Die Hard: Just a totally solid directorial debut... wait, what?!

Okay, so I finally caved and watched "Die Hard." I know, I know, I'm late to the party. But I've been working my way through filmographies of some of my favorite directors and somehow just never got around to this one. Action movies aren't usually my thing unless they're, like, really well-done (think early Cameron). But everyone always raves about "Die Hard," and I kept hearing it was a well-crafted action film, so I went in. Plus, Bruce Willis, gotta love him. And honestly? I was impressed! The tension was great, especially that scene where McClane's crawling through the vents. SO claustrophobic! Hans Gruber is a terrific villain. It's a smart, slick movie, and the action sequences, while over the top, are pretty ingenious. The whole thing has a visual style and pacing that felt... directed, you know? Like someone really knew what they were doing. Definitely not just some hack throwing explosions at the screen. So naturally, I Googled the director to see what else he'd done, expecting some solid 80's action flicks... and it's John McTiernan?! He did "Predator" ?! Mind. Blown. I always thought of Predator as a pretty solid action film, but it lacked the visual storytelling aspect of Die Hard. So, my question is: Did anyone else watch Die Hard and then immediately go, "Okay, who IS this director?" And were you as surprised as I was to see that it was the same guy who did "Predator"?! Like, I'm not saying McTiernan is the next Scorsese or anything (although, he did do "The 13th Warrior," which I kinda liked!), but "Die Hard" just feels so much more visually interesting than most action films of that era. It made me wanna go back and re-evaluate his other stuff. Maybe I've been sleeping on him...? What do you all think? Is he actually a great director, or is Die Hard just a really great, lucky action movie?