Your reading Be Kind, Rewind, Where I review movies from the 70s to 90s weekly. If there is a movie you would like me to review, email me at [email protected] with the subject line, Be Kind, Rewind.
“Die Hard,” released in 1988 and starring Bruce Willis, could quite possibly be one of the greatest action movies ever made. With the film making 80 million in box office, it doubled Die Hard’s budget, leading the movie to get three sequels. The movie takes place in only one building, yet uses the entire space incredibly, with even the ventilation systems being turned into an iconic movie staple.
The movie follows John McClane, a New York police officer who is trapped by terrorists in a Los Angeles Plaza. With nothing but a gun (and I mean nothing; he doesn’t even have shoes), McClane attempts to take out the terrorists without getting any hostages killed. Worst of all, one of the hostages is his wife, who becomes the center of attention quickly.
Not only does the film exceed every expectation of an action film, from gunfights to explosions, but it also does an amazing job at creating a sense of realism, which is often lacking in modern cinema.
Something that seems to undermine the action genre has always been how over the top everything is. It often feels like you no longer are in the story but just watching it. Things like surviving great falls and effortlessly taking a bullet to the shoulder are fun but make it harder to connect with the ever-more unrealistic characters.
In “Die Hard,” when McClane gets attacked, he would always find ample cover and take out the enemy tactically. What improved this more is how the enemy would retaliate, often with a clever plan themselves, just never clever enough. There was always something at stake, but McClane never went in ‘guns blazing,’ making the film’s plot seem possible and almost probable, if in that scenario.
“Die Hard” also gives the characters outside of the plaza a sense of realism too. When the police arrive on the scene, they take the operation skeptically and carefully. Even when McClane warned them not to do something, they didn’t take his word, as they had no way of knowing McClane was sincere. This added depth to even the least prominent characters and added strong suspense to the film.
What just may be the film’s greatest strength is its attention to detail. Small tidbits that make the characters seem smart, or acute to their surroundings gave an added layer of realistic nature. Things like McClane attempting to call for help before resorting to defeating the enemy or slowly trying to get down an elevator shaft. These small details helped take a step back from common action films where everything is immediate and less meticulous.
Another thing that set Die Hard apart from the general action film was the lack of an overpowered, ballistic villain. The main villain, Hans Gruber (played by the late Alan Rickman), is not someone who fights his own battles. Gruber rarely engaged in combat, but he was always the mastermind behind the operation.
The film could have had the villain appear just to put the plot in motion, like they often do; instead, Gruber created an atmosphere like no other. Every word he said made the film a little better and the suspense a little higher. With perfect pauses and ingenious speech, Gruber might not have brought the brawn, but he certainly made the brawn follow orders.
Gruber added a perfect clash between him and McClane, where both are cunning, but only one of them has a plan: Gruber. The only problem was that McClane wasn’t accounted for in Gruber’s plan, making the film feel like a constant tug over who was winning and who was losing. With “Die Hard” being labeled a “must see” over the years, I would have to agree, giving the movie 4.8📼 out of 5📼, as it is easily a “winning” movie.
