Die Hard and Lethal Weapon are part of the upper echelon of action movies from the genre's golden age in the late 80s. We think now's the time to pit them against one another.
Stats:
Released: 1988
Director: John McTiernan
Writers: Jeb Stuart, Steven E. de Souza
Stars: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman
Producer:Charles Gordon, Lawrence Gordon, Beau Marks, Joel Silver
IMDb Rating: 8.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 94%
Released: 1987
Director: Richard Donnor
Writer: Shane Black
Stars: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover
Producer: Richard Donner, Jennie Lew Tugend, Joel Silver
IMDb Rating: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 90%
In favor of Die Hard
When Harrison first postulated his belief in the superiority of Lethal Weapon to Die Hard, I said yes. The reason is because it’s true. The first film in the Lethal Weapon series is superior to Die Hard. However I believe this to be the case because of one reason: they are not comparable films. If we look at the two objectively, we see that this fight is not only unfair, but also stacked heavily in Lethal Weapon’s favor. Lethal Weapon is a buddy cop movie with two actors in the leading roles, to Die Hard’s one. However I will try to prove that Die Hard is better for one reason: McClane is better than Riggs.
Motivation: Detective Riggs and Officer McClane both are both police officers with “marital troubles” so to speak. Riggs’s wife has just been murdered and his character arc is Riggs inability to deal with his loss. This is what Riggs needs to get over the loss by the end of the movie. McClane has separated from his wife (this trip is the first time they are seeing each other in almost 5 months) so by saving his wife it also probably saves his marriage. This makes his character arc stronger. Point McClane.
Skills: McClane lacks in this department, he is an ordinary police officer with just plain old ingenuity as his skill set. Riggs however is a trained Special Forces sniper, who is deadly accurate with most firearms, and can do that crazy-pop-your-shoulder-back-into its-socket-after-it’s-dislocated thing. Point Riggs.
Humor: This is where McClane has a huge advantage; Bruce Willis started his career on the show Moonlighting, a comedy television show. Before Lethal Weapon, Gibson had done three Mad Max films and Gallipoli. Although many would argue Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome is a comedy, Gibson doesn’t have the comedic pedigree of Willis. Point McClane. *
*Some will contend (coughHarrisoncough) that there is more humor in the Lethal Weapon however; if you watch the movie you will see that the humor is based on the report between Riggs and Murtaugh while Die Hard humor stems from McClane. It’s unfair to say because one movie has two guys to create humor is better. In fact, it is just excessive.
Sequels: 3 each. Point both.
So, McClane is up 3 to 2, but what seals the deal is the action movie requirement, you have to get the girl. Riggs gets no girl until Lethal Weapon 3. McClane gets the girl at the end of Die Hard. Point McClane.
I would be a negligent debater if I didn’t mention one of my fellow Albanians (Albany born) John McTiernan. This period in his career is arguably where McTiernan was at the top of his game. In 1987 he released Predator, Die Hard in 1988, and The Hunt for Red October in 1990. The success of these movies is the amount of suspense that McTiernan infuses into the typical action formula. Richard Donner, who was doing good work at the end of the 80’s, and did direct all of the Lethal Weapon films, but McTiernan’s work from 87-90, is arguably the best action of all time.
Lethal Weapon is by many standards a “better” film than Die Hard, but I believe that the true test of each of these movies is the strength of their protagonist. This is where the audience receives the most satisfaction, when the guy we are rooting for wins. Besides the reasons already mentioned McClane receives more empathy from the audience because he is more like the majority of the audience of the actions films: brash, uneducated (in the way of the sniper rifle), and trying to end the fight with his wife which has gone on way too long.
John McClane is America: knocked down, shoeless, and outnumbered by foreign enemies, but still fighting until the last second. This is why Die Hard is superior to Lethal Weapon.
In favor of Lethal WeaponMotivation: Detective Riggs and Officer McClane both are both police officers with “marital troubles” so to speak. Riggs’s wife has just been murdered and his character arc is Riggs inability to deal with his loss. This is what Riggs needs to get over the loss by the end of the movie. McClane has separated from his wife (this trip is the first time they are seeing each other in almost 5 months) so by saving his wife it also probably saves his marriage. This makes his character arc stronger. Point McClane.
Skills: McClane lacks in this department, he is an ordinary police officer with just plain old ingenuity as his skill set. Riggs however is a trained Special Forces sniper, who is deadly accurate with most firearms, and can do that crazy-pop-your-shoulder-back-into its-socket-after-it’s-dislocated thing. Point Riggs.
Humor: This is where McClane has a huge advantage; Bruce Willis started his career on the show Moonlighting, a comedy television show. Before Lethal Weapon, Gibson had done three Mad Max films and Gallipoli. Although many would argue Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome is a comedy, Gibson doesn’t have the comedic pedigree of Willis. Point McClane. *
*Some will contend (coughHarrisoncough) that there is more humor in the Lethal Weapon however; if you watch the movie you will see that the humor is based on the report between Riggs and Murtaugh while Die Hard humor stems from McClane. It’s unfair to say because one movie has two guys to create humor is better. In fact, it is just excessive.
Sequels: 3 each. Point both.
So, McClane is up 3 to 2, but what seals the deal is the action movie requirement, you have to get the girl. Riggs gets no girl until Lethal Weapon 3. McClane gets the girl at the end of Die Hard. Point McClane.
I would be a negligent debater if I didn’t mention one of my fellow Albanians (Albany born) John McTiernan. This period in his career is arguably where McTiernan was at the top of his game. In 1987 he released Predator, Die Hard in 1988, and The Hunt for Red October in 1990. The success of these movies is the amount of suspense that McTiernan infuses into the typical action formula. Richard Donner, who was doing good work at the end of the 80’s, and did direct all of the Lethal Weapon films, but McTiernan’s work from 87-90, is arguably the best action of all time.
Lethal Weapon is by many standards a “better” film than Die Hard, but I believe that the true test of each of these movies is the strength of their protagonist. This is where the audience receives the most satisfaction, when the guy we are rooting for wins. Besides the reasons already mentioned McClane receives more empathy from the audience because he is more like the majority of the audience of the actions films: brash, uneducated (in the way of the sniper rifle), and trying to end the fight with his wife which has gone on way too long.
John McClane is America: knocked down, shoeless, and outnumbered by foreign enemies, but still fighting until the last second. This is why Die Hard is superior to Lethal Weapon.
-Josh
Let’s face it, Lethal Weapon is not popular. Not by a long shot. While Die Hard is routinely showered with praise and gets to dance at the middle school social with all the ladies, Lethal Weapon sits in the corner cursing his fellow action movie waiting for the day when it’s his time to shine.
It’s been over 20 years since Lethal Weapon was released, I’d like to think it’s his time to shine now.
It may seem counter-intuitive to say this, but Lethal Weapon succeeds mainly because of how well it’s written. Common knowledge says that action movies are just supposed to be loud and dumb movies – no brain, all flash, sort of like a shiny hollow apple. But because of the brilliant writing, Lethal Weapon succeeds as one of the best action movies from the late 80s.
Lethal Weapon was written by Shane Black – commonly known as the godfather of late 80s/early 90s action movies. To put things in perspective, Black was hired by uber-action movie producer Joel Silver as an actor in Predator to keep an eye on the newcomer director John McTiernan. John McTiernan directed Die Hard after Predator.
Consider the overall plot structures of each movie. While Die Hard loads all the exposition onto the front end of the movie, Lethal Weapon’s plot unfolds like an onion. Die Hard’s plot is like if a stripper walked on stage nude and started dancing, Lethal Weapon on the other hand is like that same stripper starting fully clothed and seductively removing her clothes.
(Speaking of which, Lethal Weapon has a higher instance of boobs than Die Hard. In fact, the movie starts off with boobs. Not to mention that in Die Hard the boobs are a fleeting image. Lethal Weapon quite literally lets the audience soak in the boobs with a shower scene.)
Die Hard has this odd fascination with giving the audience characters that are extraordinarily passive. Al just stands and talks into a handset until the last minute of the movie. Holly is only used as a human shield and as a plot device to give Hans more screen time. Argyle sits around in a car for the whole movie. Seriously. The character of Al is for the audience to get a perspective of the movie's action from an outsider. If that were the purpose of Argyle, it would be redundant. He's not the comic relief either. A successful comic relief would be with the protagonist throughout the events of the movie and give the audience quips about the plot. Argyle just sits in a car. That's it.
Not only are Lethal Weapon's characters active, they are three-dimensional too. Consider the following: the protagonist's weaknesses. Die Hard starts off with McClane scared to fly. This, in turn, gives the writers the opportunity to get McClane to take his shoes off. After that, he's running around barefoot and cuts his feet up with glass. To me, this series of events comes across as contrived. It seems like the writers wanted to use a cool gimmick like having the main character's feet cut up by broken glass and then worked backwards to find a way to set off the chain of events.
In Lethal Weapon, Riggs' weakness is his depression and emotional instability after loosing his wife. This controls all of his behavior throughout the movie. Instead of working backwards and finding questions for answers, Black creates questions and then answers them throughout the movie. “What if a suicidal cop had to stop a jumper from committing suicide?” Also, Riggs nearly kills himself in the first part of the movie. He puts a gun in his mouth and gets a millimeter away from pulling the trigger. That's a true weakness. Despite McClane's fear of flying, there's was nothing to say he couldn't do the things he did in that movie. For that same reason, that's why his actions come across as outlandish. In Lethal Weapon we gain the knowledge that Riggs is a talented practitioner of martial arts.
The bonding between Riggs and Murtaugh is more organic than in Die Hard. Riggs and Murtaugh start off hating each other. It isn't until a shootout where Riggs saves Murtaugh's life that a mutual respect begins to form. Meanwhile, over at Die Hard, McClane and Al are buddy-buddy after McClane drops a dead body on Al's car, causing Al to crash down a hill. Because really, who doesn't make a best friend after dropping a dead body on a car?
The dialogue in Lethal Weapon may be the most defining part of the movie. Black infuses great wit into the tightly paced movie. Die Hard is a textbook example of what dialogue should be in a movie. Characters say what they need to say when they need to say it in order to advance the plot. In Lethal Weapon, however, Black kicks it up a notch by adding some stylistic flair.
This is from a scene in the movie when Riggs and Murtaugh realize the case they're investigating is more complex than they realize.
MURTAUGH
We know someone was in bed with Amanda
Hunsaker the night she died.
RIGGS
Right. 'Til now we assumed it was a man.
MURTAUGH
Okay. Let's say it was Dixie.
RIGGS
Okay. Disgusting, but okay: Let's say Dixie
slipped the drain cleaner into the pills.
MURTAUGH
Say someone paid her to do it.
RIGGS
Sure. She thinks, terrific, Amanda swallows a couple
downers and boom, she's dead. Then Dixie--
MURTAUGH
If it was her--
RIGGS
Right, right, then Dixie has plenty of time
to spritz the place up, get out, whatever.
MURTAUGH
Except Amanda jumps out the window.
RIGGS
Or Dixie pushes her. Either way
MURTAUGH
Either way, she's gotta make a fast getaway, 'cause now
the body's public. She hauls ass downstairs.
RIGGS
People are coming out saying, 'What happened? What happened?'.
MURTAUGH
Someone spots her. She says 'shit.'
RIGGS
Right. She actually stops and says, 'Shit.'
MURTAUGH
The point being, now she has to cover her ass.
RIGGS
Right. So she says, 'Officer, officer, I saw the whole thing.'
MURTAUGH
Right.
RIGGS
Right.
MURTAUGH
That's pretty fucking thin.
RIGGS
Very thin.
MURTAUGH
Hell with it. Thin's my middle name.
RIGGS
Your wife's cooking, I'm not surprised.
MURTAUGH
What?
RIGGS
Nothing.
MURTAUGH
Remarks like that will not get you invited to Christmas dinner.
RIGGS
My luck's changing for the better everyday.
We know someone was in bed with Amanda
Hunsaker the night she died.
RIGGS
Right. 'Til now we assumed it was a man.
MURTAUGH
Okay. Let's say it was Dixie.
RIGGS
Okay. Disgusting, but okay: Let's say Dixie
slipped the drain cleaner into the pills.
MURTAUGH
Say someone paid her to do it.
RIGGS
Sure. She thinks, terrific, Amanda swallows a couple
downers and boom, she's dead. Then Dixie--
MURTAUGH
If it was her--
RIGGS
Right, right, then Dixie has plenty of time
to spritz the place up, get out, whatever.
MURTAUGH
Except Amanda jumps out the window.
RIGGS
Or Dixie pushes her. Either way
MURTAUGH
Either way, she's gotta make a fast getaway, 'cause now
the body's public. She hauls ass downstairs.
RIGGS
People are coming out saying, 'What happened? What happened?'.
MURTAUGH
Someone spots her. She says 'shit.'
RIGGS
Right. She actually stops and says, 'Shit.'
MURTAUGH
The point being, now she has to cover her ass.
RIGGS
Right. So she says, 'Officer, officer, I saw the whole thing.'
MURTAUGH
Right.
RIGGS
Right.
MURTAUGH
That's pretty fucking thin.
RIGGS
Very thin.
MURTAUGH
Hell with it. Thin's my middle name.
RIGGS
Your wife's cooking, I'm not surprised.
MURTAUGH
What?
RIGGS
Nothing.
MURTAUGH
Remarks like that will not get you invited to Christmas dinner.
RIGGS
My luck's changing for the better everyday.
In this exchange, we get the story behind the character Dixie and Riggs and Murtaugh get to show off their wit and personalities.
Die Hard is a big, dumb, and yes, fun action movie. Many people give it praise because the movie gives off the illusion that it is an intelligent movie. But Die Hard is more like the kid in 7th grade English reciting cliff's notes about a book. He can quickly engage in conversations with the teacher, but the conversation never gets deep. Lethal Weapon is the kid in the middle of the class, who's not only read the book, he could write a detailed 10 page report about it. He's just too shy to speak up.
Lethal Weapon not only has great action set pieces, it also is populated with intelligent characters who battle each other with guns and wit.
Last, but certainly not least, Lethal Weapon features barrel rolls. Die Hard does not.
-Harrison
6 comments:
Die Hard is the better movie because it gives the audience a more active experience. We watch John McClane voyeuristically projecting our own reactions to his quirky situations. As unbelievable a story as it is, we cannot help but think of how we would respond in John's position or whatever character we have taken to(holly, argyle, carl winslow). This allows the movie to resonate with the viewer in a much deeper way than lethal weapon. We see more Die hard quotes than lethal weapon quotes because, as moviegoers, we "lived" the experience and the lines and events of the movie had a much deeper impact on us. As Harrison points out, Lethal Weapon depends heavily on the interaction between the two characters which removes the viewer from the movie and does not allow them to participate in the film as Die Hard does. We simply watch the movie to see what silly things Riggs will do as Murdoch does his "straight man" routine. The story has no significance on the "film"--which i define as Riggs and Murdoch banter. It is interesting to point out that the Die Hard franchise converts to a "buddy movie" situation and we are again left with memorable interactions between John and Zeus and not the experience of the situation. Ironically, I think that Die Hard 3 does a better job executing the buddy movie through it's suspenseful plot. This allows the viewer a chance to continually question how John and Zeus are going to get out of whatever situation they find themselves in. We all remember the simple simon phone call and the water jugs in the park because we were desperately trying to figure out the riddles alongside John and Zeus. Lethal Weapon doesn't have that. It IS a "deeper" movie and gives us a better look into the dynamics of Riggs and Murdoch but the movie fails to make use of these characters and instead cheapens the development with a generic uninspired plot.
@Anonymous:
First, Murdoch is the crazy guy from A-Team.
Second, based on your definition of what makes a good movie -- emotionally interactivity -- I have to assume you think video games are better than movies. Think about it, most video games are now described as "interactive movies." You don't have to think about what you'd do in John McClane's situation, you get to do it for him. I don't find any fault in this thinking, it's your opinion.
I would like to point out though that filmmakers have tried interactive movies and cinema and it was met with less than stellar responses.
So the question is: Do audiences really want interactivity?
As far as Lethal Weapon is concerned, I feel like you have a bit of a straw man set up. The audience worries about whether Riggs is going to lose it, whether Murtuagh is going to crack under the pressure, whether Riggs can escape from the water torture device, etc.
I'd go as far to say that all movies do this, it just depends how well the characters are written and portrayed. At this point then, you have to decide which character is better, which Josh and I did.
EDIT CLARIFICATION:
@Anonymous
The difference I'm trying to point out is that you're saying a good movie is defined by how well an audience member can project themselves onto a character.
I'm saying a good movie is how well the audience is emotionally attached to a character.
Now, you might say that if an audience member can project themselves onto a character they are emotionally attached. True. But to go back to video games, this would be the difference between First Person Shooters and Third Person games.
A movie with a sole protagonist will, from the get go, be easier to project onto. But there are bad First Person Shooters.
I don't think you can define good and bad movies on such narrow terms. What i'm suggesting is that if we are to look at the 80's action flick, we are looking at who can best entertain their audience. The two filmmakers were not looking to give the audiences an alternative view to the Vietnam war such as Deer Hunter or Platoon. They aren't trying to teach you about the power of following your dreams like Gattaca. The two films in question want you to come out of the theater saying, "that was fucking awesome!" What i'm saying is the vehicle that Die Hard uses to get you to the desired path is much more effective. Both movies epitomize their respective sub-genres within the 80's action flicks but the reason Die Hard is more popular and "successful" is because its "design" is superior to Lethal Weapon's. It has an interactive quality that allows the viewer to become more easily engaged with the film. Its plot is simple and easily digested--but unique for its time. And because of its simplicity the viewer is able to follow along play by play and recognize the "bad ass" quotes and other memorable moments as outliers to the simple structure of the film. So yes, to the critic, it is a bit of a frat guy amidst the starving hipsters but it does what it sets out to do and it does it well. Lethal Weapon finds itself in a confused teenager stage where it isn't quite sure what kind of movie it wants to be. It knows it's an 80's action flick but the writing and depth of characters confuses it into thinking it is more than "an action-packed roller coaster ride." It seems like Harrison has picked up on the depth of the movie and has attributed it to mean a better movie. Perhaps he's correct. In his definition of why it's a better movie, I think he's absolutely correct. I just question whether in the comparison between Die Hard and Lethal Weapon if better writing and character development has any bearing. This seems to be the conclusion Josh has come to as well. Die Hard tells a simple story in simple terms and the result is a memorable film experience. Lethal Weapon tries to break out of its genre and the result is a bit muddled. That is my argument. Die Hard does what it sets out to do better than Lethal Weapon and its aspirations.
Ben was yelling at me to post an actual comment so I'll just make this very simple for you a month after the fact.
Lethal Weapon: Protagonist cries like child and contemplates suicide
Die Hard: Protagonist pulls a fucking gun that is duck taped to his fucking back and shoots bad guy #2 in head then crosses arms and shoots bad guy #1 in heart, sending him off of the top floor of a skyscraper and making a cop hope he's not one of the hostages.
yeah dude, lethal weapon is way better, I totally prefer crybabys
@God
You don't exist, neither does your post.
Post a Comment