I didn't like the first Die Hard's ending just because it felt like the writers felt the need to give Carl Winslow his moment of vindication... My friends and I always thought that Carl should have had his moment of vindication, and then accidentally shot somebody and go "DAMN IT, I JUST GOT OVER MY FEAR OF USING MY GUN AGAIN!!! NOO!!!!" :)
"Two of 'em. Both had my father in 'em . It's peculiar. I'm older now then he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember to well but it was about meeting him in town somewhere, he's gonna give me some money. I think I lost it. The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin' through the mountains of a night. Goin' through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and there was snow on the ground and he rode past me and kept on goin'. Never said nothin' goin' by. He just rode on past... and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up."
You know, everybody bitches about how the ending sucks, but it seems to me that their real beef is with the plot point between Acts 2 &3. Not even with the plot point itself, but the way it's presented (whose POV we see it).
I get the complaints, but I don't see how they can complain that this ending sucks. That's a heartbreaking monolog any way you slice it.
The 1 ending was kool.how awsome would it be to go back tothe prison and see him ruiling it like a king. then through some very bad plot device he escapes.