The DIE HARD series: Likes, dislikes, and your hopes for 4.0

The original is a masterpiece. Stripped down, raw, everything always facillitating the grander scheme, and everything working in tandem with the constraints of the plot. Willis plays a perfect character, and it has a perfect villain.

The sequels got "bigger" and more forgettable, memorable only for little bits and pieces. Everything that's been mentioned so far in concerning "Die Hard 4" seems to be in the wrong direction. This series was best when McClane was on his own, the lone warrior behind enemy lines. If they add kids, computers, and all that crap, that doesn't seem to be the direction they're going. If you're going to call it "Die Hard 4", give us a reason to believe it other than Willis and the names.

I love all three. The first is just about perfect and my favorite action film(my only complaints are a few obvious shots of stuntmen). The second has good action, and the third is great except for the end. To me the ending just seemed like they needed to get things wrapped up and weren't sure how to do it. Y'know the whole movie is him being chased around New York City all day, then for the end it's like hours later in Canada with tons of backup.

And I'm not really excited about the idea of number four. Every time someone mentions it, I just think about Lethal Weapon 4, Beverly Hills Cop 3, and Terminator 3. None of those really felt like the previous movies.

Loved the first two but thought the third outing was ok....it just seemed like something was missing.

I'm not sure about a fourth but I gotta agree with stew, bringing in a bunch of kids just seems unneeded and would go totally against what makes McClain so great(his going alone against what seems unbeatable odds)

Watch the original ending on the dvd.

God I hope they change the title though.
4.0? That's kinda dumb.

I remember seeing the first Die Hard in the theater. One of the first 'R' rated movies I saw as a kid (without a parent - I was 15). The shootout in the office was so goddamn loud and just kept going - SHOOT THE GLASS! I haven't heard a firefight in a movie yet that can match the feeling I got from that scene. Intense, loud. McClane summed it up best when he was huddled against that desk as glass was shattering all around him - "Jesus Chirst!"

4.0? I could do without it. The first is one of those movies that I think is a really good movie, but I'm not a huge fan of. The second I hate, but I enjoy the third.

I enjoy all three. I think the first is a genuinely great movie, and important in its own way to American cinema history. The second is entertaining for its ludicrousness and a few decent set pieces, but is in no way a good film. The third is entertaining, with a good buddy dynamic and a decent villain performance, but a bit flat overall.

There was absolutely no reason to make this a franchise except for more moola. The first one is true greatness, the rest are forgettable and totally unnecessary. Not to mention unbelievable that all these things would happen to one guy. And I can't for the life of me fathom that they're going to do it again.

The first one's a classic, there's no doubt about that. The second one is a guilty pleasure, yeah it's the same set up but goddamit, I love it. The third one was an excellent capper to the series and a nice return to form for McTiernan. Making a 4th reeks of bleeding the series dry and adding Timberlake to the equasion is just wrong, I feel this series heading into Lethal Weapon 3 territory, it's just unnecessary and it's a shame because Bruce was actually getting some cred back with Hostage.

I figure I'm with the vast majority of people who consider the first film the defining action film and the sequels as good flicks, not great but worth the price of admission. I do not want to see a fourth film get made. Look at Lethal Weapon 4, it was terrible and they had Chris Rock and Jet Li. What were they offering for Die Hard 4? Timberlake and Affleck? No thank you, I'd rather the series stand as is without a crappy fourth part.

I dig all three of the Die Hard movies, but the first one is definitely tops, for all the reasons already mentioned on here. Han Gruber was awesome. So was pretty much everything else. Die Hard probably kick started my love for movies in its own way. I always liked movies, but I was always kind of wishy washy about violence and blood and gore. Die Hard changed all that for me. It was probably the first "violent" movie I really got in to. The violence was pretty hard at the time and when it came to hand to hand stuff, more than anything you got the snese that these people were really trying to kill each other. It was kill or be killed, and didn't feel scripted as much as it felt like raw fury and self preservation. Awesome stuff.

The second one isn't as good, and most action movies aren't, but I still love it anyway. I like seeing the T-1000/John Dogget having a small part. Similar situation sure, but that's part of it's charm. for me it works. Another blast of fun.

The third one is great too, mostly for the Jackson/Willis dynamic, but also because it didn't really feel like another rehash type situation. It was different enough to stand out and McClain held it together making it feel like a Die Hard flick.

I've seen all three a bunch of times, and I'm not done with them yet. I think a 4th is unnecessary but I have enjoyed unecessary sequels before (a la Lethal Weapon 4). Since it seems inevitable at this point I just hope it doesn't feel too watered down. I hope it maintains a hard "Die Hard" sort of edge and doesn't feel like a commercial for its new stars... We'll see. I won't write it off, but I won't expect much either. There's always the possibility that we could be really suprised. Time will tell.

I agree that its dumb but, c'mon
DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER????

Now its funny and great for naming bad sequel ideas like coneheads 2: cone harder!, but DH2's title was pretty cheesy...

Completely agree on all the love for Die Hard and, as has been discussed here and other recent threads, it's place in cinematic history.

Die Harder was ok, but nowhere near the original. Still my least favorite in the series [so far].

With a Vengance is a mostly solid flick. It comes *this* close to being fantastic. It takes the claustrophbia of the first two and expands it to include all of Manhattan. I did like the addition of Jackson, but I still prefer Bruce working alone. In fact, the all-too-brief scene inside the bank with McClane in the elevator is one of my favorite pieces in the film. It felt more like the original than any else in the sequels combined. I really enjoy so much of this film, though it defintely loses its legs at the end. I've heard about the alternate ending, but haven't seen it yet. In the process of tracking down a Special Edition DVD now.

I am not holding out much hopes for 4.0. Nothing I have read about it so far interests me. Stunt casting aside-- do we really need to revisit the McClane character 10+ years gone by?

Old School

The only way a 4th Die Hard movie will work is if they go back what made the first one kick so much ass.

The Bruce needs to be put through the ringer.

Maybe lose an eye or break a limb or two. Die Hard's intensity, in my opinion, was a result of how fucked up Bruce got. I mean the whole barefoot, running on glass thing was genius.

The beauty of Die Hard was that you couldn't believe how anyone could survive such an epic beatdown.

Willis plays the heroic punching bag better than anyone.

The thing that made Die Hard work for me was the freshness of Bruce Willis as an unlikely action hero. A dozen movies later with Willis as a hard-nosed so-and-so and it just doesn't seem too interesting.

Even though the second film is maligned, I thought that it had some good twists, and great performances by Dennis Franz and Fred Thompson. The whole film has that late 80's/early 90's action movie feel to it, which I like.

I like the third film, but I hit the floor laughing EVERY time he surfs the dumptruck. Read it again: SURFS THE DUMPTRUCK. WTF?!? I do enjoy the fight (beating?) that happens on the boat, but we all know that McLane would have brain damage after that one.

So, the first is a great film, and the second and third do well enough. And I think they work because they are different from each other in enough ways to make them cool.

And I don't need a fourth one AT ALL. Perfect way to fuck up a decent box set of films.

Testify, brother, testify.
The first is almost a perfect example of how to make a really good action film that does not insult the intelligence, but 2 and 3 were just "blah".

Of course it was made a franchise to earn more money. For what other reason are they created?

The first two films are fantastic, the third strays into Lethal Weapon territory and loses the intensity.

So, although it would be a bit silly to have another set-up like the first two films, I hope it'll be some sort of edge-of-your-seat thriller and not a buddy film.

Bring back Argyle, then kill him.

My thoughts on the DH saga thus far:

DH: An action classic that's laid down the template for every action flick since. Alan Rickman played one of the greatest villains in cinema history.

DH2: Not as good as the first but enjoyable for it's lame-brained thrills. It's cool seeing notable actors in small supporting roles (Robert Patrick and John Leguizamo). The scenes between Holly McClane and Dick Thorneberg drag the film down and serve to be more annoying than amusing. It certainly has the best climax of the series.

DH3: IMO, the second best of the three. Irons is a great villain. Willis and Jackson have great chemistry. I appreciate the filmmaker's approach to trying something new with the series (a la' Temple of Doom to Raiders). It's a terrific action film, though it does start to fall apart at the end and suffers from a weak,abrupt ending.
Note: the deleted ending on the dvd set is interesting to watch.

In conclusion, I really don't care about a 4th Die Hard. The series has run it's course.

Agreed that Die Hard succeeds because it fleshes out the smaller, supporting characters. I mean, who didn't cheer when you saw Reggie VelJohnson holding the revolver at the end?

What exactly is the alternate ending about on the third one? I don't have the dvd's yet and have no loot to rent em...

hmmm....that does sound better than the original ending. Thanks!

The problem with that is it effectively turns McClane into the terrorist, and Simon into the victim, which might work on paper, but in the scene itself Willis plays it a little too hardcore, and Irons plays it a little too 'innocent bystander'. It's too much of a weird reversal.

I recently did a "Die Hard" marathon in an attempt to give each of them a second chance.

"Die Hard" is perfect. While there are many great action movies, they often have elements of science fiction, fantasy, or a period setting. As far as straight bullets and explosion action flicks go, this is my vote for the best of all time. You care about every character. Bruce Willis as McClane humanizes the action hero, and gets beat to shit. The stripped down, minimalist approach works so well. Shooting the glass, running out of ammo, barefoot, everything works together within the constraints of the setting and plot. At no time do they cheat or take the east way out. McTiernan set up this huge puzzle, and then let McClane solve it. Its masterful, well-scripted, and very well-acted.

"Die Hard 2" sucks. They were sort of trapped I suspect, wisely choosing to try something a bit different but in the process, they lost what made the original so good. For all the grander elements like a deposed dictator, shadowy military figures, and the beauracracy of the airport being against McClane, it just doesn't work. Harlin doesn't shoot action as well as McTiernan, and not a single one of the sequences matches even the least exciting moment of "Die Hard". And this should be definitive proof that Europeans make better villains than Americans. William Sadler cannot even compete with Alan Rickman. Willis tries the one-liners again, but this McClane is not put through the ringer. The desperate, tapped behind enemy lines angle is nowhere to be seen, and it hurts the film.

"Die Hard: With a Vengeance" is half a good movie. The breakneck, non-stop nature of the first is back, and very welcome. Samuel L. Jackson is a good sidekick, and Jeremy Irons is a fantastic villain in a really nice performance. The scheme has echoes of the original, and I appreciated the grandness of it. The opening half hour is golden in Harlem. But once Irons starts getting away with the gold, it starts to drag. The ending is pretty lame, even more so knowing that a better one lay on the cutting room floor. And I hate it when a sequel starts to tear down the high marks of the previous films. "Alien 3" killed off the crew, "Rocky 5" had him lose his fortune and end up back in poverty where he began, and this tears down the marriage that the first two saved. Its a small gripe maybe, but it irritated me.

I see no reason for a 4th film at all. I see even less reason for one centered around any new characters like kids. Bruce Willis makes "Die Hard". When you take the action off him and make it too big, especially something involving computers, then you're just using the name. And that sucks.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree, the movie may not be perfect but it's still a terrific action film. Harlin has a more bombastic style than McTiernan. I'm glad this film looked and felt different than the original, there was no way they could recapture the essence of the original and I liked that this didn't try to remake the original classic, although plotwise, it's pretty much the same. I also disagree that McClane wasn't put through the ringer, he looked pretty fucked up at the end to me.

"Die Hard 2" would be better for me, perhaps, it if it wasn't called "Die Hard 2". I just think that, when you make a sequel, you're going to be compared to the first. If you don't match up on any level, its almost worse than if you just made a new film. Whatever other things you liked about it, McClane is nowhere near as injured, bloody, or broken in this one as he was before. "With a Vengeance" thankfully remedied this, having characters constantly remarking how fucked up he looks, constantly getting splattered with blood, the works.

I agree with the assessment of Harlin though. I've seen "Mindhunters", and while it is pretty ridiculous plot-wise and sure to be a bomb, it embraces its over the top qualities and Harlin just runs with it. And there are few deaths sure to be worthy of a CHUD "best kills" list.