Die Hard: More Than Just Explosions? A Theory

Okay, film buffs, let's talk Die Hard. I know, I know, it's a staple action flick, a Christmas tradition for some even. But I've been rewatching it with a more critical eye and I think John McTiernan (yeah, I looked up the director, sue me!) was doing something really interesting with framing and POV to enhance not just the action, but McClane's vulnerability. Think about it: so much of the film is shot from low angles, emphasizing the scale of Nakatomi Plaza and the sheer force of the terrorists. McClane is constantly framed within doorways, through vents, or obscured by shadows. The cinematography really drives home how outmatched he is – just one guy against an army. It's not just about making explosions look cooler (though they DO look cool), it's about visually depicting his isolation. The scene where he writes "Now I have a machine gun. Ho Ho Ho." on the corpse is powerful precisely because of how bleakly it's framed – he's exhausted, desperate, and utterly alone. And then there's the POV. We're often seeing things from his perspective, often shakycam when he's running for his life. It makes the terror real, doesn't it? It's not detached, stylish action; it's visceral, messy survival. It's like McTiernan's trying to put us, as audience members, in McClane's worn out shoes, emphasizing the human cost of violence, even in such an ostensibly 'fun' action film. Maybe I'm reading too much into it – I am a film student, after all, haha. But I genuinely think there's a deeper layer to Die Hard than just a guy blowing stuff up (though that's undeniably awesome too). What do you guys think? Am I onto something or just overthinking? Yippee-ki-yay?