 I don't think that it would be controversial to put Die Hard in a League with some of the best action movies of all time. The well-shot and well-choreographed action, the fun dialogue, and the perfect story structure all help to make it stand above the rest. But today I want to examine what makes it different, what director John McTiernan does to make it unique, exciting, and most importantly, an emotional story. I think the best place to begin is by looking at John McClane, but more importantly his role within the film, because he serves a much bigger purpose than just being a catalyst for action moments. The biggest contribution he has is pushing the story forward. Early on he has the option to leave. He sees a literal exit sign, he could easily leave, go to the authorities, and hope the problem fixes itself. But instead, he chooses to be the one to solve the problem. Last week when looking at Dunkirk I spoke about the importance of always raising the stakes. Guy Hart is able to do this perfectly. By the end of Act 1, John is armed with his HK94 submachine gun, his Beretta 92F handgun, and a bag full of explosives. It looks like he's ready to take out the entire group of terrorists. However, as this act progresses, he begins to become unarmed, losing the submachine gun and the explosives, and left with only two bullets in his handgun. Writers Jeb Stewart and Stephen E. DeSousa do a great job at making the challenge in front of John escalate as he progresses throughout the story. The harder it becomes to complete his goal, the more rewarding it feels when he actually does. In addition to pushing the narrative forward over the two hour course of the film, John undergoes a complete change in character. He may appear to be a rough and tough officer, but early on he isn't happy with where he is in life. He hates having to fly across the country to see his kids, he wishes he was better so his wife would take him back. I think this scene, or more importantly this small moment, tells us everything we need to know about our protagonist, and that is that he isn't perfect, he's a flawed character, and over the course of the film he begins to redeem himself. In addition to the overarching narrative there is a subplot, one that matches the structure of the narrative completely beat for beat, where John ultimately leads himself to redemption, where he is able to reveal his positive traits, his perseverance, and his dedication to doing right. It's this that we are drawn to, we want to see him succeed, the movie is able to lead that out perfectly. A lot of this love ability comes from the humor he brings to the movie, Die Hard in a Lot of Ways was a legitimately funny movie, but the humor doesn't come from a necessity for it to be light hearted, instead it comes from the protagonist acting the way he normally would act. He is trying to calm down and de-escalate the situation to bring a sense of levity to it. This is a perfect example of the character's intentions being the same as the writer's, it matches up and it works and is believable for the audience, it never feels like he is flipping a switch going from being serious to being funny, it just feels like he is behaving the way he always behaves. But a hero is only as good as his villain and John McClane needs to overcome Hans Gruber, one of the best cinematic villains of all time. And just as John is a very relatable character, the writers do a lot to ensure that Hans is one too. One of the most important factors that leads to this is that he has understandable motives. Hans isn't looking for world domination, quite frankly he wants money. He's often referred to as a terrorist which I don't think is quite accurate. He isn't trying to terrorize the world, he just wants, he just uses extreme methods to achieve this goal. Here in mind this film was released in 1988, just three months after Michael Douglas won an Oscar in part because of this monologue. Hans is the villain not because of his desires, but the way in which he goes about achieving these desires. On top of that he is a worthy adversary to John, he and his team are well organized and well put together. He has a great plan, all the resources he needs, he's smart and he's ruthless. All of this makes John's challenge of overcoming him more challenging and subsequently more rewarding when he finally does. In addition, Hans doesn't make any stupid mistakes that allows John to beat him, instead it is up to John to outthink and outmaneuver him. The trouble is, Hans makes that easier said than done. He is always willing to improvise, one of the biggest problems that I see in a lot of modern action movies is that the villain's plan seems to be on tracks. Every tiny detail must go according to plan and often times this refusal to do anything different leads the plan to fail. Hans is willing to improvise to get the last door open, or even during the confrontation with John here. This scene in particular helps reveal a lot about both of their characters. It shows John isn't as trusting as it may appear. It also tells us that even when Hans makes a mistake he is smart and fast enough to recuperate from that mistake. Eventually John is able to persevere, push himself to his very limits and it takes nothing less in his full effort for him to succeed. Die Hard structure is very conventional, which in some cases can be a detriment to the film. If we as the audience already know how the movie is going to end, it can be less satisfying going there. That simply isn't the case in Die Hard, and I think in large part that is because it is willing to bend some of the rules, that follows one traditional structure, but also improvises in many ways, very similar to the characters. I want to end this video by focusing on three of the elements that make Die Hard unique in spite of a traditional structure. First of all is smart exposition. Take for example this scene in the limo. We learn about his broken marriage, how in many ways he is just a regular die because he is willing to set up front instead of being driven around. He is anxious and a good police officer. We learn all of this in minutes, in fact the whole first act of the film is very efficient. By the time we are 20 minutes into the movie, the script has already painted a clear picture of who John is and what he wants. Yet it never feels forced or clunky, it just feels like a regular conversation. The movie also takes its time to develop. Like I said, the film takes a good 20 minutes before showing us any action. In that time we learn about our characters, who they are and what drives them. It helps us relate to and care for them, so when the chaos begins, we are already invested in the story. It also helps to build anticipation. We know that something is going to happen, and the longer it waits, the more rewarding that wait is. Finally the film tells us a lot about where we are. In the exposition overload we learn a lot about the characters, but something that is of the utmost importance is learning the geography of Nakatomi Plaza. The film spends a great deal of time showing us the ins and outs and putting a lot of emphasis on where things are. That's why particular attention is drawn to the elevator, where the offices are, and even which floor of the building they are on. These are all small but important details that have a long term effect on the story. In a movie that is as big as Die Hard, it's always good to know that it's being carefully driven by someone focused on every detail in order to ensure that the best story is told. Hey everyone, happy holidays, no matter what you celebrate and I hope you enjoyed. I really do think that Die Hard stands in a league of its own, it played it safe in a lot of ways, but also changed up enough to ensure that it's fresh. Ironically I'd say pretty much everything that the first movie did right is what a lot of these subsequent Die Hard films ended up doing horribly. I know there's yet another film in the work so I guess here is hoping that that movie can take some notes from Die Hard, one of the best lessons in storytelling ever. Anyway if you're new here be sure to hit that subscribe button in case you missed it. Thanks for watching and I will see you next week for the last dissection of 2017.