Advertisements

Worst to First: Ranking the Die Hard movies

Die Hard Movie Posters

Yipeekaiyay!

Before Fast And Furious or Michael Bay came along the original Die Hard set the standard for the action movie genre.  It also introduced us to Bruce Willis as police officer John McClane, an everyman hero who stood in stark contrast to the muscle-bound action stars of the time.  Although the series and the character are beloved, most of the Die Hard movies are really not all that great. Of them all, one stands as a classic, one’s pretty good, two are just okay and one’s quite awful. Let’s rank ’em and see which is which.

Die Hard 5

5. A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

Summary: When McClane’s son, CIA operative Jack (Jai Courtney), is arrested in Russia, McClane goes to free him. Jack breaks out of prison and teams up with his estranged dad to take on some villains who are in pursuit of super weapons.

What’s Good: McClane is fighting for a loved one. The character is always at his best when he’s protecting family.  The action sequences are frequent and intense. The action sequences are well-staged. Director John Moore knows how to film an action-packed setpiece.  After a brief forray into PG-13 territory, Die Hard 5 was allowed to return to an R-rating.

What’s Bad: Where to begin? The story line makes very little sense, the villain is a disappointment, the interactions between McClane and Jack don’t work too well and McClane comes off more like a superhero than the ordinary man caught up in extraordinary situations.  Making McClane a superhero removes the core of what made the first Die Hard special.  In some of the later films, the only thing that distinguishes them from any other Bruce Willis movie is the character’s name and the title.

Verdict: It’s by far the worst in the series, no question. But as bad as it is, I can think of 20 movies that were far worse.  With expectations set appropriately low for the fifth installment in an ancient action series, A Good Day to Die Hard didn’t upset me like some other sequels I have seen (Alien 3 for instance). The good thing is that it’s easy enough to ignore A Good Day To Die Hard as it’s self-contained and not an essential part of the franchise.

Next

Advertisements

Posted on September 27, 2015, in Movies, Worst to First and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 50 Comments.

  1. I agree that the first Die Hard was in a class of its own. None of the sequels are very good. Beyond that, I don’t have a strong opinion. But for my money, each successive movie was a step down. I think you’re a bit hard on Die Hard 2. Yes, the premise is a bit far fetched, but it’s not really any harder to swallow than what goes on in your typical action movie. If I’m willing to accept that the same guy keeps getting caught in the middle of terrorist plots, I can accept what happens in Die Hard 2.

    I recently watched DH2 and the movie actually addresses rerouting planes. They say that all the planes that have enough fuel to land at other airports have already been rerouted. The ones in the air are just the planes that don’t have enough fuel to land elsewhere. Yeah, that’s still ridiculous. Airlines don’t typically coast into airports on fumes. And there are two other airports very nearby Dulles. I know all this, but I can suspend my disbelief just as easily as I can for a guy jumping out of a high rise with a fire hose wrapped around his waist and living to tell the tale.

    The sequel had more of a connection to what made the original great. McClane is still something of an everyman, still saving his family, still has hair. It’s a massive step down from Die Hard and I was disappointed when I saw it the first time, but I’ll still take it over the others. Die Hard 3 has a very long stretch in the middle where the bad guys execute their plan which just completely interrupts the movie’s pacing and I recall the end being messy. Plus, it just doesn’t feel like Die Hard what with the partner and not being set in a single location. Die Hards 4 and 5 just didn’t hold my attention.

    So my rankings went:

    1. Die Hard
    2. Die Hard 2: Die Harder
    3. Die Hard With a Vengeance
    4. Live Free or Die Hard
    5. A Good Day to Die Hard

    Like

    • I pretty much feel as you do about DH2. That plot hole is really annoying, and it is big enough to fly a 747 through; not only would Washington National (or Reagan Airport as it is these days) and Baltimore-Washington be in easy range, but in a real-life emergency like that they certainly would have made Andrews available for civilian flights if necessary. But, as you say, it’s not really all that much worse than what other action films ask you to swallow. And on the whole, DH2 is a fairly effective sequel, as sequels go in the action thriller department–it’s not Aliens, but it’s not Another 48 Hours, either.

      Like

      • In a boring movie, I might worry more about why no one thinks to call the pilots on an air phone and tell them not to trust their instruments given that we later see the William Atherton character call his station from one such phone. But that would be quibbling. It’s not in the spirit of a dumb action movie like DH2. And by the way, Gene Siskel picked it as one of his top ten movies of the year that year. Not top 10 action movies. Top 10 period! Another bit o’ trvia, in an early scene, you can see Willis on a payphone (remember those) that reads Pacific Bell despite the fact that the movie does not take place on the West coast. Ooops.

        Like

        • For anyone who is curious, here is Siskels Top 10 for 1990:

          1. Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese)
          2. After Dark, My Sweet (James Foley)
          3. Avalon (Barry Levinson)
          4. The Plot Against Harry (Michael Roemer)
          5. Too Beautiful for You (Bertrand Blier)
          6. Die Hard 2 (Renny Harlin)
          7. Dances With Wolves (Kevin Costner)
          8. Reversal of Fortune (Barbet Schroeder)
          9. The Freshman (Andrew Bergman)
          10. The Godfather Part III (Francis Ford Coppola)

          He put Die Hard 2 above Oscar winner Dances With Wolves!

          Like

        • That’s a good list, although I’ve never viewed “The Plot Against Harry” or “Too Beautiful For You”. I have to check out siskelandebert.org to see if a video for their top picks of 1990 is on there (I know their choices for up and coming actors/actresses of 1990 episode is there).

          Like

        • Hey thanks for the link! People on that site do a great job with uploads for that show (especially the people named called gradepoint and firstmagnitude). Unfortunately I’ve never been able to contribute, since all I have are some segments from the “Ebert & Roeper” days (I did loan a YouTube guy a bunch of cassettes from the pro football highlight show “NFL Primetime” a few years ago though, so that’s something…something else entirely).

          Like

        • Wow, I never noticed that payphone goof; pretty neat, and if I happen to die harder again, I’ll be looking for it.

          Like

        • Another funny bit about Die Hard 2 is that they spend a fair amount of time talking about the revolutionary technology of “the 90’s”. Things like fax machines which are way too high tech for a Luddite like John McClane. Of course today, it’s weird to even see payphones.

          Like

        • Re: Real Reason Why People Hate This Film Is?

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099423/board/thread/236390998?d=236413287#236413287

          I think it was actually the fans who didn’t like it as much. The critics in general appreciated it more. You should check out (if you haven’t already) Siskel & Ebert’s review of this movie. Usually, they were quite hard on action movies but they absolutely dug this one big time. Ebert even didn’t like the original that much yet adored this one – they both just rave non stop.

          I’ve always thought this movie is like taking the 1970s disaster epics (tone & setting) and mixing them with James Bond (plot & villains) and an Arnold/Stallone movie (action, scale & pacing). It gives the movie something different to the rest.

          It is dark as you say. The best time to watch it is at Christmas. It’s a festive time movie I think.

          Like

  2. Just like Indy, this is a franchise whose esteem lies primarily on how much everyone loved the first one – and rightfully so. I, for one, am of the Law of Diminishing Returns School on this particular case.

    Like

    • Right. There’s a reason why the only Die Hard movie I own is the first.

      Like

      • Me too. When they first released the Die Hard movies on DVD, I found them on sale for $9.99 each was was a bargain price. They retailed for $20-25. At that price, I almost bought the first three but decided I really only wanted the first one.

        Like

        • On the other hand when I came across a “Four Film Favorites” set that had all 4 of the Lethal Weapons for $9.99 I grabbed it. Yeah Lw4 is weaker. But I;ll take it over any of the Die Hard sequels.

          Likewise a while back I was going throuhg the $5.00 DVD bin at Wal-Mart back in April and came across all 3 of the Mad max movies. Grabbed em. Then bought Fury Road the weak it came out.

          On the other hand I’m content to limit Robocop, 48 Hrs, Beverly Hills Cop and the aforementioned Die Hard to the first one. Terminator and Alien, it’s the first two.

          Like

        • The only Lethal Weapon movie I own is #4, but only because it came free with my DVD player. I also got Stepmom, Lost in Space, Stargate and some other crappy movie.

          I don’t own any Mad Max movies. Road Warrior is currently on my DVR. Up until Fury Road, it is the only one I would have considered buying. But my collecting days ended 10 years ago when I had kids.

          I don’t own any Beverly Hills Cop movies, Robocops, or 48 Hours. If I did, it would be the originals only. I have the sequels for Alien and Terminator, but not the originals. I skipped buying Alien on DVD because I had a wide-screen VHS copy. But in both cases, if I was “collecting”, those are holes I would feel the need to fill. Especially these days when that can be done cheaply.

          Like

        • Ha, my Samsung DVD player came with “Caddyshack”, “Gone With The Wind” (gave it to my mother), “Star 80”. and the unfortunate “Driven” (I may have mentioned this in a previous post). Thing is, they all were encased in those stupid cardboard cases with that black bar that clicks to close the case. I stack my DVD’s, so those types really stick out (even my copy of “Dark City” has that type of case).

          Like

        • Yeah the cardboard box was the standard in the early days. You got much better freebies than I did! Although based on the inclusion of Driven, I got mine a couple years earlier which meant there were fewer choices. There used to be very few DVDs to pick from.

          Like

        • Yeah, other than “Driven”, I really like all those films a lot (to be fair, even if “Driven” wasn’t “drivel”, I’m not the kind of audience for that type of picture anyway, since I don’t really like racing).

          Like

        • The common criteria I use for buying a DVD is: Is this something I like enough to go back and watch again and again. There are a lot of ones I liked but wouldn’t buy. I liked We Are Your Friends more than most. But that’s not one I see myself buying and watching multiple times. Same goes for The D Train and Spy.

          The bulk of the 240 or so that I own are ones I go back to again and again, some more than others. Some concrete examples: The first two Alien movies, the first two Terminators, Scorsese/Coen/Linklater/Tarantino/Fincher films, Jaws, Die Hard, Boogie Nights. There are some in there that I might pull out maybe once a year. But I’m glad to have them around. Concrete examples: Monster’s Ball, Pleasantville, Winter’s Bone, Crash (the 2005 one not the Cronenberg one), Finally there are the guilty pleasures, ones I like more than I probably should but keep going back to. Concrete examples: Empire Records, the original Anchorman, Wayne’s World.

          A while back one of my friends who’s into streaming asked why I even own movies on DVD anymore. I replied that I like having a physical copy of it so when I go to watch, I don’t have to worry if the internet connection is down or if the streaming service has the movie I want. Same reason why I still buy CDs occasionally.

          Like

        • If I didn’t have kids, I might still be collecting. But these days, I’m a streaming guy 100%. I can’t remember the last time I popped in a disc for myself. If it weren’t for the kids, we wouldn’t even need a DVD/BluRay player. Which is ironic because if it weren’t for the kids, I could potentially buy more DVDs/BluRays.

          Like

  3. Lebeau is correct, airlines plan fuel a little differently than that 🙂

    Like

  4. I ranked them in order of their being made.

    Die Hard is obviously the gold standard.

    DH2 for the reasons summarized in the above comment is my number 2. And I enjoy Colonel Stuart and his gang of anti-communist rogue soldiers. William Sadler may be low key as the leader of the villains, but he has menance.

    DH3 for the reasons summarized above I put lower than DH2. Samuel L. Jackson is entertaining, but as you note in the main post, Lebeau, it was simply plugging John McClane into an action script already written.

    The last two, I didn’t give them much thought.

    Like

  5. I don’t think any of the movies are really good, but then again, I’ve never liked action movies. I’m the opposite of most American viewers in that explosions, car chases and shoot outs are dead boring to me and I spend the whole time sitting there wondering when the hell they’re going to get to some good dialogue. However, I guess you’ve got to judge action films by their own standards of what they have to offer; you can’t compare them against a serious drama. I might like them better if they dealt with themes that were of any real importance or actually had anything to say; maybe some do and I just haven’t seen them. This guy did a really good youtube video called “the problem with action films” or something like that with suggestions on how to make them good again, and he used the first ‘Die Hard’ film and the last one as examples of his point. His main kvetch was that the characters are too often portrayed as invincible and superhuman and don’t show emotions, make mistakes, or enter into any real peril, and thus your aren’t quite able to care about them. It sounds as though you take a similar position.

    Like

    • That was the thing that made the original Die Hard unique. In the first movie, John McClane seemed like an everyman. He was in over his head. You could care about him. That lessened with each sequel. It became harder and harder to believe that he was just a guy with a knack for getting into trouble when every couple of years he was foiling terrorist plots.

      I didn an article about the original Die Hard and how it’s really impossible to appreciate it if you didn’t see it when it was originally in theaters. These days, seeing Bruce Willis in an action flick is the norm. But back then, action flicks starred Schwarzenegger and Stallone. And Willis was just a cut-up from a romantic TV drama. He wasn’t your standard issue action hero at all in 1988. If you see the movie today, you lose that entire aspect of the movie and it becomes very much like every one of its many imitators.

      Like

      • I saw it on VHS when I was 12 or so. It didn’t register with me one way or another, it was just a film. It’s true Bruce Willis wasn’t a bodybuilding muscle man, and ‘Die Hard’ wasn’t stupid at all compared to any film starring Jean Claude Van Damme, Dolph Lundgren or Lorenzo Llamas. By comparison I suppose it was a relatively smart film. But wasn’t the “Lethal Weapon” franchise already up and running? Mel Gibson was a comparatively average build, unintimidating looking fellow also. It wasn’t the first time someone saw an action film with comic elements starring normal-looking men.

        Like

        • The first Lethal Weapon existed. But the series didn’t really take off until LW2 in 1989. The original only grossed $65 million bucks. It was a very different kind of film. Gibson’s character was a suicidal lunatic, not at all an everyman like McClane.

          Like

        • That part is true, although as Lebeau notes, the LW series didn’t really take off until the second. There’d also been 48 Hrs 6 years prior.

          Today it’s hard to find action movies with everyman heroes. Taken at first seemed like that. But with the first sequel that diminished. The modern day action movie has basically become a superhero movie whether or not it has a superhero brand,

          Like

        • Part of what makes McClane feel like an “every man” in the first movie is that the deck is stacked against him in just about every way. Yeah, he’s a cop. He’s an off duty cop very far from his jurisdiction. He’s out of his element. He shows up hat in hand basically prepared to grovel for his wife to take him back for the holidays. When he arrives, he discovers that not only is she thriving in her new career out West, she has reverted to her maiden name. And then he goes into action with bare feet!

          But contrast, Riggs and Murtaugh were cops doing their job.

          Like

        • That being said, how do you guys feel about the “Taken” series?

          Like

        • I saw the first one. Enjoyed it for what it was. But one was enough for me.

          Like

        • I viewed the first two and liked them; I didn’t feel taken at all.

          Like

        • Saw the first two. They’re fun to watch. But not something I’d watch again and again like Die Hard.

          Like

        • I haven’t seen ‘Taken’, but it would seem to have the same issues as the ‘Die Hard’ sequels- that the Liam Neeson character is just this invincible badass who doesn’t seem to have any normal-person problems or inherent weaknesses. Also, giving it sequels seems to push the boundaries of believability- why does everyone keep fucking with this one particular guy? Not even George Zimmerman gets harassed that much. It also feels a bit incredulous that John McClane keeps getting accidentally entangled in multiple terrorist plots and deadly intrigues. Like, dude, your life suuuuucks.

          Like

        • George Zimmerman: good one.

          Like

        • In Die Hard 2, they “lampshade” the heck out of the improbability of the same thing happening to the same guy a second time. In Die Hard 3, it’s more plausible. He’s a cop and he’s actually doing his job. Not to mention the bad guy is specifically targeting him for revenge. By 4 & 5 I don’t think anyone really cared any more.

          I never saw the Taken sequels, so I can’t say much there. But the appeal of the first movie was that soft-spoken Liam Neeson turned out to be an invincible bad ass. It was fun for one movie watching an older guy politely and effortlessly mop the floor with every bad guy in Europe. But once was enough for me.

          Like

  6. Die Hard: ranking the movies in order of quality:
    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-hard/33644/die-hard-ranking-the-movies-in-order-of-quality

    You know what the best Die Hard is. You know what the worst is. But where do the others sit in the Die Hard league table?

    The CineFiles: DIE HARD FLICKS!

    Like

  7. I honestly left the survey rankings the way they were, and I also basically ignore the last two entries. Also, I see the second “Die hard” film as a better version of, say, “The Delta Force” (love that film’s instrumental theme though, even if they do wear it out). The 9/11 angle I don’t really dwell on, because it was a different time, and I don’t want something so tragic, heinous, and evil to take away from what the first few films in the series were trying to do (I understand if others feel differently). I see it as like letting the bully win then; it’s like if I got punched in the face really hard, I’d want to be like, “I’ve bitten into tougher steaks than that punch of yours”, or something like that. I just don’t want to offer something or someone like that any satisfaction.

    Like

  8. The only one that is completely unwatchable (after the first viewing) is the last one. It killed the franchise and co-stars that charisma-suck Jai Courtney. It’s terrible. And DIE HARD is not below ANY John Woo movie on the all-time action film list. No way. I left the rankings in order of their production.

    Like

    • Bad Movie Beatdown: A Good Day to Die Hard:
      http://channelawesome.com/bad-movie-beatdown-a-good-day-to-die-hard/

      He’s promised it for a long time, and its finally here! Self-confessed Die Hard fan Film Brain takes a long look at the fifth film in the series, and not even Bruce Willis can be bothered any more.

      Like

      • 10 Most Disappointing Movie Sequels Of The Last Decade

        http://whatculture.com/film/10-most-disappointing-movie-sequels-of-the-last-decade.php/9

        Michael Scott said it best in an episode of The Office when explaining the woes of the Die Hard franchise to a group of youngsters:

        Die Hard, 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’s jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter. In air. You know? He’s invincible. It just sort of lost what Die Hard was. It’s not Terminator.

        For as much fun as Live Free or Die Hard was at times (and watching a motorcycle explode into a helicopter is still pretty cool to watch), the heart and soul of the Die Hard franchise died with this movie. And, unfortunately, it was an irreversible action.

        A Good Day To Die Hard isn’t really a Die Hard movie. It’s just a generic action movie with a character who happens to be named John McClane. It’s suspiciously light on McClane’s trademark wit and jocularity, instead treating him as a superhuman who can withstand any amount of punishment and come out the other end unscathed. There’s no reason to root for him, because there’s no possibility of him losing the battle.

        The only thing this most recent cog in the Die Hard machine accomplishes is making Die Hard: With a Vengeance look untouchable by comparison.

        Like

      • Episode #129 – A Good Day to Die Hard

        http://www.flophousepodcast.com/2013/06/episode-129-a-good-day-to-die-hard/

        With A Good Day to Die Hard, does the Die Hard action series finally have its Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Meanwhile, Dan pitches the chimp teen sex comedy to end all chimp teen sex comedies, Stuart breaks AGDTDH down movie-pitch style, Elliott performs Shakespeare’s …

        Like

      • 20 Movies Since 2010 So Awful They’re Actually Harrowing

        http://whatculture.com/film/20-movies-since-2010-so-awful-theyre-actually-harrowing?page=7

        A Good Day To Die Hard

        Die Hard is one of cinema’s best action films, and after a good second film, a fabulous third film and a criminally underrated fourth film, this happened.

        John McClane goes to Russia after learning his CIA agent son (played terribly by Jai Courtney) is in trouble and finds some villains planning to… here’s the thing: it’s very difficult to know what the villains in this film are trying to do. The movie is simplistic and brainless yet very convoluted at the same time, which is maybe the only impressive thing about it.

        Inexplicably this was given to John Moore and Skip Woods. Moore can’t direct to save his life, and Woods not only can’t write decent dialogue, but his best idea of a joke is McClane shouting “I’m on vacation!” when he’s not even on vacation.

        A horrendously generic action film with no human touch, this is just one of those films where you aren’t engaged emotionally in any way, and it has ruined the beloved franchise. I’ve also got a horrible feeling the only reason they chose a Russian storyline was because of the ‘Yippie-ki-yay mother Russia’ pun.

        Like

  9. Die Hard 6 to be both origin story and sequel:
    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-hard/37364/die-hard-6-to-be-both-origin-story-and-sequel

    Die Hard 6 is also set to serve as Die Hard: Year One. Len Wiseman is returning to direct…
    Okay, best sit down.

    It’s little secret that Fox wants another Die Hard movie, and Bruce Willis – having sleepwalked his way through the piss-poor A Good Day To Die Hard – is seemingly keen to give John McClane one last hurrah too. But we never quite saw it happening like this.

    Deadline is reporting that Die Hard 6 is to be something of an origins movie.

    Take a minute.

    It’ll be a story part set in 1979, with McClane coming up as a cop in New York City, showing how he became the character we met at the start of the first movie (not that he was much of a superhero or anything at the start of the first Die Hard, but we’ll park that there for the minute). Furthermore, the film will also reportedly leave room for Willis to play the role in the present day, too. It sounds a bit Die Hard meets Looper on the surface, but it looks like it’ll be a Die Hard sequel and prequel, that’s just split.

    Furthermore, it’s looking like it’s going to involve Len Wiseman, who directed Die Hard 4.0. Wiseman pitched the angle to producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, who is likely to join the film too. Wiseman is set to direct again, and the search is now on for a screenwriter to turn all of this into a workable script.

    Who will play the younger McClane in the project that’s apparently being referred to as Die Hard: Year One obviously remains to be seen. Er, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has form here.

    We’ll keep you posted as we hear more…

    Like

    • Mother Brain’s Thoughts on Die Hard 6 News:
      http://cosblog.cosmelentertainment.com/2015/10/16/mother-brains-thoughts-on-die-hard-6-news/

      It was the holiday season of 1988 and I was 5 years old when my parents took me to our next door neighbor’s Christmas party. All adults and no kids. The big attraction of the night was the fact that our neighbor had just purchased the first Die Hard movie on VHS. I still have vague memories about it. I just remember the adults being glued to the television screen and for myself to be gripped by the action. The bad part was my parents decided to take me home midway through the movie.

      I saw the first two Die Hard movies in their entirety when they played on HBO. It wasn’t until Die Hard With a Vengeance that I got the big screen experience and there was no disappointment there. I became a fan afterwards and then became an even bigger fan when the Die Hard Trilogy game hit the original Playstation. Didn’t know what to expect with the PG-13 rated Live Free or Die Hard, but I was entertained nonetheless. The least said about A Good Day to Die Hard, the better. You can see my scathing review below:

      Now comes the news that Fox wants a new Die Hard movie that will serve as both a 70s set prequel with a young John McClane and a modern day sequel with Bruce Willis returning to the signature role. Live Free or Die Hard’s director, Len Wiseman, is in talks to helm it. Now my pal Cos expressed his disgust for the new concept. I’m here to say that I’m a little more optimistic. While the last film was downright terrible and the studio has been notorious as of late for its handling of FANTASTIC FOUR, this bold concept is not exactly the worst idea in the world. Here’s why:

      DIE HARD YEAR ONE – I discovered this series at my local comic shop about a year ago. It chronicles John McClane’s first year in the NYPD twelve years before the events of the original classic. I haven’t read the series in full; however, the concept of learning more about McClane’s past is an answer to something I’ve been begging for….

      RETURNING CHARACTERS – I felt the recent Die Hard films were in need of familiar faces taking some part in the stories. By the last film, I was already missing Holly, Sgt. Al Powell, Zeus, Argyle, Dick Thornberg, etc. Here’s an opportunity to bring them back to the fold. Especially with the way the last film ended, it felt as if McClane was healing the rift with his broken family. First Lucy, then Jack, and now Holly could be brought back. Bonnie Bedelia needs work anyway!

      TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF BRUCE WILLIS – As much as I admire the man for his best films and the TV classic Moonlighting, Bruno is all about dollars and cents these days. He put no care into his last outing as John McClane because there was no talented director or screenplay to drive him. As a major fan of the series, not only will Len Wiseman energize Bruno but he’ll also connect the dots to the other movies.

      NEW FRANCHISE, NEW STAR – If the concept takes off and the right actor is cast, a new Die Hard prequel series with young McClane could be intriguing because we would see his whole life unfold up until the day he went on that plane to visit his family on Christmas 1988. I have no clue who should fill the role. I’m hoping it’s not Channing Tatum. Some suggested Joseph Gordon-Levitt due to his outstanding performance as a young Bruno in Looper. That’s just too repetitive for me.

      A POTENTIALLY MEMORABLE VILLAIN – The last two Die Hard films were weak in the villains department. But it’s easy to argue that no one has ever topped Alan Rickman’s unforgettable performance as Hans Guber. It was effortless and Oscar-worthy for that time. I also have admiration for Jeremy Irons in Vengeance as well. Now this breaking news has indicated that the premise will involve a case that comes back to bite McClane in the ass. With a proper story and a strong villain to tie with it, this film could bring the entire series full circle and maybe we’ll understand why McClane is always the right guy at the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Like

  10. 9 Abandoned Sequel Plots That Sound Better Than The Movies We Got

    http://whatculture.com/film/9-abandoned-sequel-plots-that-sound-better-than-the-movies-we-got?page=8

    Die Hard 24/7

    A Good To Die Hard was a shockingly poor entry in the series, which saw Bruce Willis shuffle lifelessly through a non-existent plot. Whatever passion the actor once had for the series had clearly disappeared, and the noisy action spectacle around him did little to disguise this.

    Before A Good Day To Die Hard came about to destroy whatever goodwill the franchise had left, the concept of partnering John McClane with 24’s Jack Bauer was briefly considered. The show had just come to an end around this time, and since Fox was hoping to launch 24 as a movie and revitalize the Die Hard brand, some well-paid executive had the brainwave to partner them up.

    Now, this either could have been the best thing ever or a complete disaster, but the mind boggles at the idea of seeing these two manly dudes trying to work together. At the very least it’s hard to imagine Willis looking so sleepy if Kiefer Sutherland is constantly yelling at him.

    The idea was nixed by Sutherland himself, who wanted the 24 movie to be a solo affair.

    Like

  11. How The Die Hard Movies Changed

    Like

  12. 10 Movie Franchises That Just Kept Getting Worse

    http://whatculture.com/film/10-movie-franchises-that-just-kept-getting-worse?page=7

    Die Hard

    Die Hard will always be remembered as one of, if not the, greatest action movies ever made. John McTiernan’s original is so good that it has retained its reputation as an eminently watchable all-time classic even as Bruce Willis makes a conscious attempt to run the franchise into the ground.

    Renny Harlin’s Die Hard 2 took the classic sequel route of doing the same thing again, except bigger and more expensive, and crafted an entertaining enough spectacle. McTiernan returned for the sorely underrated Die Hard With a Vengeance, that gave the series a shot in the arm by turning it into a buddy picture and capped off one of the great action trilogies. Or so we thought; it was after the series lay dormant for a decade that things really went to sh*t.

    Die Hard 4.0 is a decent enough action flick, but it is not a Die Hard movie. John McClane is no longer a relatable every-man, but a superhero that can fell fighter jets with his bare hands and destroy helicopters by throwing cars at them. The fifth installment just sucks on almost every level from the script to the cast and direction, marking a sad nadir for one of Hollywood’s greatest action heroes

    And just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, along comes Len Wiseman to reveal Die Hard: Year One, a prequel following a young McClane in 1979. No. Just no.

    Like

  13. Hey Lebeau, been a long time since I’ve voiced my opinion and perspective on movies so here goes. Die hard 1, 2, and 3 great movies and die hard 4 was good too but I like the unrated version better. Die Hard 5 was shit. It might as well have been called a shitty way to die hard.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: