Bangers n' Mash 82: Die Hard on a Podcast

If you recall my John McTiernan Director's Report Card last month, and the accompanying "Die Hard" retrospect, you probably could've guessed that this would be coming next. The action-centric episode of the podcast never do as well as the horror/sci-fi centric ones but I genuinely enjoy talking about the genre. In addition to discussing the five films in the "Die Hard" series, we also devote a lightning round to the various rip-offs and would-be successors, the ever-popular "Die Hard on an X" movie. Give it a listen or I'll toss you off the Nakatomi Plaza. 

Recent Watches: A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

John McClane, as the title indicates, just won’t die. A fifth “Die Hard” movie had been bandied about after the fourth one proved surprisingly decent. Another six years would pass before the latest entry in the long-running franchise would premiere. “A Good Day to Die Hard” – because of course it was called that – was dropped in the unassuming month of February. Even the lesser “Die Hard” sequels managed to be entertaining. The fifth film, however, received an acidic reaction from both critics and fans. After twenty years, it seemed John McClane had finally run out of fuel.

John McClane has gotten some bad news. His son is in trouble over in Russia. He flies over to rescue his boy. Jack McClane is testifying against Yuri Komarov, a political prisoner. On the way to the trial, a hit squad appears to take Jack and Yuri out. Luckily, John arrives to help his son out. He soon learns that Jack is actually a CIA agent, a government spy. The McClanes and Yuri go in search of a file that will incriminate Komarov’s assassins, who work for a government official who profited off the Chernobyl incident. None of the Russians are who they appear to be. Betrayals and double-crosses ensue. Jack and John are along for the ride.

“A Good Day to Die Hard” was directed by John Moore, the same man who gifted the world with such lauded classics of cinema like “Behind Enemy Lines,” “Max Payne,” and the remakes of “The Omen” and “Flight of the Phoenix.” Moore is no John McTiernan. He’s not even Renny Harlin. “A Good Day to Die Hard” is shot through a sickly green filter, providing an overcast, dreary tone. During the action scenes, the film becomes shaky and incoherent. When the camera isn't jittering wildly, it falls into dull shots of muzzle flash and people falling down. “Live Free or Die Hard” pushed the action to difficult-to-believe heights. The fifth film goes even further. An extended car chase has multiple vehicles flipping through the air, cars driving over other cars, and much shattering stone. In the last act, John dangles from a truck dangling from a helicopter. CGI is abused in many of these sequences. The action in “A Good Day to Die Hard” is somehow both ridiculously overblown and utterly generic. All the R-rated bullet wounds in the world couldn’t make up for that.

Another problem I had with the fourth “Die Hard” flick was how it made John McClane into an inhuman superhero. The bloodied feet and broken bones of previous films were nowhere to be seen. But at least part four acknowledged that John had once been human. The fifth film treats John like a generic action hero. He leaps through a glass window, unaffected. He then falls through several awnings, wooden platforms, and plastic tubing. Near the end, he’s tossed through another window, drops through concrete floors, and lands in a pool. Wait, isn’t shattered glass the shit that crippled John in the first movie? Usually, Bruce Willis’ charm and sarcasm makes up for this problem. Unfortunately, “A Good Day to Die Hard” was made knee-deep in Willis’ “not giving a shit” period. The film drills its lame excuse for a one-liner, “I’m on vacation!,” into the ground. Bruce winces and smirks but there’s no life behind his eyes. He’s as bored as the audience is.

Also boring: Jai Courtney! The Australian hunk of meat keeps getting cast in high profile action movie, despite having all the charisma of a dead panda bear. Before he put viewers to sleep in “Terminator Genesys,” he lulled us into a peaceful slumber as John McClane’s son. Courtney’s face seems unable to emote. He reads all his dialogue in the same flat, slightly irritated tenor. As an action star, Jai utterly lacks screen presence. Script wise, the film tries to sell the angst between McClanes Senior and Junior. John regrets not being there for Jack, the boy listening from around a corner. Later, they chat while driving towards Chernobyl. By the end, Jack happily accepts John as his father. Moreover, he accepts his family heritage of ass-kicking. It’s cliché, dour stuff. In a better film, even with a better actor, this should’ve been the story’s emotional heart. In “A Good Day to Die Hard,” it’s another lame attempt to heat up lukewarm material. (The far more likable McClane off-spring, Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s Lucy, is reduced to a cameo in the theatrical release and cut out entirely in the extended version.)

The fifth film really puts things in prospective. As underwhelming as Timothy Olyphant’s bad guy was in “Live Free or Die Hard,” the villains in “A Good Day to Die Hard” are totally forgettable. Most of them are generic dudes in suits. One of the henchman dances a little, and complains about Americans, but that’s the extend of his personality. The audience cares so little that, when Yuri’s betrayal comes, it barely registers. Who is the corrupt government official behind all this? Who cares! About the only bad guy that registers at all is Yuliya Snigir, as the unhinged daughter. And that’s probably just because I have thing for Eastern European women. The enemy’s plot is convoluted and uninteresting. Something about stolen plutonium... There’s a last minute attempt to spin the motivation towards greed – the same thing that motivated all previous “Die Hard” baddies – but it’s half-assed. Like everything else in the movie.

The movie looks like crap. None of the actors are engaged. The script is tedious. The action is badly framed and lifeless. The adversaries are completely forgettable. “A Good Day to Die Hard” is such a stunning achievement in mediocrity that it made me actively angry. Though flopping domestically, the sequel cleaned up internationally. Despite initial reports that the sixth and potentially final movie would be (awesomely) entitled “Die Hardest,” it’ll actually be a prequel called “Die Hard: Year One.” There’s no way it could possibly be lamer than this, right? Right? [4/10]

Recent Watches: Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

The “Die Hard” franchise took twelve years off. During that time, Bruce Willis lost all his hair. Furthermore, the action movie environment totally changed. The genre of hyper-violent shoot ‘em ups that the original trilogy belonged to had fallen out of fashion. Action movies were more popular than ever but bloodless, CGI-assisted films were the audience preference. Willis and company had been trying to get a fourth John McClane adventure made for a while. One previous attempt evolved into the forgettable “Tears of the Sun,” for one example. When a fourth film emerged, it was named after New Hampshire's state motto for some reason. Fans had reasons to be concerned about “Live Free or Die Hard” though. Director Len Wiseman had previously made the super lame “Underworld” films. As many feared and predicted, the film was slapped with a PG-13 rating. Even after the unrated DVD cut restored the squibs and John McClane’s catchphrase, the fourth film remains divisive among fans.

A clan of expert computer hackers, led by a disgruntled former government security agent, enacts a cyber-terrorism attack on the United States government. They crippled the infrastructure by fucking with traffic lights. They clean out the financial centers. They shut down emergency services. Senior Detective John McClane doesn’t know any of this is coming. He’s more preoccupied with his daughter’s dating life. As a favor, he picks up a suspect for the feds, an unaffiliated computer hacker. This makes John and his pal targets for the villains. Once again, McClane is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once again, he has to kick some ass.

Len Wiseman’s “Underworld” films were sickeningly slick. The action was ridiculous, without a hint of self awareness, in service of the films’ self-inflated sense of phony “cool.” Before “Live Free or Die Hard” hit theaters, the director promised CGI would be used gingerly. That might be true but the sequel’s theatrics still strain believability. A heavily advertised moment has John McClane and his sidekick nearly be crushed by a car flipping through the air in an impossible fashion. Directly afterwards, the cop launches a car into the air on his own, crushing a helicopter with the tossed vehicle. In a desperate bid for relevance, one of the bad guy’s main henchman performs parkour. The explosions are bigger and more frequent. The vehicle chases are more often. The action is so slick that “Live Free or Die Hard” frequently doesn’t even feel like a “Die Hard” movie.

What made “Die Hard” so special back in 1988 was how human John McClane was. He bled, was bruised, and generally got the shit kicked out of him. Each sequel made McClane more impervious. The fourth film moves McClane into strictly super-human territory. McClane gets pelted with glass and shrapnel and doesn’t flinch. He leaps from a moving vehicle and barely groans. He tumbles off a high scaffolding, emerging unscathed. He’s tossed through a vehicle by an explosion and remains unjellied. By the time he’s diving off a fighter jet and sliding between a collapsed concrete bridge, the classic McClane is unrecognizable. He even overcomes his fear of flying. Despite turning John into the Terminator, Bruce Willis remains charming and funny in the part. His constant shit-talking with the bad guys is a great source of amusement. A brief monologue about what being a hero has gotten John is a good moment. His head is smoother and his skin is thicker but Willis still has the swagger.

Like every previous sequel, “Live Free or Die Hard” began life as an unrelated project, a screenplay called “WW3.com.” As that groan-worthy title indicates, the fourth film updates the terrorists threat to computer hackers. Like many of Hollywood’s attempts at the subject, the world of internet sabotage is not believably handled. I’m pretty sure a computer virus can’t blow a building up. Computer hackers are lame movie bad guys. This holds true with “Die Hard 4’s” main adversary. Timothy Olyphant plays Thomas Gabriel. He’s a wienie. Olyphant whines like a petulant child. He threatens innocents with guns to the head. He mostly swears and gripes at computer monitors. Olyphant is not intimidating or amusing. He’s not up to snuff with the Gruber siblings. He’s not even as interesting as William Sadler. He also dies like a wimp, taken down by a single bullet to the chest. “Live Free or Die Hard” commits a few sins but its seriously underwhelming bad guy might be the biggest problem.

I know I’m mostly being negative but I do like “Live Free or Die Hard.” When the action is brought down to Earth, and isn’t preoccupied with topping itself, the film can be satisfying. John has a brutal fight with Maggie Q. Q is Olyphant’s main hit-girl and easily a more effective villain than him. The two tear through a room, both getting smashed through shelves and walls. The fight ends in a close-quarters scuffle in an elevator shaft, John taking a direct route to stopping her. How the parkour dude goes down is awfully satisfying too. Throughout the film, John gets into a few close-up battles, shooting bad guys and tossing them over his shoulders. These action scenes count for a lot and prove the most satisfying in the film.

Justin Long is no Samuel L. Jackson, that’s for sure. However, Long has his own charms. As the techno-nerd accompanying McClane throughout the film, Long gets a few funny moments to himself. A scene where he calls up an emergency service in a car is amusing, even if it creates a plot hole or two. The jittery hacker makes a decent companion to hyper-tough Bruce Willis. An even better addition to the cast is Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane. Winstead spends most of the movie captured by the bad guys, acting as a damsel. Despite that, Winstead still brings plenty of toughness to the part. She gets to punch out the villain, swearing and snarking just like a McClane. Long isn’t bad but I kind of wish Winstead had been John’s sidekick during this one.

“Live Free or Die Hard” departs from formula in other ways. There’s a last minute attempt to make the terrorists petty thieves but, for most of the movie, they are sincere in their cause. The script does not confine itself to a single location, playing out all over the country. The action is probably too big, the bad guys are lame, and John McClane is no longer human. Despite all these problems, “Live Free or Die Hard” is still an entertaining pop corn muncher. It has nothing on one or three. It’s not even as genuine as part two. Yet Bruce Willis being a bad ass is still worth something. [7/10]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1996)

7. Die Hard with a Vengeance

After a high-profile flop like “Last Action Hero,” John McTiernan retreated to the safety of a proven franchise. The director skipped the second chapter of the “Die Hard” series in favor of “The Hunt for Red October.” His reputation stinging from a costly disappointment, a third John McClane adventure was what he needed. “Die Hard with a Vengeance” continued the franchise’s popularity. Unexpectedly, it was also quite good. For a while, I even considered part three the best of the series, which is not an exactly uncommon opinion. I’ve softened a bit on the third chapter a little over the years but the film still dies hard.

In the heat of a NYC summer, John McClane is summoned by a villain. Hung-over and newly estranged from Holly, the cop is targeted by a new criminal mastermind. Calling himself “Simon,” the man has placed bombs all over the city and demands McClane play humiliating, deadly games. Paired with a Harlem pawn shop owner, John races to complete Simon’s tasks and save innocent lives. The vengeance comes in when John discovers that Simon is Hans Gruber’s brother. And using terrorist activity as a cover for bank heists is apparently a family tradition.

By 1996, the “Die Hard on an X” action troupe was well played out. You know the sub-genre was dead because the same year saw the release of “Skyscraper,” which was “Die Hard” starring Anna Nicole Smith. Anyway, “Die Hard with a Vengeance” smartly toys with the series’ formula. Johne McClane and the enemies he fight are no longer confined to a single location. Hero and villain alike are given a whole city to play in. John isn’t going it alone either, as he’s given a sidekick. Yet screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh knows what to keep. The bad guy is, once again, a thief posing as a terrorist. In order to avoid the blatant repetition of “Die Hard 2,” it’s personal between John and the bad guy this time. Starting life as an original script called “Simon Says” – which was also considered for a “Lethal Weapon” sequel – the film still feels like a “Die Hard” movie without blatantly copying the original.

Except, perhaps, in one aspect. At the end of “Die Harder,” John and Holly had patched their relationship up. The two were actively married again. At the start of “Die Hard with a Vengeance,” Mr. McClane has seen better days. He’s living alone again, back in New York, and has developed a drinking habit. Is that a betrayal of the character’s development or just proof that John and Holly simply couldn’t make it work? John’s humanity is also starting to fade, as he only gets the shit really beaten out of him once or twice. Either way, Bruce Willis remains entertaining in the part. He’s an expert at deploying one-liners and sarcastic asides. Like whispering corrections to the police chief, concerning his drinking problem. Or making chit-chat about Santa Claus before nailing some baddies. Even when hung-over, John McClane’s normal man charm is maintained.

Perhaps realizing the established series formula and Bruce Willis’ charms were not enough to further the franchise, “With a Vengeance” adds elements from another stalwart action sub-genre. Joining John on his adventure is Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus Carver. Since McClane is now an action hero, giving him a normal human sidekick was a smart decision. Zeus is frequently incredulous at the crazy circumstances he winds up in. Per the conventions of the buddy movie, the two hate it each other at first. John accuses Zeus of being racist against white people. Zeus takes every oppretunity to call his partner on his bullshit. By the end, they’re laughing and joking around. Samuel L. Jackson has a lot of fun as a comedic straight man, screaming profanity with a sweaty face.

You could boil the third film down to a catchy log line: “Die Hard in a City.” Unlike the same shit happening a second time in an airport, moving the action into the city totally changes the dynamic. Willis and Jackson have to navigate a crowded New York City. One sequence has the heroes delayed by a street choked with taxi cabs. This forces John to think his way out of crazier situations. The nature of the script also keeps the characters moving. John and Zeus are racing from one objective to the next, always against the clock and an unpredictable adversary. This keeps the tension up, the action continuously escalating, while forcing the cast to use their brains.

After taking a break in “Medicine Man” and “Last Action Hero,” John McTiernan’s directorial trademarks return along with John McClane. The filmmaker’s camera rarely sits still in “With a Vengeance.” While running through a subway car, the camera follows behind Bruce. During a car chase, the camera is attached to the whirling vehicles. Even during the slower moments, McTiernan keeps us moving, the camera prowling around corners or up buildings. Some times, the action is so frantic that things get a little shaky. Yet even when bouncing with energy, McTiernan’s direction remains focused and clear. The way “Die Hard with a Vengeance” is shot is engineered to keep the audience excited.

Considering both previous films featured explosive action, the third “Die Hard” movie has a high bar to clear. Luckily, the sequel is up to the task. McClane running through the subway train car, grabbing the bomb, is a suspenseful scene that concludes with a big ass explosion. A combination car chase/shoot out works really well, featuring shattering glass and twisting fenders. It too ends fantastically, with John and Zeus’ car flipping through the air. A similar moment has the duo climbing across a cord above a moving boat. Sticking with series’ expectations, John still narrowly avoids a massive explosion, this time leaping into the Hudson River from the booming ship.

My favorite action beat involves an underground tunnel filling with water. A wave races towards the cop, the truck he’s driving slowly being consumed by the liquid. A daring escape involves a well-place grate and a tunnel. The conclusion includes a big ol’ explosion too. That’s cool stuff but the smaller scale moments in “With a Vengeance” works a little better for me. Such as John struggling in an elevator, reaching for a gun while surrounded by attackers. Keeping a tradition that started with Karl the Kraut alive, the hero also gets a close-quarters fight scene with the bad guy’s main henchman. It’s the only time John really gets beaten in this one, tossed around and whipped with chains. I appreciate the film including that.

By moving the “Die Hard” franchise into the buddy cop genre, the third entry in the series features more humor than either of its predecessors. Much of it comes from the interaction between Zeus and McClane. Their first scene together, of John surviving Simon’s racist prank in Harlem, provides some jittery laughs. Later, the two have to reach a pay phone. A fat woman stands in their way. That moment concludes with both leaping away from a reportedly booby trapped trash can, which is another cruel prank from Simon. The movie makes great use of Samuel L. Jackson’s comedic abilities. His repeated insistence that John is racist, accusing him of stereotypical behavior, pays off nicely. Such as a discussion about hot-wiring a car or picking a lock. The two play off each well, when forced to measure out gallons of water. Considering the story is quite tense, the humor balances the tone out.

The biggest way “Die Hard 2” trailed behind the original was in the villain category. Perhaps aware of this, the second sequel introduces a new member of the Gruber family. Simon Gruber is nearly as awesome a bad guy as his brother. He’s equally cruel, joyously playing games of chances with other people’s lives. Both brothers are master manipulators, toying with an entire city as part of his ploy. Simon spends most of the film as a voice on over the phone, mocking his enemy with evil glee. The seal on Simon’s status as a worthy opponent was the decision to cast an actor nearly as awesome as Alan Rickman. Jeremy Irons digs into each line he’s given with calculated delight. His best moment occurs when McClane and Gruber discuss how big of an asshole Hans was. Irons is a worthy successor to the mantle of “Die Hard” villain, making the third film a memorable experience.

If “Die Hard with a Vengeance” has any obvious flaw, it’s that the script maybe spreads itself too thin. The movie frequently cuts away from John and Zeus’ adventure. We see Gruber and his men sneak into the Federal Reserve, cutting down the guards in their way. Many scenes are focused on the NYPD attempting to protect Gruber’s potential victims. While the scenes outside Nakatomi Plaza in the original were directly involved with John’s adventures, these scenes in “With a Vengeance” feel a little too disconnected from the hero and villain’s conflict. The supporting cast, which includes solid actors like Graham Greene and Collen Camp, are fine. It’s not really a flaw but, with these sequences cut down, “Die Hard 3” would’ve been an even tighter machine.

It’s not really fair to say “Die Hard with a Vengeance” is better than the original “Die Hard.” It’s not as clever, fresh, or visceral as that first movie. However, it’s still an extremely exciting sequel. Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jeremy Irons all work excellently together. McTiernan’s direction remains sharp. The action is big, bold and exciting. A fourth film wouldn’t come along for many years, meaning fans long assumed “Die Hard with a Vengeance” was the final John McClane adventure. It wouldn’t have been a bad note to end the series on, not at all. [Grade: B+]

Recent Watches: Die Hard 2 (1990)

A movie as successful and well received as “Die Hard” was always likely to spawn a sequel. 20th Century Fox seemingly planned the film as a franchise-launcher from the get-go. The box office receipts from the first film mustn’t have cooled too long. Production on the sequel rolled along quickly. Not quite two years later, “Die Hard 2” exploded into theaters. Director Renny Harlin had previously helmed flashy, low budget genre fare like “Prison” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street 4.” Harlin’s abilities to deliver the goods on-time and under budget, without sacrificing the crowd-pleasing theatrics, surely made him an attractive filmmaker to the studio. Released with a tagline that most assumed to be a pitch perfect subtitle, “Die Harder” was actually a bigger hit than the original. John McClane would die hard for years to come.

A year after the Nakatomi Tower incident, John McClane finds himself traveling to the east coast during Christmas time. Holly, their romance renewed, have plans to meet at an airport near the nation’s capital. Once again, John McClane is in the wrong place at the wrong time. A plot by rogue soldiers to intercept a flight carrying a Central American warlord unfolds inside the airport. The terrorists strand the planes in the sky above the landing strip, holding them hostage until the government ensures the banana dictator’s freedom. McClane is the monkey in the wrench a second time, doing what he can to foil the villains’ plot.

“Die Hard 2” is boldly derivative of the first movie. Two years in a row, John McClane is trapped in an isolated location beset by a terrorist faction. Holly is held hostage, imperiled by the bad guys. It’s even Christmas again. What are the odds that he’d wind up in more-or-less the same situation twice in his life? John even comments on the absurdity of history repeating itself. “Die Hard’s” own sequel is as shameless about ripping off the original as the countless rip-offs were. For as closely as part two copies the first, the script is nowhere near as smooth. The original “Die Hard” had a plot hole or logic gap or two. The sequel hinges on the ridiculous assumption that an airplane would circle in the sky around the airport until it ran out of fuel, crashing and burning. Wouldn’t an emergency landing be performed, even in treacherous weather or without a clear landing pad? Better yet, why didn’t the plane just fly to any of the other near-by airports? Nitpicking logic in an action sequel is a dog’s errand but “Die Harder” can’t help but ring the audience’s bell, drawing attention to its own flaws.

Something that defined the original “Die Hard” was how much damn punishment Bruce Willis suffered. “Die Harder” is less willing to bloody McClane’s body. He doesn’t even bleed until the very end. He’s hardly superhuman though. Both films begin by contemplating McClane’s humanity. In one, he’s airsick on a plane. In two, the first scene shows his car getting towed. John has plenty of close calls. In one scene, he’s pinned beneath a falling awning, reaching for a gun slowly approaching on an escalator. A little later, he pokes his head out on a runway, the wheels of an airplane nearly touching down atop his head. John is still flying by the seat of his pants, frequently improvising an escape or a way to dispatch an enemy. More importantly, Bruce Willis is still great in the part. When flirting with a desk secretary or chatting with Al over the phone, he still shows incredible charm. His way with a one-liner might have actually improved, such as bits about a lack of chlorine or a perfectly deployed yippee-ka-yay. The plot may be blatantly imitative but watching Bruce do his thing still offers plenty of entertainment value.

Renny Harlin is not as good a filmmaker as John McTiernan. McTiernan’s fast-paced camera work is traded out for melodramatic slow motion. Renny really likes guys falling backwards through things, flipping through their death throes. While “Die Hard” alternated between explosive action and down-to-Earth beatings, “Die Harder” focuses exclusively on shit blowing up. I’m not complaining, necessarily. The first action beat, inside the baggage claims back room, makes good use of tight corners and mangled machinery. A shoot-out among scaffolding is well executed, with some John Woo-esque diving, shooting, and flailing bodies. The biggest set piece involves Bruce riding an injector seat out of a plane as it explodes beneath him. No doubt that’s fun, generating some okay tension. A snow mobile chase also nicely shows how McClane improvises his way out of trouble, involving a slushy lake and some more booms. It’s all solidly amusing. However, one sequence, where a plane full of innocents crashes and burns, is far too mean spirited. There’s a big difference between one or two bystanders dying and an entire plane of passengers bursting into flames. Kind of brings the mood down.

“Die Hard 2” trails behind the original in another way too. The sequel doesn’t even attempt to create a villain as cool as Hans Gruber. William Sadler and Franco Nero aren’t push overs. I mean, one’s the Grim Reaper and the other’s Django. Sadler is scary as psychotically committed mercenary. Nero, meanwhile, coolly executes those that get in his way, operating like a serious villain. Neither have the style, humor, or personality of Gruber though. Truthfully, the script’s disinterest in defining them any more makes them slightly boring. A twist involving another group’s loyalties is easy to guess. There’s still some fun to be had in the supporting parts. Dennis Franz is delightfully obnoxious, playing off his established image, as the man that inconveniences John’s quest. William Atherton returns as Richard “Dick” Thornburg, who is even more of a delightful asshole. Bonnie Bedelia certainly gets more to do as Holly, this time.

If “Die Hard 2” was a stand alone action flick, it would easily hit the spot. It was even conceived that way, starting out as an adaptation of the unrelated novel, “58 Minutes.” The sequel has a cool hero, some entertaining set pieces, plenty of humor, and moves at a nice clip. As a sequel to one of best action movies of all time, it can’t help but pale in contrast. It’s not as taunt, exciting, fun, or clever as the first. Hewing so closely to the original’s formula was a mistake as well, making comparisons unavoidable. Yet you can’t judge a film for what it’s not. Try not to think about “Die Hard 1” too much and the sequel will certainly amuse. [7/10]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1988)

3. Die Hard

With the feather of “Predator” in his cap, John McTiernan was offered the director’s chair on what Fox hoped would be their next big summer blockbuster. “Die Hard” did not have an easy production. Based off the novel “Nothing Last Forever,” the script was offered to every big action star of the day. Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Burt Reynolds, Don Johnson, Richard Gere and Frank Sinatra all turned down the lead role. The story was even retro-fitted for Arnold Schwarzenegger at one point, being pitched as a sequel to “Commando.” Bruce Willis, better known for light TV comedy than explosion-laden action flicks at the time, would win the part. Willis was filming both “Die Hard” and “Moonlighting” simultaneously, leaving the star exhausted. The film rolled into production without a finished script, the movie being rewritten on a daily basis. McTiernan and his team would beat the odds. Not only was “Die Hard” a huge hit, it has since earned a reputation as a masterpiece of the genre.

John McClane is a New York cop, a normal guy, headed to L.A. to patch things up with his estranged wife. Looking to surprise his wife at her job’s Christmas party, the meeting doesn’t go smoothly. Immediately afterwards, a team of German terrorists siege the building. They hold the occupants hostage, murder the building’s owner, and begin making unreasonable demands. It should’ve been a perfect plan. If it wasn’t for one thing. John is still in the building and, using his street-hewed skills, begins to take apart the villains’ plans as best as he can. It really pisses them off.

Watching “Die Hard” in 2016, it’s impossible to separate the film from its extensive legacy. “Die Hard” would go to become the most imitated action film of its day. Countless movies would copy its story. Over the next decade, movies about terrorist taking over stationary locations and a single hero fighting them from inside would become the default story for action flicks. The formula would be so widely copied that “Die Hard on a X” would become an accepted term. Die Hard on a Bus, Die Hard on a Battleship, Die Hard on a Mountain, Die Hard in a School, Die Hard in a Sports Stadium, and so many others would follow. Despite the many variations that followed, “Die Hard” has lost none of its thrills or power in the years since. There’s a reason it was ripped-off so much. This is a movie that gets it.

That “Die Hard” would become a template for brainless action flicks is interesting, as the movie itself sets out to subvert the genre conventions of the time. Unlike Arnold or Sly, Bruce Willis is not a mountain of muscle. Though handsome, he’s also a normal looking guy. Unlike Rambo or John Matrix, John McClane does not gun down hundreds of enemies with nary a bullet touching him. He gets hurt. A lot. His shirt is dirtied, his skin tears, his bones crack, his feet bleed. He’s not a hyper-competent superhero. Instead, he’s flying by the seat of his pants the entire time. McClane tries things, hoping desperately that they’ll work but not knowing if they will. The movie even references Arnold, Rambo, and the cowboy heroes of yore multiple times. John McClane isn’t like these other guys.

Perhaps the willing subversion of genre troupes wouldn’t have worked without the right leading man. Holy shit, Bruce Willis is cool. From the beginning, “Die Hard” rests upon his considerable charm. The opening scene has Argyle smoothly, concisely laying down John’s motivation. He’s here to win back his wife but it won’t be easy. Maybe the character could’ve been boorish but Willis’ easy-going humor keeps McClane likable. After the shit hits the fan, Bruce’s charm elevates “Die Hard” further. The dialogue is extremely sharp and often funny. McClane pleading with the cops, shit-talking with Hans Gruber, or chatting candidly with Al makes him immensely likable. This isn’t just a bad ass action hero delivering one-liners. This is a guy who uses humor to keep himself sane. That Willis would immediately become a superstar after this is no surprise. John McClane is a star making role, showing everything the actor excels at.

Alan Rickman has become such a beloved cinema fixture that it’s hard to remember that “Die Hard” was his debut role. As fantastic as Bruce is as McClane, Rickman is equally good as Hans Gruber. Rickman is totally controlled, delivering each line in a conceited, superior tone. Gruber is always thinking and plotting. This is best illustrated when he confronts McClane directly, a scene improvised on the spot. Putting on a realistic American accent, he convinces the hero that he’s not a bad guy. Rickman is a fantastically cocky, hatable bad guy. Yet Gruber subverts the genre rules as well. Unlike the villains of the eighties, usually indistinct bad guys in service of some evil cause, Gruber is only interested in himself. He pretends to be a terrorist, to cover his tracks as a petty thief. A whip-smart script, Rickman’s awesome performance, and some clever story turns make for a fantastic combination.

John McTiernan is well suited to the action genre not just because he’s a smart guy. McTiernan’s dynamic direction worked well for “Nomads” and fantastically for “Predator.” The positive trend continues with “Die Hard.” McTiernan’s constantly moving camera keeps “Die Hard” running at a frenzied pace. While John runs through the innards of the skyscraper, the camera zips along with him. The audience is rushed along with the hero, feeling the intensity of the situation. Though fast paced, the shots are usually long as well. The viewer is also grounded to a tense, quick scenario. McTiernan’s dynamic direction works fantastically for action. The editing is quick but not incoherent. The movie runs over two hours but McTiernan keeps things moving.

In some ways, “Die Hard” is a very small scaled story. The action sequences frequently focus on John’s pain, battling tough guys in tight corners. His first scuffle has him tumbling down stairs, his head smashed into the wall. This fight is mirrored near the end, McClane suffering even more punishment during more tight quarters combat. A notable moment has the hero hiding under a table, firing his gun inches away from his face. So much of “Die Hard” focuses on Bruce Willis’ face as he squeezes through tight corridors, air vents and elevator shafts. When the windows explode, he marches across glass in his bare feet. Unlike most heroes, who would shrug off such an injury, “Die Hard” devotes a squeamish scene to John yanking glass out of his feet. You feel the injury. You feel every punishing blow.

Bruce getting the shit kicked out of him isn’t the only thing that keeps “Die Hard” grounded. The film has a fantastic supporting cast, adding humor and humanity. Early on, McClane makes friends with Argyle, the laid-back limo driver. After the action begins, Argyle spends a lot of time sitting in the car, unaware of what’s happening above him. De’voreaux White is funny in the part and has a good time chatting with a big teddy bear. Argyle is swell but he’s not John’s best sidekick. Reginald VelJohnson, better known to a whole generation as Carl Winslow, plays Al. The friendly voice on the other end of the radio, Al helps John keep his cool as things get worst. VelJohnson’s incredible humanity makes a part that could’ve been one-note – the snack-eating, fearful cop – especially effective. When Al is discussing why he got demoted, it once again displays the picture’s humanity among all the bullets and squibs.

And explosions too. “Die Hard” impressively plays it both ways. It subverts big budget action flicks, has an all-too-human hero, and surprisingly intimate violence. Except when its not blowing shit up in a big way. The bad guys fire a friggin’ bazooka at the cop’s armored vehicle. John improvises a bomb, tossing a desk chair down an elevator shaft. The blast that follows seemingly blows the front of the building off. “Die Hard” barrels into its final act by exploding the entire top half of Nakatomi Plaza. As often as John gets his ass kicked, he also gets into some crazy situations. He dangles from a fire hose, shooting through a glass window. He tosses a dead body through a window, pelting Al’s car with bullets. He leaves taunting messages for the villains and hides a hand gun with Christmas tape. The finale, with Gruber taking an impressive long fall to his death, is immensely satisfying in the way only awesome action flicks can be. “Die Hard” is both big and small, in equally remarkable measures.

Fantastic action, great characters, and clever writing count for a lot. “Die Hard” also never looses sight of the story’s heart. John and Holly really do care about each other. When he realizes the terrorists know who he is, John’s first thought is to worry about Holly. As his chances for survival grow slimmer, he delivers a painful heart-to-heart to his estranged wife. Yeah, he really does care about her. Yes, that is what’s driving him to fight. The villain taking the love interest hostage was a bit of a cliché, even back in 1988. Yet that’s where the movie’s heart lies. It makes sense to forefront that issue in the final minutes. As John and Holly lock lips before the end credits, it feels earned. They don’t get much direct screen time together but Willis and Bonnie Beleida have fine chemistry.

Any time a movie is really good, you start looking for deeper meaning, a subtext. Is “Die Hard” a political film? Casting the villains as terrorist certainly presents that possibility. That they target an international company, with roots in Japan, speaks of certain connotations. John is referred to as a “cowboy,” a symbol of an older, more isolated America. Yet both of these are smoke screens. The terrorists are self-interested thieves. John is as much a normal guy as he is a cowboy. The authority figures in “Die Hard” are not very good are their jobs. The L.A. cops aggravated the situation more. The FBI inadvertently further the villain’s goal. The media are portrayed as selfish and clueless. If there’s any moral to “Die Hard,” maybe it’s that things are more complicated then they appear. That the individual is better suited to handle such tense situations.

However you look at it, “Die Hard” is a classic for a reason. Even after watching it many times, seeing many rip-offs and a few lackluster sequels, the movie is still really good. It made Bruce Willis a superstar, showed us how awesome Alan Rickman is, and further established John McTiernan as the top action filmmaker of the day. And, hey, it’s a pretty good Christmas movie too! [Grade: A]