Full Metal Bolshevik said:
I own Die Hard, but never saw it.
It just looks like a dumb action movie. Even if it's good, is it meaningful in any way?
Die Hard represented a major shift in the action movie paradigm. Part of the reason it may come across as dated is because every action movie that came along after Die Hard was trying to be Die Hard. Some still are [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2302755/].
Before Die Hard, 80s action heroes were live-action cartoon characters. Guys like Schwarzenegger and Stallone came across as larger-than-life supermen who dispensed death with no remorse and witty one-liners. I love a lot of these movies, but this is what most of them were. Sadly, this is also what the Die Hard franchise would become by the time of the 4th installment.
Die Hard took an actor better known for romantic comedy, and made him a blue-collar regular guy with real-life problems (his marriage is failing, his wife moved their kids across the country) who develops authentic relationships with other guys he can relate to and authentic antagonisms with other believable characters. John McLane isn't some kind of super-soldier who's the only one who can stop a great evil threat--he's the Only Sane Man trying to get the vainglorious institutions that surround him (the LAPD leadership, the FBI, the news media) to understand what he's trying to tell them about a situation he has first-hand knowledge of. When they don't listen, he has to improvise his own solutions using his wits, because he's outnumbered, outgunned, and unlike Rambo he feels pain.
The villains are also pretty damn clever, led by Alan Rickman in his breakthrough role as Hans Gruber, and they're not quite what they appear to be. Unlike most previous action films, McLane and Gruber have an excellent back-and-forth for most of the film. Most of the dialogue is pretty great, not just a bunch of one-liners, and the acting was well above average for an action film of the time. And I think it mostly holds up. I highly recommend giving it a chance!