I actually watched all 5 Die Hard movies during a snow storm 2 months back. I can confirm that 1 and 2 are the perfect Christmas movies.
McCain is interesting, because he is a reluctant hero, and that makes him stand out in the late 1980s, when the box office is dominated by muscular one-man army types like Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Willis plays him perfectly too, with his dead pan snarky style, and not only is he so much fun to watch as a everyday man thrust into an impossible situation, he is also relatable at the same time.
1 remains the highwater mark, as it is the perfect mix between the detective and action thriller genres. The actions are very good, as there are a couple of memorable and even nowadays iconic action sequences, and the naturalistic plot twists are a great change of pace that keep the audience engaged in the story. 2 is still decent, but there are fewer memorable action sequences, perhaps only two or three, and the plot twists are no longer all that fresh or creative. Die Hard with a Vengeance actually bores me, because the setup takes way too long, and a confrontation never happens until near the end of the movie. Willis is also extremely out-of-shape at the time, so McCain looks slow, and there are actually very few action sequences. Worst of all, the few action sequences that Willis do are actually quite simple, and he still looks terrible in them. Meanwhile, the sidekick is given more to do, but Samuel L. Jackson's character is essentially useless. 4 is much, much better, but that is only because Willis is finally in shape, and the action sequences are memorable again. In fact, they are probably the best from the entire series. The plot, unfortunately, is formulaic at this point, so everything is rather predictable. Finally, 5 is just plain bad. The sequences are dull, once again, and the plot is just plain stupid. The pace is fast enough that I am not exactly bored, but I am left with mere empty calories.
My score would be:
Die Hard 7.25/10
Die Hard 2 6.5/10
Die Hard with a Vengeance 5.5/10
Live Free or Die Hard 6.5/10
A Good Day to Die Hard 4.5/10
You're missing all of the reflexive elements. John McClane displays great reflexes as he's choking bad guys and throwing them off of the side of a very reflective building while walking on glass and then, without pause, coming up with terrific one liners. You don't get more reflexive than that.
I'm going to rhapsodize a bit about Die Hard because I've given some thought as to why it's a "perfect action film".
As a point of background, my Dad took my brother and I to see it in the theater days after already seeing it with my Mom (you could get into R movies with a parent). I guess he figured we'd be more appreciative.
1. John McClane is a blue-collar every man hero.
-He gets the crap kicked out of him in every possible way. His fights are not easy, but hard. He struggles against individuals one on one and wins through sheer determination or luck and grit as opposed to sublime combat skills.
-He also manages to always say the most appropriately comic thing at the most appropriate time, in a way that everyone wishes they could.
2. The opposition is formidable.
-It is established early how professional and dangerous the terrorists are, when it comes to their planning, their weaponry and their general disposition. It adds to the tension because being outnumbered by these guys appears to be a significant obstacle.
-Also, they are distinct individuals with names and dress. These aren't endless masked thugs but members of an actual team with roles and responsibilities. You can sort of follow along with McClane as he works his way through the opposition.
3. The support by law enforcement is pathetic and hilarious to the point of absurdity.
-John can never rely on or be seen to require the help of the outside. Not only that, they even actively work against him (in terms of the chopper) and are never appreciative of his efforts. It magnifies the sense of isolation and his challenge.
-Law enforcement also serves as an additional source of comic relief: from Agent Johnson and Special Agent Johnson (not related), to Deputy Chief Duane T. Robinson getting *******ed on national TV, to the SWAT guy pricking his finger on a flower in a rose garden.
4. The primary villain is compelling.
-This might be the most important element. Hans Gruber eats up screen time and is arguably as entertaining as John McClane is. Stylish, debonair, you're almost rooting for him by the end of the film.
-Karl provides intimidating and effective back-up.
5. Strong support characters who keep things light.
-The film does a good job of providing entertaining scenes to a wide range of support characters, from his wife (What idiot put you in charge? You did, when you murdered my boss.), to Argyle the limousine driver, to Theo the amusing computer expert, to Al Powell as the only emotional lifeline he has.
-What about Ellis? The guy that is such a douche that you don't actually mind when Hans shoots him? (Hans, BOOBIE, I'm your white knight! Maybe it's the heebs, maybe it's the camel jockeys...)
-The reporter subplot is a lot of screen time for a sidequest but provides additional elements of comedy at the expense of the media (including the scummy reporter Richard Thornburg and the idiot anchorman).
-The characters manage to be distinctive and memorable without a lot of exposition required.
6. Pacing is excellent.
-For an action movie, it does an admirable job of pacing, from breath-taking stunts and firefights to lulls that provide interactions among the terrorists, the terrific scene where Alan Rickman uses his American accent, to Al and John having their bromance moment.
7. It's still a bit of a time capsule.
-As an older person, the movie doesn't seem that old to me, but there are obvious reminders like the lack of cellular phones and Holly informing her pregnant assistant that having some champagne is ok because "that baby is ready to tend bar".
8. When I say it's perfect...
-Well, obviously it's not really perfect. Beyond the obvious plot holes or mechanisms to delay the conclusion of the film, there are a few elements that to me, even today seem a bit out of place.
-Karl coming back to life just in time for Al to get over his fear of shooting people seemed tacked on and a bit gratuitous.
-The FBI seemed unusually bloodthirsty for no particular reason.
-John spends hours in the building and kills many terrorists but never finds a pair of shoes.
Overall though, it's a movie that I never really tire of, which is surprising.
He did find a pair of shoes, but they are too small.
McClane avoiding death by jumping on to a hovering fighter jet might be memorable, but it's certainly not good.I actually watched all 5 Die Hard movies during a snow storm 2 months back. I can confirm that 1 and 2 are the perfect Christmas movies.
McClane is interesting, because he is a reluctant hero, and that makes him stand out in the late 1980s, when the box office is dominated by muscular one-man army types like Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Willis plays him perfectly too, with his dead pan snarky style, and not only is he so much fun to watch as a everyday man thrust into an impossible situation, he is also relatable at the same time.
1 remains the highwater mark, as it is the perfect mix between the detective and action thriller genres. The actions are very good, as there are a couple of memorable and even nowadays iconic action sequences, and the naturalistic plot twists are a great change of pace that keep the audience engaged in the story. 2 is still decent, but there are fewer memorable action sequences, perhaps only two or three, and the plot twists are no longer all that fresh or creative. Die Hard with a Vengeance actually bores me, because the setup takes way too long, and a confrontation never happens until near the end of the movie. Willis is also extremely out-of-shape at the time, so McClane looks slow, and there are actually very few action sequences. Worst of all, the few action sequences that Willis do are actually quite simple, and he still looks terrible in them. Meanwhile, the sidekick is given more to do, but Samuel L. Jackson's character is essentially useless. 4 is much, much better, but that is only because Willis is finally in shape, and the action sequences are memorable again. In fact, they are probably the best from the entire series. The plot, unfortunately, is formulaic at this point, so everything is rather predictable. Finally, 5 is just plain bad. The sequences are dull, once again, and the plot is just plain stupid. The pace is fast enough that I am not exactly bored, but I am left with mere empty calories.
My score would be:
Die Hard 7.25/10
Die Hard 2 6.5/10
Die Hard with a Vengeance 5.5/10
Live Free or Die Hard 6.5/10
A Good Day to Die Hard 4.5/10
I feel like it was also shamelessly ripping off of the Last of Us' popularity with an almost identical dynamic and storytelling tricks. And that was already something that was bland and guilty of the kind of thing you're talking about to begin with, IMO.
