After enjoying Live Free or Die Hard the other day, I proceeded straight to the bonus features on the DVD to watch the 30 minute Kevin Smith interview with Bruce Willis. In the rather entertaining and candid Q&A, Willis tosses out the comment that he was never satisfied with the two middle Die Hard films. I found this to be odd, at least in regard to the second film, which I have always considered a solid followup to the original.
So for the sake of having something to blog about, I went back and revisited the first three films in the Die Hard quadrilogy...
Now without a shadow of a doubt, the original Die Hard still holds up. There's a reason it launched a genre called "Die Hard on a... (insert thing here)". It has set the standard for every action-thriller that has been released since, and almost nothing has come close. The situations within the universe this movie creates are mostly credible and the dialogue isn't too jokey. Rating: 5.0 stars out of 5.0.
Die Hard 2 on the other hand, well... I'd always considered Die Hard 2 to be one of those sequels that while not coming close to the original, was still a strong effort nonetheless. But watching it now made me realize that I've made a huge mistake. This movie is ridiculous.
The dialogue is the biggest offender. Too much of it *sounds* scripted instead of like things people would actually say. Everyone has a witty one liner or snappy catchphrase to say, and often times they don't even make a lick of sense. At times it's cringe-worthy. Co-screenwriter Steven E. de Souza could be at fault, but then again maybe not. After all, he co-wrote the first film, and other solid flicks through the years like Ricochet and 48 Hrs. But he also wrote an incredible amount of crap, like Knock Off, Judge Dredd and Hudson Hawk.
Die Hard 2 also suffers from being part of the "sequel machine" that used to exist in Hollywood around that time. The sequel machine just cranked out movies with the same cast and simply tried to outdo the previous film instead of trying to make a better film. Well, bigger isn't always better.
The story is fine (even though I'm still unsure of the point of the entire thing) and there are some top-notch action sequences, but Die Hard 2 just doesn't hold up today. And that's a shame, because at the time it seemed like a worthy sequel. Rating: 3.0 stars out of 5.0.
Then in 1995, everyone basically took a dump all over Die Hard with a Vengeance for being too detached from the first two films, essentially killing the franchise. But it's not as bad as everyone made it out to be.
The addition of Samuel L. Jackson really propels things for the first hour or so, putting the film right on track to be on par with the original. But things start to slip creatively right when things get to the "water jug" scene (I *still* don't understand how they solve that riddle by the way), and then the film's greatest flaw is its total lack of a satisfying ending. Several endings were attempted... the one in the final cut doesn't work well, and the one included on the DVD -- while interesting and certainly a departure for the series -- ultimately doesn't succeed either. And there is some unfortunate imagery of New York in peril that obviously wasn't a problem pre-9/11. In retrospect though, it's easily better than the second film. Rating: 4.0 stars out of 5.0.
Finally, 12 years later, the series is revisited and revitalized in the form of Live Free or Die Hard. McClane is still just a cop working a beat (something I've always appreciated about the series... the fact that the character never becomes a superstar cop or anything), and is again paired up with a comic relief partner (this time in the form of Apple spokesman and champion dodgeball player Justin Long). Also like the previous film, the first two thirds are pretty great, and then things get a little hokey towards the end.
There's a sequence near the finale involving a semi truck, a crumbling highway overpass and a harrier jet that is one of the most ridiculous action sequence ever committed to film, but yet I really had no problem with it. The film was so much fun up to that point that I didn't even care. But the fact that the bad guys have a very similar plan to the group of baddies from part 3 is a little disappointing, and Timothy Olyphant only partially works as the villain. Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5.0.
So, the revised list of Die Hards, from best to worst:
Die Hard
Live Free or Die Hard
Die Hard with a Vengeance
Die Hard 2
So I was getting lunch yesterday, which consisted of a nice holiday meal of turkey, ham, stuffing, mashed potatoes and green beans, and as I was going down the cafeteria line, this interaction occurred between myself and the server...
Recent Comments