Overrated big time

did you literally copy this from the T2 board?

Eat a sandwich

Movie was too woke for me. Having a black man finish the job that a white man couldn't finish by killing the last terrorist made my blood boil. Black man kills 1 measly little terrorist and they fawn all over him like he just saved the world. White man kills 80 million terrorists, gets a pat on the back.

Big time pandering. Might as well call the movie, "Woke Hard" instead.

I respect your opinion and I will fight to the death your right to it, but Die Hard is one of the greatest films ever made. And it was ahead of its time because it showed that black people could not only drive cars but drive cars into other cars. Progressive.

The film was made over thirty years ago, which is well before most of the posters on this discussion board came into this world. The film is rightly identified by critics and fans alike as creating a new genre of action hero who is fallible, reluctant to act, and is capable of being harmed, even exhausted, in his cinematic travails. As an action film it compares extremely well with its contemporaries, and its central character offers, at very least, the APPEARANCE of greater, grittier realism, than the entire previous gang of hyper-steroidal, musclebound morons that dominated the genre up till then. This was the third film of John McTiernan after 'Nomads' (1986) and 'Predator' (1987), the former a post-psychedelic supernatural thriller, and the latter an 'Alien'-esque action film of the aforementioned hyper-steroidal, musclebound-moron-type. I'm fairly sure there is not a single director in the cosmos that would mind these films on his/her/its resume, if it meant they got to go on directing big-buck Hollywood blockbusters for the next thirty years. As for 'brilliant', this is an arguable point; yet no argument has been proffered. As for 'classic', well, this might be arguable too, but for the inexplicable yet UNDENIABLE charisma of Bruce Willis and his 'Yippee-Ki Yay Motherf**ker' tagline, both of which have been embedded in western culture for nearly a generation. What is certifiably lame, however, is a poster identifying themselves as 'edgy' or 'contrarian', without giving any kind of reasonable argument or proof of why they didn't like the film. If you didn't like the film, or felt it didn't live up to your perception of its own hype, thirty-three years on, I would say this is your issue, not anyone else's. If you are more than fifteen years old, it might be argued that you might have seen this film a bit earlier, when the weight of years did not oppress your delicate sensibilities, nor unfairly inflate your expectations. Cheers.

Assholes—what you call “edgy contrarian”—don’t have an edge, Willi boy. Assholes, by their very nature, are DULL, as in “Duh.”

This one isn't overrated but all the sequels are however.

I was just about to track me down a laughing hysterically gif before I read the whole post 🤣🤣🤣🤣