger, bigger, bigger.
The second film is fucking horrible. I watched it the other night just to remind myself. Stupid dialogue. No wit. The villain has no charisma whatsoever. They were trying way too hard. The first film is a classic for a reason. They had a great story and took their time telling it. By the time they get to the climax it feels epic.
Die Hard 3 is the Resident Evil 4 of Die Hards
Game or movie? Cause the game although a huge departure in tone was still balls out awesome.
If you mean the game RE4, then yeah, Die Hard With a Vengeance was so much fun.
I’m a defender of 4, though your criticisms are spot on and it doesn’t come even close to 1 or 3. I would put it over 2 though, that movie just felt so off to me. And those are all the die hard movies that were ever made. Just four movies. Yes sir.
I do say 4 is a decent enough if forgettable action film for me, where it falls down mainly is in how McClane is treated as a character within it. I'd probably prefer it if it had stayed as an original film instead of being adapted into a Die Hard sequel.
Honestly, I only like the first one. Absolute action classic.
Second one was entertaining, sure, but too much of a carbon copy. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the third one is so popular - far too much ridiculous stuff going on there. The less said about 4 the better.
While I rewatched the 5th last year-it was a theatrical marathon played last to first, so, I could tolerate it. What raised my heart rate though, was helping out Mr Willis and family at my job several months back! I see a family come on, hear the guy ask if I can help, I'm walking over to them, and my jaw hits the floor halfway there. While I've heard Bruce can be....something, while helping him, I simply said at one point, "just so you know, you rock." He smiled and said "thanks." That was the most fanboying I was going to let myself do on the clock. Although in a side note, due to a funny thing at my job, I not only got to recieve the Bruce Willis deathglare, but THEN got the Bruce Willis smirk. Oh it was a good day.
As removed from the Die Hard franchise it is, and as generic it may seem for an action movie overall... I always thought that from a logistical/directing standpoint, Die Hard 4's action scenes are way over average. The movie itself isn't that exciting, lacking a lot of likable characters... but the action scenes are wonderfully shot. The first time I saw it, there was some editing choices that I thought were clever, and some framing are amazing. The second time I watched it, I just watched the action set pieces, and payed good attention on how they were shot. There's a lot of logic editing makig the most chaotic sequences flow really smoothly (I love how every new setting has a reaction shot leading to a establishing shot... like the ones when they get in the tunnel). There's a really good sense of control and spatial knowledge on every action scene. I get the movie isn't that great, and it's not much of a Die Hard by this point (the PG13 doesn't help)... but I think the action crafting in it is really underatted because of that.
That movie should not have been a Die Hard, and the franchise should have ended at the third one. But man, It's more than decent. And for an over the top action movie, it's polished as hell.
The example : th-cam.com/video/e_v7KCCjxZI/w-d-xo.html
How the helicopter is introduced in the roll around shot. The establishing shot of the tunnel entry. Justin long character pointing at it. The drift to go down to it. The shot with the helicopter in the frame shooting them as they go down the ramp. That's just an example of what the movie does constantly.
You are one of the few people who agree with me and put 2 over 3. You have taste. ;)
And if they went back to the roots with part 6, I'd be all for it. I wouldn't put my money on it though.
Die Hard 3 should have been Die Hard 2 and they should've stopped there. Die Hard 3 actually feels like a proper sequel since it has ties to the first instead of having McClane coincidentally get involved in yet another action movie. It also does the first justice as instead of being trapped in a building and forced into being the hero, he's in a big city yet forced against his will into getting involved. It really should've been the second movie.
While I do agree that Vengeance serves as a perfect counterpoint to the original I still like Die Harder a lot. Of course it is - to some extent - a copy of the original but I for me that works for the movie and against it at the same time.
I usually do not appreciate it if the sequel is too close to the original when it comes to the plot/structure (that is the hardest part of making a good sequel: Make the sequel too different people wonder what it has got to do with the original, make it too close and people wonder why they should pay to see the same movie again.)
However, in this case I felt that Die Harder is the last "real" Die Hard movie for a number of reasons: McClane is on his own, nobody believes him at first, tone and atmosphere are reminiscent of the first installment, the emotional component of saving his wife's life and the whole action takes place in a contained environment. Vengeance continues the story from the first movie (and does not feel as contrived as Die Harder in that respect) but to me it never really felt like a Die Hard movie. some might argue that Die Harder is too close to the original others (me included) might argue Vengeance strays too far away from what constitutes a Die Hard movie.
Don't get me wrong: I like Vengeance as an action movie and it is part of my Bluray collection but I always preferred Die Hard 2. I guess it is time to watch Vengeance again and see if my opinion will change but for now I will defend Die Hard 2 as my second favorite Die Hard movie (There are only three Die Hard movies!).
@@lennynero635 I feel the same way. Die Hard 2 retains more of the things that made the first movie so entertaining in my opinion.
@ANTMAN :-)
I couldn't agree more about 3 feeling more like a sequel than 2. Die Hard 2 felt like some weird dream McClane had while he was asleep on an airplane. Die Hard 3 takes place in New York where McClane is from, has a much better supporting cast, and better plot that's not a rehash of the 1st Die Hard. Die Hard 2 is just a ca$h grab rehash of the original while Die Hard 3 is a great action movie but different than the 1st one.
I actually found the relationship between the guy from the Apple commercials and McClane in Live Free or Die Hard pretty moving. The way McClane told him at the end, "That's why you're that guy," and gently laughed when the kid talked about having some wheezing issues got to me for some reason. I felt like there was something compelling about the way the 'I'm a Mac' guy grew as the movie went on and more so, how McClane came to care about him and perhaps even sort of brought the best out of him. It was a ""two guys from different worlds" relationship that really worked for me. Maybe part of it was that I really bought into the 'I'm a Mac' commercials guy's unease and fear with the situation he found himself in. So when he found it within himself to rise above it on some level with McClane's help, it really meant something.
Rossatron - the most criminally underrated channel on TH-cam
Some people would consider this blasphemy, but Die Hard 2 is my favorite sequel in the franchise and I prefer it over "with a Vengeance". I guess because it's more of a "Die Hard" film whereas the sequels changed the formula that made the first movie so special.
Plus I don't know why but it feels more like a Christmas movie than the first one.
5:15, why are they playing the Predator score over a Bruce Willis interview lol
I seem to remember watching at one point in one of those making of documentaries that apparently die hard three was originally not intended to be a die hard movie and instead was going to be a new action movie called Simon says. Which explains why there was such a long gap from die hard two. I guess they just made it into a die hard movie for name recognition.
Technically only the fifth is actually an original Die Hard concept, though that had been kicking around a while before Skip Woods was brought in to do it. The first two films are based on books, and the third and fourth were pre existing screenplays rewritten as Die Hard films.
Rossatron ahh. Thank you.
Not gonna lie, I know a lot of people consider “Live Free” to be the beginning of the end for the franchise, and a crap film because of how invincible McClane is made to be and the lack of an R-Rating, but it’s the first Die Hard I saw in theatres and I saw it Labor Day weekend back-to-back with the ‘07 Transformers movie and had a blast the whole time with both films, so I can’t bring myself to hate it. In fact, it’s one of my favorite action movies of all time.
I am one of them ;-)
Your editing between the different movies is perfect
Bruce, Alan and Ludwig ...shit gets real at the Nakatomi Plaza!
man, i miss John McTiernan...
Well, he's out of prison and making a new film at 68! Careful what you wish for...
Michael Scott on Die Hard:
"You know what, here's the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard one, the original, John McClane was just this normal guy. You know, he's just a normal New York City cop, who gets his feet cut, and gets beat up. But he's an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter."
3 was definitely better than 2. It pumped up the "adventure" aspect of the "action/ adventure" genre and made it fun as hell thanks to the chemistry between Sam Jackson and Bruce Willis. The ending came too fast and his wife should have been in it, though.
While I do agree that Vengeance serves as a perfect counterpoint to the original I still like Die Harder a lot. Of course it is - to some extent - a copy of the original but I for me that works for the movie and against it at the same time.
I usually do not appreciate it if the sequel is too close to the original when it comes to the plot/structure (that is the hardest part of making a good sequel: Make the sequel too different people wonder what it has got to do with the original, make it too close and people wonder why they should pay to see the same movie again.)
However, in this case I felt that Die Harder is the last "real" Die Hard movie for a number of reasons: McClane is on his own, nobody believes him at first, tone and atmosphere are reminiscent of the first installment, the emotional component of saving his wife's life and the whole action takes place in a contained environment. Vengeance continues the story from the first movie (and does not feel as contrived as Die Harder in that respect) but to me it never really felt like a Die Hard movie. some might argue that Die Harder is too close to the original others (me included) might argue Vengeance strays too far away from what constitutes a Die Hard movie.
Don't get me wrong: I like Vengeance as an action movie and it is part of my Bluray collection but I always preferred Die Hard 2. I guess it is time to watch Vengeance again and see if my opinion will change but for now I will defend Die Hard 2 as my second favorite Die Hard movie (There are only three Die Hard movies!).
3 is a good film and it's good fun. But it doesn't have some of the things I liked in the first two films: it doesn't have one man dealing with the bad guys mainly in one location. It also doesn't have Holly.
I kinda don't like this discussion. It's just continuously comparing the other Die Hard movies to the original as if the sequels or other movies weren't allowed to make some deviations and changes to what has already seen. Basically what I get from this video is, that if the sequel didn't do exactly the same things that made the first movie great, then it's not good. From this, at what point can any "perfect" Die Hard sequel ever be made that its own movie and doesn't feel like an exact copy of the original?
That's kind of the point that I am making, that it would have been better not to make a sequel as the concept doesn't lend itself to ever being possible to match it. The fall though for me was in John becoming something far too unrecognisable by the fifth film, in that they made him exactly what he was a reaction against (an unlikeable superhuman).
The third Die Hard is just a different movie than the first. And it's good, except the ending imo.
The movies that came after were again different movies, and they are shit.
1. Die Hard 2. Die Hard with a Vengeance 3. Die Hard 2.
I got to watch DieHard at a drive-in when It came out. I was 3 or 4 then.So when it premiered on HBO my parents took me to one of their friends who had just gotten an HBO subscription.The viewing party was as big of an event as the superbowl.lots of food, drink's and people who hadn't seen DieHard. Everyone all huddled around a 32in top of the line tv for the time.which could also have been used for a boat anchor. I have find memories of the first film.also watched, with a vengeance,at a giant theatre the day came out.my mom took me out of school that day so we could go and watch it.Just the best times growing up!
I just love this channel. That's all.
Always a pleasure seeing one of your videos in my feed. Great stuff.
The first die hard was losely based upon a book called Nothing Lasts forever
And Die Hard 2 is loosely based on a novel called 88 Minutes. I've read both, and the movies only lift about half of the material from each.
I didnt know six years that die hard 5 exists, I miss those times.