A look back on my weekend with 'Die Hard'

For no particular reason, this Sunday, my fiancee and I decided to watch the original three Die Hard films -- and the only legit ones in my humble opinion.

We watched them in reverse as a nod to a friend who joined us for one, and who insisted on starting with 1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance.

All three were big hits in their day -- although ironically the most financially successful of the three, Die Hard 2, enjoys something akin to red-headed stepchild status within the trilogy.

It's not hated, it's definitely a good action movie, but it doesn't have the same fandom the other two do, but more on that later.

Is this the greatest trio of action films ever? I won't go that far. But they are all strong, grounded entries that provide Bruce Willis with a great opportunity to do credible action while constantly making wisecracks.

In the CGI-dominated era in which he live, the practical achievement of these films is remarkable. And while each of the films take narrative leaps into the absurd (the subway travel estimates alone in Die Hard with a Vengeance are laughable), they have so much propulsive momentum that I didn't really mind.

Bruce Willis as John McClane

Here are some of my impressions of these memorable movies -- all of which have the terrific conceit of taking place within a 24-hour time frame. some twenty years removed from the last one:

Die Hard with a Vengeance - Several things struck me about this film. Its reputation has only grown since its initial release, with some fans suggesting it rivals the original in terms of quality. I wouldn't go that far but it definitely does a lot with an inventive plot. The preoccupation with race and the occasionally homophobic bits of dialogue date it a bit -- but otherwise this is an exciting, top notch action movie.

It has some pretty enormous gaps in logic. How for instance, does the villain (played terrifically by Jeremy Irons) manage to plant bombs in all these remote locations while planning to rob the Federal Reserve? But what this film does very well is recapture the spirit of the original film. Willis' John McClane is once again stuck in a situation he wants no part of -- roused from a hangover, he's the pawn of an apparent psychopath which sends him on a wild goose chase in order to prevent terrorist bombings.

It benefits largely from its New York flavor, little details that residents of the Big Apple would appreciate. And like all the best Die Hard films it's funny in a disarming sort of way. Also, most importantly, although it's plot is larger than life, the action mostly isn't.

Die Hard 2 - This one gets a bad wrap. It's set in a D.C, airport, which gives it less aesthetic flavor than the Los Angeles or New York-set films. Instead of the McClane character getting sucked into a situation against his will, he pretty much inserts himself into the action here -- which isn't terrible but does change the stakes a bit.

This time some shadowy military general from abroad is being set free by some other shadowy bad guys. And instead of a charismatic type, like Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber, they are led by a pretty straightforward creepy bad guy, played this time by William Sadler. Still, their plot to take over the air traffic control and crash plans unless their demands are met is suitably scary -- and once things get going there are some terrific set pieces where McClane takes matters into his own hands when officials at the airport try to marginalize him.

The cutaways to McClaine's wife on board one of the airlines in jeopardy are pretty cheesy though and the attempts to make meta 'here we go again' type commentary are more eyeroll inducing than anything else. Still, I am a Die Hard 2 defender. The climax and finale work for me, it has a certain ruthlessness which I appreciate in an action movie -- I love when a character's demise is shocking enough to illicit an audible "oooooohhh." But I also understand why this one isn't a fan favorite.

The premise just isn't as irresistible and the setting pales in comparison to the iconic, albeit fictional Nakatomi building of the first film.

Hans Gruber

Die Hard - Which brings me to the first film. I recently sang its praises while paying tribute to Alan Rickman and I want to double down on that. These films are almost always as good as their villains and Hans Gruber is one of the all time best. First, his plan is pretty flawless, the one thing he didn't prepare for was McClane, which all things considered, is a fair thing for him not to have anticipated.

Second, he doesn't screw around. He kills Nakatomi instead of toying with him. He largely contains the McClane situation, until his underlings screw that up. He is a formidable foe for McClane, if not physically than at least intellectually.

Similarly, the McClane character (despite some somewhat sexist attitudes towards his wife) is an expertly drawn, sympathetic character. His wisecracks seem less like schtick and more of a defense mechanism in this film and Willis is effective when he is allowed to show his character's genuine fear and vulnerability.

Hilariously, the filmmakers were contractually obligated to first offer Willis' role to Frank Sinatra since he had once played a character from the novel on which the movie is based. Sinatra would have been 73 at the time and he was nowhere near Harrison Ford shape.

Still, in retrospect, it's remarkable that Willis got the part. He had one minor hit under his belt, the B-movie Blind Date, and was mostly known as a charming TV star. In a way, he was the Chris Pratt of his day, a cuddly television actor remolded into a movie star overnight thanks to a sensational role. What the last two Die Hard films got wrong is they missed the point of what made the original so spectacular -- its simplicity.

Die Hard is great because it presents a semi-plausible but heightened situation -- a hostage crisis where one lone cop has slipped past the perpetrators. Too many action films add layers of complexity and extraneous plot, thinking that will make the final result more effective, but often times the best action movie strip the fat and stick to a direct, compelling narrative -- Mad Max Fury Road is a terrific example of that phenomenon.

I had a great time revisiting these films. I don't think we'll ever see action movies like this again, so they are worth treasuring for time capsule value, as well as pure entertainment.