Is Die Hard (1988) overrated?

Hilarious captions.

Must be a stress free job, huh? Just sit back and type in a word or two. Random words. No need to try at all.

So funny.

and dayum. Peter Weller was so handsome. I loved that movie.

Yes it is absolutely overrated. Terminator 2 is a way better movie.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

ok guys we re talking about die hard, not robocop or any other film XD

But I still think a villain can learn lessons and grow and still be a sociopathic threat. Movies like Oldboy and The Skin I Live In, have villains like that, and they are still a threat in the climax.

But I guess my main problem with Die Hard is McClane's bad decision making overall.

Interesting. Probably my favorite "dynamic villain" would have to be Michael Corleone.

__________________
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."

Corleone is a very good choice too.

What exactly makes you think a cop's first option when holding a criminal at gunpoint (after catching him off-guard as well) should be to fatally shoot him? Like Kristoff says, there are rules for policemen - McClane wouldn't be justified in straight-up executing him, so he instead tries to incapacitate him by knocking him out. It's only when that doesn't work that a struggle ensues and Kristoff ultimately dies by accidental when he and McClane fall down some stairs. That's why he doesn't immediately shoot Heinrich (the guy you refer to) or Hans - in both cases, he encounters both of them while they're unarmed and only acts when his hand is forced. McClane only shoots Heinrich when another terrorist shows up trying to shoot him and Heinrich reaches for his gun. In the case of Hans, McClane has only just figured out his true identity and is actually trying to interrogate him about why he wants the detonators back, but this is interrupted when Hans' backup shows up and forces McClane to flee without killing Hans (who only has a gun with no bullets, whereas the other terrorists have loaded weapons so focusing on them becomes McClane's priority).

In fairness, the deputy chief seems to be deliberately written as a useless buffoon whose arrogance (as seen in the way he talks down to an inferior like Sgt. Powell) renders him incompetent (even though he's got a point in certain cases - they really can't know for sure if McClane isn't just one of the terrorists).

It's a matter of set-up and pay-off - having the tip-off come out of nowhere would come across as a contrived way to set up the final confrontation between McClane and Gruber. By actually establishing a sub-plot following Thornburg, it makes this development feel more organic as a result. Also, his presence has thematic significance - Die Hard does tend to demonise certain aspects of '80s culture (most obviously coked-up yuppies through its treatment of Ellis) and having Thornburg embody the worst of exploitative TV journalism is part of that.

Others have addressed this already, but I do agree that a villain doesn't have to undergo personal change to be great - I'm pretty sure that's true of most great villains. Hannibal Lecter, the Wicked Witch of the West, the Scorpio Killer...the list could go on. The whole referring to him as "just a bank robber" isn't supposed to expose a lack of depth to his character, it's meant to underscore the difference between his sophisticated terrorist appearance and his embarrassingly basic goal of stealing money. He pretends to carry out his plan in the name of radical freedom-fighting goals (such as targeting a Japanese megacorporation and even demanding the release of political prisoners), but it's all a ruse to cover for a crudely capitalistic heist, hence why Holly's response to learning the truth about his plan is to call him out for essentially being a petty crook.

That last part is correct, though I'd still argue that McClane goes through a personal change due to the situation. The film starts with him having a rocky marriage for a number of reasons, especially his own stubbornness, and he realises during the bathroom scene what a fool he's been and how much he needs to apologise to Holly for how he's acted in the past. It's a simple arc, but it's there.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Die Hard? Overrated? Not even close.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

I hate these threads. Its not overrated. Know why? Cuz its not. Don't be breakin down and talkin **** on my childhood now. Gonna get ugly up in here.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

What's interesting is that this is being posed as a question. If a movie is overrated because most people like it, then asking "is _____ overrated" will mostly draw "no" responses as a result.

Would a cop just shoot someone like that in 1988?

But no, it's not overrated

Well it wouldn't legally be considered an execution of McClane shot Kristoff. All McClane would have to do is say he told Kristoff to drop the gun, and he didn't so I shot him, cause he wouldn't drop it.

McClane actually did tell and he refused. And even if for some reason McClane wanted to keep Kristoff alive, shoot him in the arm then, so he drops the gun. You don't get on top of him and try to wrestle a machine gun out of his hands! The man's got a machine gun! Shoot him in the chest or arm, but wrestling is a no no, and I can't help but roll my eyes or cringe, whenever I see this scene.

As for Thornburg, his only role in the plot is to accidentally tip off Hans for the climax. He doesn't need the lengthy character background he is given in order to serve this one plot point. When I saw the movie on TV for the first time, all of his scenes were cut accept for the tip off scene, and it still made sense. So the background scenes of the character, just don't seem necessary.

And yeah, I guess Hans doesn't need a personal growth, if all he is coming to do is rob a bank essentially.

As for McClane's development being that he reconcile's with his wife, I don't get how he was such a "jerk", as he called himself in the bathroom.

Basically the only information we are given, unless I am mistaken, is that he had to stay behind in New York cause some cases were not done yet, which makes sense, cause he might be needed to testify and all that.

Is that really a jerk move on his part, since he had a job and all? I just wasn't feeling his development yet, cause the rocky marriage wasn't delved into as much, other than he had to stay behind cause of his job.

Perhaps. I think I can just shrug that off as a possible lapse in judgment on his part, plus I get the impression that he doesn't want to shoot anyone unless absolutely necessary (especially since the film does occasionally draw attention to his limited resources). It's a tense situation and I don't expect either character to act logically.

I guess it depends on your definition of what's necessary to the story's development - that's why I explained how I thought it was since it grounds a major plot point rather than having it just suddenly happen. It also works because it's so unobtrusive - when Thornberg is introduced, you think he's just going to be showing up in the background of the real action but his decisions end up having major consequences for the main characters.

It's indicated through the initial conversation with Argyle that his reasoning is also rooted in the assumption that Holly wouldn't last long at her Nakatomi job and would eventually come back home, so that's a source of tension that would be exacerbated by the reveal that she's working under her maiden name at her high-profile executive job. It seems like there's a few reasons for the rocky marriage that have all kind of piled up on one another.

Yeah I guess maybe McClane might not have it in him to shoot the guy, even if the guy is packing real bullets even so.

But the whole rules for policeman, is is that if a cop orders a guy to drop his gun and he doesn't the cop can shoot the person. So I think Kristoff got the rules wrong, cause he is the one with the machine gun and he is the one at risk for being shot.

There are all sorts of stories in the news over the years where a cop will shoot someone, and if the person was holding a gun, nothing happens to the cop. So McClane didn't have anything to worry about since cops get away with shooting armed suspects all the time, as long as they are armed.

And maybe Thornburg having less scenes, might make his pay off more obtrusive.

I still feel that there is a lot hidden in the marriage that would cause her to take back the original name though, that perhaps should have been revealed for the audience to feel it more. I know a lot of fiction lovers believe that it's best to imply, rather than explain everything, but sometimes laying out all the details, helps you feel for the characters more, if that makes sense.

Plus I don't remember McClane actually saying he felt Holly wouldn't last long, and that just may have been Argyle's assumption.

I loved it. I don't think it's the best ever but I love it for what it is. This is exactly what Bruce is. I mean a film like this might have convinced Tarantino to use Willis in pulp.

+1

I watch it every christmas

__________________

A Christmas tradition at my house, too, right up there with Silent Night, Deadly Night.

Have you seen Krampus yet? I loved it

I think I'll start a new tradition by watching it every Christmas