Editing Die Hard (section)

===Critical response===
Initial critical reviews of ''Die Hard'' were mixed.<ref name="afi"/> Audiences reacted more positively; polls by the market research firm CinemaScore found that audiences gave it an average rating of "A+" on an {{nowrap|A+ to F}} scale.<ref name="CinemaScore" />

McTiernan's direction was praised.<ref name="ReviewLATimes"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/><ref name="ReviewCanby"/> In the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', [[Dave Kehr]] wrote that McTiernan's "logical" direction created a sense of scale in the film that made it seem more significant than its content.<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/> The scene in which the terrorists take over the building was described as a "textbook study" by [[Kevin Thomas (film critic)|Kevin Thomas]], providing a strong introduction to both McTiernan's abilities and De Bont's cinematography.<ref name="ReviewLATimes"/> De Govia's set design was complimented by Kehr as "ingenious".<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/> Ebert praised the stunts and special effects.<ref name="ReviewRogerEbert"/>

Critics were conflicted over Willis's performance.<ref name="ReviewDesson"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/><ref name="ReviewHinson"/> Many considered ''Die Hard'' Willis's breakout role, reviving his faltering transition from television to film star, and demonstrating his leading-man status and comedic range.<ref name="ReviewLATimes"/><ref name="ReviewDesson"/><ref>{{harvnb|Mills|1988|p=5}}; {{harvnb|Denerstein|1988|p=16}}; {{harvnb|Ryan|1988|p=51}}; {{harvnb|WillisteinD2|1988|p=51 D2}}; {{harvnb|Andrews|1988|p=3}}</ref> Kathy Huffhines and James Mills considered Willis's performance an evolution of his ''Moonlighting'' character David Addison with less sexism and more masculinity. Huffhines wrote that the performance improved as Willis hewed closer to his own working-class background.{{sfn|Mills|1988|p=5}}{{sfn|Huffhines|1988|p=22 }}{{sfn|Cidoni|1988|p=3D}} Reviewers including Terry Lawson and Paul Willistein believed that despite expectations, Willis had been well cast, bringing a necessary vulnerability and sense of humor to a contemporary hero; one who displays remorse, fear, and indecision without being overly macho or comedic, and delivers dialogue that other action stars could not.<ref>{{harvnb|Denerstein|1988|p=16}}; {{harvnb|Ryan|1988|p=51}}; {{harvnb|WillisteinD2|1988|p=51 D2}}; {{harvnb|Cidoni|1988|p=3D}}; {{harvnb|Lawson|1988|p=32 8C}}; {{harvnb|Boyar|1988|pp=47,51}}</ref> Marke Andrews argued that this vulnerability was essential to creating tension because audiences care about the character's fate.{{sfn|Andrews|1988|p=3}} Some reviewers felt that Willis's strongest talent—his comedic ability—had been woefully underutilized.<ref name="ReviewHinson"/><ref name="RevVariety"/>

Writing for ''[[The Washington Post]]'', [[Hal Hinson]] complimented Willis's "grace and physical bravado" that allowed him to stand alongside the likes of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. Conversely [[Vincent Canby]] said he lacked "toughness".<ref name="ReviewCanby"/><ref name="ReviewHinson" /> Reviewers generally agreed that Willis's dramatic acting was unimpressive or limited; Jay Boyar believed his abilities were perfect for McClane, although Kehr criticized him as only a television-level star.<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/>{{sfn|Ryan|1988|p=51}}{{sfn|Boyar|1988|pp=47,51}} [[Richard Schickel]] said Willis's performance was "whiny and self-involved", and that removing his undershirt by the film's denouement was the totality of his acting range. He acknowledged it was difficult to perform when acting only against special effects.<ref name="ReviewSchickel"/>

Rickman's performance was praised.{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/><ref name="ReviewHinson"/>{{sfn|Huffhines|1988|p=22 }}{{sfn|Ringel|1988|p=189,195,195}}}} [[Caryn James]] said he was the film's best feature, portraying "the perfect snake",<ref name="ReviewNYT"/> and Hinson likened his work to the "sneering", malevolent performance by [[Laurence Olivier]] in ''[[Richard III (1955 film)|Richard III]]'' (1955).<ref name="ReviewHinson"/> Kehr called Gruber a classic villain who combined the silliness of actor [[Claude Rains]] and the "smiling dementia" of actor [[George Macready]].<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/> Canby said that Rickman provided the only credible performance, and [[Roger Ebert]]—who was otherwise critical of the film—singled it out for praise.<ref name="ReviewRogerEbert"/> Critics routinely praised Bedelia's performance and lamented that she was underused, in favor of McClane's and Powell's relationship.{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReviewHinson"/>{{sfn|Huffhines|1988|p=22 }}{{sfn|Cidoni|1988|p=3D}}{{sfn|Lawson|1988|p=32 8C}}}} Schickel highlighted a scene in which McClane confesses his sins to Powell before rescuing his wife, robbing their marital reunion of meaning.<ref name="ReviewSchickel"/> Ebert and Schickel both felt that only McClane's and Powell's characters were developed.<ref name="ReviewHinson"/><ref name="ReviewSchickel"/> The film's success was credited to the remote relationships built between Willis, Rickman, and Veljohnson, by Mike Cidoni.{{sfn|Cidoni|1988|p=3D}} Huffhines and Mills credited the performances with anchoring the film.{{sfn|Mills|1988|p=5}}{{sfn|WillisteinD2|1988|p=51 D2}}{{sfn|Huffhines|1988|p=22 }} Ebert focused his criticism on the police captain (portrayed by Gleason), citing the character as an example of a "willfully useless and dumb" obstruction that wasted screen time and weakened the plot.<ref name="ReviewRogerEbert"/> Thomas commended the casting of several minority actors.<ref name="ReviewLATimes"/>

The action and violence were criticized by many reviewers.{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReviewLATimes" /><ref name="ReviewNYT" /><ref name="ReviewCanby" /><ref name="ReviewSchickel" />}} Kevin Thomas said the film had [[plot hole]]s and lacked credibility. He believed it was the result of a calculated effort to please the broadest possible audience, and concluded that it had squandered its potential as an intelligent thriller for "numbing" violence and carnage.<ref name="ReviewLATimes" /> Canby offered a similar sentiment, suggesting the film would appeal only to audiences that required a constant stream of explosions and loud noises. He described it as a "nearly perfect movie for our time", designed to appeal to audiences Canby described as "kidults"—adults with the mindset of children.<ref name="ReviewCanby" /> One violent scene, in which Powell saves McClane by shooting Karl, was singled out. Schickel believed it to be a cynical scene that undermined the humanity formed between McClane and Powell, by having Powell find redemption for his own mistakes through violence. Hinson believed the audience was deliberately manipulated into cheering for the act.<ref name="ReviewLATimes" /><ref name="ReviewHinson" /><ref name="ReviewSchickel" /> Writing for ''The New York Times'', James said the film offered fun escapism while relying on action clichés, but Hinson countered that despite the relentless thrills, the film was not enjoyable.<ref name="ReviewHinson" />

Reviews identified allusions in ''Die Hard'' to films such as ''The Towering Inferno'' and ''[[The Poseidon Adventure (1972 film)|The Poseidon Adventure]]'' (1972), ''[[Alien (film)|Alien]]'' (1979), ''Aliens'', and ''[[RoboCop]]'' (1987).{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune" />{{sfn|Mills|1988|p=5}}{{sfn|WillisteinD2|1988|p=51 D2}}{{sfn|Cidoni|1988|p=3D}}}} Kehr said ''Die Hard'' emulated ''Alien'' and ''RoboCop'' by developing a humorous and sentimental design that perfected the action genre, but in doing so it lacked a personality of its own.<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune" /> Writing for the ''[[Poughkeepsie Journal]]'', Cidoni felt ''Die Hard'' made previous action blockbusters such as ''Predator'', ''[[Missing in Action (film)|Missing in Action]]'' (1984), and ''Rambo'' look like "[[tupperware parties]]".{{sfn|Cidoni|1988|p=3D}}

''Die Hard'' was one of several 1988 films labeled "morally objectionable" by the [[Roman Catholic Church]], along with ''[[The Last Temptation of Christ (film)|The Last Temptation of Christ]]'', ''Bull Durham'' and ''A Fish Called Wanda''.<ref name="NYTimesCatholic"/> Robert Davi saw the film with Schwarzenegger; Schwarzenegger was positive, but did not like Davi's character narrative, saying, "You were heroic! And now you've turned into an idiot!"<ref name="VultureTidbits"/>