I consider the original Die Hard to be the best action film ever made, so it’s an understatement to say each new installment starts off with a massive handicap.
Die Hard 2 is a simple, by-the-numbers retread best left forgotten. Die Hard with a Vengeance manged to achieve some of the greatness of the original (mainly thanks to the return of John McTiernan and Sam Jackson) but peters out after the 50 minute mark.
12 years later, we have July’s Live Free or Die Hard:
And the vastly different International Version
Positive Thoughts: Despite a dozen years away, Willis appears to have settled back into the McClaine character nicely. Both versions of the trailer are significant improvements over the fairly terrible teaser released earlier in the year…and uh, that’s it.
Negative Thoughts: Over-stylized, XXX-style action + bad CGI + Len Weisman + a plot more suited for “24″ or “James Bond” = potential disaster.
I’ve read multiple versions of the script, but absolutely none of them were able to retrofit WW3.COM’s premise to fit the Die Hard mold. Despite best efforts, time ran out and they went with what they had.
I’m still willing to reserve judgment until the film product, but this is looking grim…
I think it’s the plot that makes me shake my head the most. Well, except for the director. And the title; as a general rule, if your find yourself looking at a poster, and you wonder what the title is, because all you see is the tagline, and then you realize the title IS the tagline … it’s a bad title.
Anyway, it’s just not a Die Hard plot. Making him into Jack Bauer is kind of the exact opposite of what the first movie was about – a guy randomly caught up in circumstances and needing to improvise as he goes along – and feels very cynical as well.
Comparing the two trailers is funny. If I were American I’d feel slightly insulted.
I consider the original Die Hard to be the best action film ever made
Hear, hear. In competition with The Matrix.
Die Hard 2 gets a bad rep. It’s not as good as the first one, but that is an impossible act to follow. But it is much more brutal and has some awesome set pieces that make it a very good action film. The air plane crash, for example, is expertly edited.
Best thing about Die Hard 3 was Bruce Willis running around with the “I Hate Niggers” sign in Harlem. Otherwise it’s too, I don’t know, undefined? Running around New York answering riddles before bombs blow up? It was like it was missing something.
Die Hard 4.0 (a better title) looks like shit. I liked the McClane in the Brazilian jungle idea that was thrown around. Is it true the original WW3.COM script had the terrorists blowing up a dam and flooding New Orleans?
Agreed about The Matrix, however (unlike Die Hard) the sequels have directly impacted my enjoyment of the original. I’m sure that will change over time, though. I’d throw Aliens at the top as well, but it straddles the category line.
re: Die Hard 3. It is a very down-market sequel. However, it has that spark…a sense of playfulness/fun in the proceedings that the second film was lacking.
Irons is awful. The second hour is nearly unwatchable and the entire thing is way too over-the-top and cartoonish, but I can’t help but to love it. It’s mainly thanks to the chemistry between Willis & Jackson (who was a last-minute sub for Laurence Fishburne, thank God). The opening explosion and subway derailment, both accomplished without CGI, are jaw dropping. As is John McTiernan’s hand-held camera work which was revolutionary for big budget films of that era.
Anyway, it’s trash but enjoyable trash.
Yes, one of the Die Hard 4 scripts involved the flooding of New Orleans. The next revision moved the action to a Natural Gas Pipeline in Pennsylvania, but I believe the shooting draft is different.
Funny thing: in the original WW3.com script, the ending involved commercial jetliners crashing into Midtown Manhattan. That’s actually what killed the project.
I’m also puzzling over “best action film”, because I’m not a big fan of the genre. If I wrote out a list of my top 20 films, maybe even my top 50, there wouldn’t be an action film among them.
I’ve managed to forget what the other Matrix sequels were about. Maybe I’ll watch them again the day Dave Poland comes with his explanation for Matrix Revolutions.
Anyway, it’s trash but enjoyable trash.
Basically how I feel Die Hard 2.
Die Hard 3 does have a funny routine going between Willis and Jackson, probably it’s saving feature, humor being the thing most lacking from the previous sequel. Never really thought about the hand-held camera in the film, but it is cool that McTiernan dared to try something different for the film.
If you go by the IMDb chart for action films The Good, The Bad & The Ugly comes out on top, which is slightly wrong. I love the film, but comparing the action sequences between that film and Die Hard, and there’s no doubt towards which is the better action film.
List also reminded me of another contender for best action film: Terminator 2.
Yeah, Westerns are not action films, and vice versa.
I just looked that list over, and for those that I consider action films, I’d have to go with Raiders of the Lost Ark as my favorite.
I’ve never disliked Die Hard, but I’ve never thought of it as a great film, either. I guess it’s a cut above other ’80s ‘classics’ like Top Gun, but I’ve always thought of it as pretty much in the same vein. And McTiernan could never stage big action setpieces as well as Cameron or Mann.
I’d agree with Jaydro that it hasn’t aged well, also, particularly in regards to Alan Rickman’s performance. I thought he was funny when I was a kid, but now that every bad guy since has seemingly been patterned after it, it seems more than a bit thin.
I don’t know if I would count Star Wars (which incidently, has aged far worse than Die Hard).
Yeah, it’s action…but fantasy/sci-fi action seems to fall into a different category. It’s the same reason why Lord of The Rings wouldn’t count either. It’s all a little tricky…
Raiders & Speed would absolutely make the list, alongside the original Terminator. For pure cheesy adrenaline: I’d also include things like Hard Boiled and Commando (near-Grindhouse?). Would Jurassic Park count?
Man, so unfair. Rickman does an amazing job with one of the ultimate scenery-chewing (first wrote ‘chewery-scening’) villains, but does so good a job that he becomes the archetype for all other actors playing white-terrorist-leader-villains, and is now considered a cliché. Talk about doing too good a job. I, personally, can’t hold that against him.
That does remind me of another great one: Heat. Just thinking about that bankrobbery scene gives me goosebumps.
Mad Max is awesome. Like you said, Jaydro, big time contender for ultimate ‘grindhouse’ film, in competition with Escape from New York.
Is grindhouse becoming another description for a subgenre? It’s fitting, somehow, but I suppose the purists will start talking about grindhouse requiring it be two films in one. And what’s the subgenre?
Time travel logistics have never really bothered me, unless it’s way out dumb, which I don’t think the Terminator films are. But you seeing it in conjunction with Bill & Ted is funny/unlucky. That sure must have colored your experience of the film.
Holy Christ, how could I forget Robocop?
Man, so unfair. Rickman does an amazing job with one of the ultimate scenery-chewing (first wrote ‘chewery-scening’) villains, but does so good a job that he becomes the archetype for all other actors playing white-terrorist-leader-villains, and is now considered a cliché. Talk about doing too good a job. I, personally, can’t hold that against him.
Man, that is unfair, but it’s not quite what I mean. Allow me to analogize:
When Pulp Fiction came out, it was great. Great dialogue, segmented non-linear storytelling, very highly stylized all around.
Of course, it led to a million Pulp Fiction-ish clones. Hell, we’re still seeing them today. But you know what? Pulp Fiction is still great, because it does what it does better than all the knockoffs that came after.
In contrast, I think Rickman’s performance just seems lame now. I’m not blaming him for all the knockoffs that came after; I’m just saying that all those knockoffs have made it easy to see just how thin of a performance it really was. There was just nothing to it except for a few amusing line readings.
As for Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey: awesome. I’m with Jaydro on that one, too, as it was definitely onto something, and it was far better than its more famous predecessor.
The scenes with bill & ted vs. death were comedic genius. Seriously.