Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After seeing it a few times over the years, I still don't get all the hype. I mean the action scenes are good, but I find the story to be an average action movie plot, to be quite honest.
There isn't a huge deal of character change, the heroes and villains are very black and white, and some parts of the plot I find unconvincing. I mean I know it's an action movie, but this is rated so high by many people, that I can't help to pick on illogics in the plot more so, because of how highly praised it is.
SPOILERS
Basically when Kristoff is looking for McClane, McClane sneaks up on Kristoff and points his gun at Christoff's head.
He tells Kristoff to drop his gun, and Kristoff says "You won't hurt me, there are rules for policemen". McClane then says that's what my Captain keeps telling me. He then pistol whips Kristoff, and then tries to wrestle Kristoff's Machine gun, out of his hands.
But why! Why would a cop try to fight someone, who has a machine gun, when the cop can just shoot him? It's not like McClane has any handcuffs on him to neutralize Kristoff, so what is he going to do, if Kristoff surrenders?
Kristoff refused to drop the gun, and any realistic person would know that a cop would just shoot you in this situation and not attempt to wrestle a machine gun out of your hand.
Later on, McClane is trying to get the cop's attention from out the window and another goon comes to try stop him. McClane again tells the guy to put the gun down, but why? It's not like he can keep him held prisoner in situation like that.
He does this with Hans later as well instead of just shooting Hans.
I also feel that some of the dialogue is really dumb in this movie, like when the Deputy Chief cop says that the body that fell from the window that was full of bullet holes, must have been a depressed stockbroker. Really???
And I also feel that the Thornberg character, was not necessary to the plot and didn't really add anything really. I first saw Die Hard on edited television way back, and back then, all of Thornberg's scenes were cut, accept for the video footage, on the news that Holly saw, which tipped Hans' off. Having seen the uncut version of the movie, I feel that Thornberg being turned into an actual subplot character, doesn't really add anything.
We don't need to know the personal squabbles of the news guy, who's only role in the plot was to unintentionally tip the villain off. It made perfect sense on TV to cut all his scenes out accept the video footage one, that tipped Hans off.
And a lot of people out there say that Hans Gruber is the greatest movie villain ever, if not the greatest, but I dunno... I mean he doesn't really go through any huge personal character changes, and he is really just a bankrobber, with no hugely personal stakes in his goal.
McClane is good character, but I feel he is doesn't really do anything to be go through much of a change, and he is not pushed to his moral limits either in the end. But maybe this is not a bad thing, and maybe he doesn't have to.
So I feel the movie, in spite of having really good action scenes, is just not as well written as it could be, and is more of an average, perhaps decent action movie in terms of story and script.
Think you can't appreciate a classic when you see it---
Like peanut butter and jelly sandwich is not complex or exotic but it is a classic that never goes out of favor/flavor
I guess I just saw it as a mostly routine action movie, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see why it's considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time. It is true that it never goes out of flavor, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
But there are a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches out there, just like how they are a lot of action movies in a similar tone to Die Hard, so why is this particular peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the Citizen Kane compared to all the rest?
I guess I just saw it as a mostly routine action movie, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see why it's considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time. It is true that it never goes out of flavor, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
But there are a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches out there, just like how they are a lot of action movies in a similar tone to Die Hard, so why is this particular peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the Citizen Kane compared to all the rest?
No one ever said one of the "greatest of all time" - it's action/adventure - not Citizen Kane .
Either you appreciate it for what it is or come here and try to drum up a lack of support for it. Me personally, not a fan of most A/A movies.
But a lot of people have said that it's the greatest action movie of all time if you read reviews of it.
Well a lot of people like it, and don't think it is the greatest A/A movie of all time, but it is one of the better ones, all due to Bruce Willis's wise cracking personality, and Alan Rickman (Hans Gruber/Bill Clay) as one of the best villains ever.
As a Christmas movie, it's the most overrated of all. As an action movie, no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
