mowgli wrote:I guess it depends on what you think makes the first film so good. Personally, I think it's the fact that it's not just all-out action, with explosions going off everywhere in every scene and the main character acting like an indestructible superhuman. For me it's the quiet moments that make Die Hard. The conversations between John and Al, the creeping around the tower sabotaging the terrorists without crashing police cars into their helicopters.
It's a much better movie than it's given credit for IMO. It's not just some popcorn action schlock like the sequels are. It actually has characters and gives them some depth, and for the most part the action is subdued and comes in short bursts. It's also generally realistic, with John struggling to fight off one or two guys, not a whole army of baddies at once. Granted things escalate towards the end, but it builds up to that rather than just maintaining a three explosions per minute ratio throughout.
The sad thing is that the original Die Hard just wouldn't get made in today's Hollywood. It doesn't have enough action. There's too much talking. It moves too slowly. But that's also why it's in a different league to any of the sequels.
#9362687, By Aretak A Good Day To Die Hard
Aretak 10,391 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 15 years ago