After we went to Die Hard 4 and totally loved it, I knew it was time to re-view the first three. It had been years since we'd seen any of them and I was afraid that my memory of them was better than they actually were. Rather than renting them, I uncharacteristically decided to buy them. This way, I figured, the girls could become acquainted with the John McClane saga before they saw the 4th one when it becomes available on Netflix.
So without further adieu, here are my thoughts:
Die Hard I - By movie standards, this movie came out a long time ago. Bruce Willis was "that TV guy", and hardly the Hollywood star. This movie also looks a little dated when compared to today's effects laden, quick edit affairs. But all of those nits not withstanding: this movie rocks. I seem to remember it as kind of a new thing, a totally crazed action movie, with "humor" tossed in...and did I mention action? Sure the bad guys were bad shots and McClane was able to survive amazing jumps and dives, but it was fun. Bruce was not in full blown wisecrack mode, I think that schtick got improved in each subsequent release. My main concern was the abundance of the dreaded "F" word...it wasn't offensively overused, but still got tossed out there a little more than I wanted the girls to exposed to. But for a very good story, decent enough acting and state of the art action/effects, Die Hard, the original is tough to beat.
Die Hard II - As much as I liked Die Hard, that's how much I disliked the second one. That was my memory of the flick, and I'm "glad" to report that not much has changed. About the only thing positive that I'm able to say is that McClane saved the day, again. But other than that....dreadful. The acting was lame, even Bruce Willis appeared to be mailing it in. Casting John Amos as the good guy that's really a bad guy? Didn't buy it at all. Dennis Franz was okay as the airport security chief, but just that. He played his Hill Street character, only now the chief of Dulles (doesn't he play the same guy all the time?). The effects had progressed, so I guess they were "better", but the action was lame and choppy. Poorly edited so good action sequences were chopped, and bad action was drawn out. Throw in some absolutely unecessary gore and an absolute overload of the "F" word, to the point of embarrassment, and.... So how was the plot? Lame too. When I bought the trilogy, my friend Greg stated that I should've just bought the first and third, since the 2nd wasn't worth seeing again...he was right.
Die Hard III - I tipped my hand earlier when I said 1 & 3 were the only ones worth watching, so no surprise here. It's as if they just pretended the 2nd never happened. I even think they refer to him once as the "cop who was in that thing in LA"...and nothing about the mass carnage at Dulles. But in this movie, they righted the franchise. Willis was in New York for a change, his town. Paired up with Samuel L. Jackson, in a preposterous twist of fates, but it worked. Enough unbelievable action, along with poor shooting villians, it just worked. Sure there were some plot holes and some rough edges...but it worked.
So without further adieu, here are my thoughts:
Die Hard I - By movie standards, this movie came out a long time ago. Bruce Willis was "that TV guy", and hardly the Hollywood star. This movie also looks a little dated when compared to today's effects laden, quick edit affairs. But all of those nits not withstanding: this movie rocks. I seem to remember it as kind of a new thing, a totally crazed action movie, with "humor" tossed in...and did I mention action? Sure the bad guys were bad shots and McClane was able to survive amazing jumps and dives, but it was fun. Bruce was not in full blown wisecrack mode, I think that schtick got improved in each subsequent release. My main concern was the abundance of the dreaded "F" word...it wasn't offensively overused, but still got tossed out there a little more than I wanted the girls to exposed to. But for a very good story, decent enough acting and state of the art action/effects, Die Hard, the original is tough to beat.
Die Hard II - As much as I liked Die Hard, that's how much I disliked the second one. That was my memory of the flick, and I'm "glad" to report that not much has changed. About the only thing positive that I'm able to say is that McClane saved the day, again. But other than that....dreadful. The acting was lame, even Bruce Willis appeared to be mailing it in. Casting John Amos as the good guy that's really a bad guy? Didn't buy it at all. Dennis Franz was okay as the airport security chief, but just that. He played his Hill Street character, only now the chief of Dulles (doesn't he play the same guy all the time?). The effects had progressed, so I guess they were "better", but the action was lame and choppy. Poorly edited so good action sequences were chopped, and bad action was drawn out. Throw in some absolutely unecessary gore and an absolute overload of the "F" word, to the point of embarrassment, and.... So how was the plot? Lame too. When I bought the trilogy, my friend Greg stated that I should've just bought the first and third, since the 2nd wasn't worth seeing again...he was right.
Die Hard III - I tipped my hand earlier when I said 1 & 3 were the only ones worth watching, so no surprise here. It's as if they just pretended the 2nd never happened. I even think they refer to him once as the "cop who was in that thing in LA"...and nothing about the mass carnage at Dulles. But in this movie, they righted the franchise. Willis was in New York for a change, his town. Paired up with Samuel L. Jackson, in a preposterous twist of fates, but it worked. Enough unbelievable action, along with poor shooting villians, it just worked. Sure there were some plot holes and some rough edges...but it worked.