I think that the movie Die Hard is a deceit movie, but I would definitely have to say that is was not a great movie. If anything I would rate this with 2 stars out of 4. My rating is greatly affected by the newest version of Die Hard, Die Hard 4.0, which I felt was much more engaging and I enjoyed the setting and the plot of that movie much more. I felt like the plot of this Die Hard was not as engaging and could have had so much more to make the plot more complicated. However, some people may argue that it is an older movie and back then movies were not as dense compared to the present films. To this I have to point out the film Blue Dahlia, which is older than Die Hard, yet the plot, contains twists and turns that leaves the viewer wondering. Furthermore, while watching this movie there wasn’t really anything that grab my attention and hooked me into the film. I didn’t feel like there was anything unique and exciting about it such as unique stunts or memorable quotes, but rather it was a basic average movie.
I and Roger Ebert have at least one thing in common which is that we both gave this movie a 2 star rating. However, there is also one key area that Ebert talks about in his blog that I would have to disagree with. Ebert says that the role of the deputy police chief, Paul Gleason, is an unnecessary additional character. I disagree with him on this as I think Gleason adds value to the movie by getting the viewer to further appreciate the police officer who keeps in contact with Willis. Ebert gives the opposing side and shows that not everybody is as trusting as the officer. I think that Ebert also is placed to be compared with Willis as when Gleason messes up; it is Willis that comes around to fix his mistakes even though he isn’t in charge. This then creates a better image for Willis and draws the audience to relate with him more.