Die Hard Question (1 Viewer)

[Ray H]

As far as sequels go, I liked Die Hard 2. I've only seen it once, but I remember really enjoying it. I do think it kinda dragged a bit in the middle though.

I also like Die Hard With a Vengeance, but I always thought it felt more like a prequel. Although I like the fact that things aren't so happy, it seems like the series actually retrogressed. The only links between the two films seem to be the whole Han's brother out for revenge thing. The situation (John in NY, estranged from his wife) fits moreso with the events before the first film.

 

[Matthew Marino]

As far as John knowing it was Hans, I've always just thought his accent was the giveaway. Sure he's putting on a phony accent, but face it, it still sounds like Alan Rickman (who has a pretty darn distinctive voice). Don't forget the quote "pretty f*&*ing tricky with that accent". I think he looks over at the board, sees W Clay and is pretty impressed by how prepared Hans was but he was already onto him by that point.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Yeah, I think it was a character strengthening thing for both of them. It shows Hans to be an atypical movie villain in that he was smart enough to avoid this problem and it shows John as being smart enough to size up his opponent.

Plus, as a movie moment, it plays very well. Thinking back to how a fresh audience views it, they see Wm Clay on the wall and scream out that he shouldn't give him a gun. Suddenly our hero is in a bind because the bad guy did his research. Then we come to find that he was safe all along. Great setup, and it lets him be very bold in front of Hans.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

I also had been reading Ebert's and by the time I had read of Die Hard and Die Harder I was gaining an understanding his motivation.

Farm from being an oddity, his opinions of the these films is a telling indicator of his his political bent.

Early in the film, we learn that John McClane is a maverick in his police department - a cowboy. That is probably the reason that Hans refers to him later as a cowboy and why he takes the name of Roy Rogers. John is an honest no bs cop, but we have clues that he is prone to ruffle feathers in his department. The character of Deputy Police Commissioner Dwayne is that of a CYA bureaucrat. A poster boy for the Peter Principle concept where he has risen to one step past his level of competence. My theory on why Ebert has a problem with this characterization is that he is respectful of the bureaucracy. Even corrupt and inefficient ones, save perhaps the military. Dwayne is a government worker - basically - and his plodding and stupidity will always be tolerated by Ebert. So to make fun of a bureaucrat like Dwayne is to thumb your nose at Roger's core belief of having large government to take care of all our needs.

I find it hard to imagine the film without this satirization of this incompetant bureaucrat. What would be the point of having McClane be the iconoclast? Not only is he struggling to overcome the terrorists, but also the LAPD, and oh yeah, the FBI. Like Dwayne, Roger would feel more comfortable if John just sat down and waited for the local police and FBI to come in. "Let's Roll" is not in Rogers vocabularity.

Ebert often finds fault with plot lines that do not reflect his PC philosophy. I search out his reviews to find how he will weave in his political beliefs in a review. But that is for another thread.

I'll pull up a few other movies that repeat this theme and a similar take from Roger.