Die Hard Question (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Well, I guess I'm the dissenting opinion. Ebert does trash Gleason in his review, but in spite of that, I do recall that most of his original Die Hard review remained positive. And in the Die Hard 2 review he does point out some of the problems with the story. So it isn't as if he hated the original because of the Paul Gleason character and thought Die Hard 2 was flawless.

Ernest, most of the quotes you have taken from Ebert's review of Die Hard is in cooboration to what I have said about the film above. I admit Die Hard 2 does have some problems, but I still have enjoyed the film nonetheless. I believe what Die Hard 2 gets right, helps to eclipse what they get wrong. You may not agree with it, but I still think that Die Hard 2 works much better than most of its contemporaries.

 

[Ernest Rister]

The difference for me is that Die Hard starts off with plausibility, and then has moments of implausibility which you forgive.

Die Hard 2 starts off with implausibility, and then tries to attempt some scenes of plausibility, but these do not redeem all the phony, poorly written junk that has come before. The balance is tipped too far to the "hokum" side of the scale.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Well, I guess I'm the dissenting opinion. Ebert does trash Gleason in his review, but in spite of that, I do recall that most of his original Die Hard review remained positive."

Ebert gave Die Hard "2 Stars"

He gave Die Hard 2: Die Harder "3.5 Stars"

 

[WillG]

Wow, I have not read that review in a while but I thought it was better than 2 stars.

 

[RobertW]

i think the whole "cut to directory showing name WM Clay" was just there to show that hans actually did use the name of someone who worked there, so he wasn't gonna be figured out that easily, by giving mclain a phony name. that hans wasn't some dumb villian, but extremely clever and competent, a worthy foil for mclain. a lesser movie would just have mclain say, "wrong buddy, no one by that name works here".

but mclain suspected something anyway, just for the sheer implausibility that some corporate exec guy could have got away and eluded detection ever since. so he lays a trap of his own just to be sure, and it's only when hans tries to kill him that mclain gets his suspicions confirmed.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Ebert also loved Speed 2!

-Dennis

 

[Quentin]

A great line. And, as Ernest mentions - it's been copied a million times over since then. Of course, Ernest was just talking from a structural point of view, but the mark of a great classic can also be quotes like this. We get to hear it again in "The Alamo" - Billy Bob Thornton, "Looks like we're gonna need more guys."

 

[BrianBo]

Because Hans is a movie character...

 

[RobertR]

I'm really glad to see all the criticism of the terrible Die Hard 2. It's also good to see people reject the "but Ebert liked it" defense, as if that should close all debate.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Well, if he liked Speed 2... 'nuff said.

For the record, I actually liked Die Hard 2 :b

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Well, I liked Die Hard 2, despite the unbelievable (as in NOT BELIEVABLE) plot. The action scenes are exciting there are some good wisecracks and some inventive killings (always a plus in action films) like the icicle in the eye, the guy crushed by the paint stand, and the guy killed by that roller in the baggage terminal. In fact, this is one of the more violent movies made in the past few years, but the film makes no apologies for it; in fact it seems to wear it as a badge of honour. There's something perversely enjoyable about that. That said, it is clearly inferior to the original, no matter what Ebert's rationalizations say.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I think Ebert is an exceptional film critic, and for my money, he's the best there is. Every once in a while, though, you run across an oddity like the Die Hard review, which actually wouldn't seem odd (I see where he's coming from) if not for the Die Hard 2 review.

Every film critic has a review or two (or three) that seems odd in hind-sight, and every time I read one of Ebert's reviews, I understand his point of view, even when I don't agree with it. That's a far cry from other film critics -- the most offensive review I've ever read was about A.I. by the Austin-American Statesman's Chris Garcia, in which he said that Spielberg has an "unnatural" attraction to stories dealing with young boys. I couldn't believe my eyes.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

The name's McClane, John McClane

 

[Adam_ME]

I always liked Die Hard 2, but I did see it before the first one, so maybe that has something to do with it. And I agree with Ebert about Paul Gleason's character. He doesn't necessarily ruin the movie, but considering Die Hard had been one of the more intelligent action movies ever made up until that point, it is a shame the filmmakers decided to portray him as such a moron.

And speaking of plot holes, was the terrorists' plan of escape really as basic as driving an ambulance out of the parking lot undetected? Sorry, but not all the cops and authority figures at the scene were as dumb as Dwayne.

 

[Jacob McCraw]

When McClane is filling Powell in on the situation he mentions that he thinks the terrorists are mostly european and one of the reasons he gives is their cigarettes. I always thought he suspected something when he gave Hans a cigarette and Hans failed to comment on it.

 

[Chad A Wright]

As mere mortals, who are we to question Die Hard?

Same goes for Jaws.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yes, but they planned to do so in the immediate aftermath of a huge explosion on the roof. There would have been chaos on the ground at that point.

M.

 

[Greg_R]

There is a deleted scene in the movie that answers this question. McClane notices that each terrorist has the same brand of watch. When he notices the same watch on Hans's wrist, he puts 2&2 together. The off brand cigarette explanation is also plausible. When in doubt, give the person an unloaded gun. If they try and shoot you, they are the bad guy!

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Die Hard is one of my favorite action movies, but the only thing that bothers me about it is how in the hell did that guy have a gun at the end?

 

[WillG]

I'm sure he found it. McClane left a few dead, armed terrorists around. He did waste that Chinese one right on the same floor he hung Karl on.