The second is good, but it's mostly the plot of the first one. The third is a good Lethal Weapon movie, but with different cast. And I personally also liked the fourth one. Thankfully there was no fifth movie.
If that's intended as a commentary on the fifth movie I agree with it, but in case it's an actual misapprehension, sadly there was one [1]. It's more part of Bruce Willis' output during his cognitive decline than part of the Die Hard series, really.
The third film is fantastic, including in ways relevant to the article, playing with similar abuse-of-infrastructure ideas at city- rather than building-level.
It's actually a better city-level example of the first film's architectural ideas than the Nablus raid the article brings up. The Israeli forces' (horrifying, from the account in the article) "reconfiguration" of Nablus was a massively forceful one, blasting through wall after (residential) wall throughout the entire city *. In Die Hard (1 and 3) the protagonists' interactions with the civil infrastructure were far more involuntary and far less forceful, with the characters often being imperilled by those hostile spaces. Blasting through them like a Terminator wouldn't have been at all in keeping with the movies and the article does the first one a disservice by describing it in those terms.
The second one isn't great but I've always rather enjoyed it too. Far from diarrhoea, anyway.
* I should say, I know absolutely nothing about Nablus besides what's described in the article, and have no idea how accurate it is.
Completely agree! The antagonists also dig tunnels and otherwise subvert city infrastructure. I feel like it was a perfect example of what the author talked about.
Patently false! The third is better than the second.