T2 is just a little better than Die Hard, just barely. I can't wait for T3. Start drooling for the 2003 movie season. Feb: Daredevil May : Matrix Reloaded, X-Men 2 June : The Hulk, Charlie's Angels 2 July : T3, Bad Boys 2 October : The Whole Nine Yards 2 Nov : Matrix Revolutions Dec : LOTR - The Return of the King Sweet.
Terminator Scherminator!! Die Hard had a tightly written script (particularly for an action movie) and a believable character in an unbelievable situation. He wasn't there with a purpose...in fact he asks for the "bad guys" to open up the front door to let him out at one point. He's trapped. He's scared/frustrated and he conveys that. Bottom line...you could "feel" Bruce's character...you could imagine it. I was on the edge of my seat...can't say the same for the Terminator movies. Personal opinion, I guess, but the reluctant hero in Die Hard is what made it so great.
I agree with others in this thread: Die Hard is one of the best action movies of all time. Great action, great dialogue (okay, decent dialogue), great script, and great acting. This movie MADE Bruce Willis (and Alan Rickman). It also spurred a slew of imitators, prompting film reviewers to use the term "Die Hard on a ____." IMHO, there is no greater action film than Die Hard. Thus, it has rightfully earned its place as one of my Top 5 movies of all time. Personally, I thought Die Hard 2 was almost as good as the original. It was based on the book "58 Minutes" by Walter Wager and stuck pretty close to it. People seem to dog the sequel, when compared to the original, but I actually liked it. Nice twists and plot. Did I like it enough to put in my Top 10 movies of all time? No, but it's probably in my Top 30. Die Hard 3, however, was atrocious. Jeremy Irons was waaaaay too over-the-top, Bruce Willis looked like he was just going through the motions, and Samuel L. Jackson had little chemistry with Willis. Plus, the plot was confusing, the ending felt tacked on, and the movie was simply unbelievable (as in it needed a reality check), more so than the other movies. Getting though Manhattan midtown traffic in 10 minutes, even WITH an ambulance leading the way? Please.
wow!!! i finally find someone else who liked die hard 2 better than the third one! die hard 3 wasn't a "die hard situation." it was nothing like the first two movies...that's ok if it's just the "further adventures of john mclane." but it lacked the "i'm trapped in an awful situation that i have to fight my way out of" scenario that die hard and die hard 2 had....one of my favorite action sequences is on the conveyer belt in die hard 2 when the guy is running at him and his pistol reaches him just in time...
Y'know. You just hit on something there I didn't realize (or plain forgot). Die Hard 3 WAS different from the other movies. No MacGyver-like heroics and clever plans, no "only me-against-the-world" situation (he had Zeus to help him), and no survival tactics. Perhaps that's why it sucked. I heard a rumor that the new Die Hard will take place in a jungle and deal with drug dealers wanting to kill McClane. Once again, Bruce will be placed in a "Die Hard Situation" but WILL have help from other tourists trapped in the jungle themselves. Maybe I'm off base here. I'm not sure. It is just a rumor, after all...
Why did Die Hard 3 suck? I though it was pretty good. Samuel L was an excellent choice, in each of the movies he has had a partner/buddy. The first one it was the Erkel Cop, the second it was Dennis Franz and company. What was so bad? He was trying to save the kids (hostages) just like in the other 2. The only major piece I see missing is that his wife wasn't involved and the partner/buddy was much more involved. Actually out of the 3, Part 2 was the worst for me. Worst still being pretty damn awesome overall. I saw Part 2 and 3 in the theatre, very exciting movies. One is my favorite, with part 3 being a very close second. To say that any of the die hard's sucked shows your lack of faith.
You guys are forgetting the best thing about Die Hard 2: when CBS broadcast it for the first time, they obviously could not use the "Yippee-kay-yay, mother****er" line in its entirety. They overdubbed the wonderfully confusing "Yippee-kay-yay, Mister Falcon" instead. I have rarely laughed as hard as when I heard that. Mister Falcon. LOL.
He didn't say Jesus...he said HEY ZEUS!!!! You know Zeus...son of Apollo...I'll shove a lightening bolt up your ass...ZEUS!!!
never said it sucked...just said i didn't think it fit with the other two as die hard movies...didn't fit the mold. it wasn't a bad movie...i enjoyed it...but i liked the first two much better.
the concept of die hard that was carried over in die hard 2 was "wrong place at the wrong time"...he goes so far as to say "that's the story of my life" in die hard 2. that isn't what happens in die hard 3...he's not trapped...he's not in that kind of situation at all. it's more of a cop movie...just different, that's all.
Ok I got ya. I did like how it tied into the first movie though. It was released in 1995 though, the other two were 1988 and 1990 so I think that explains some of the differences to.
DH2 suffered from the plain fact that Die Hard isn't built for sequels. It is a rare thing for a person to be caught in a hostage-taking terrorist thing. How does it happen to the same person twice? Both times, accidentally? It is beyond credulity. Even with the best script/actors/fx/etc in the world, the movie would still suck simply on the premise that this guy is at the wrong place at the wrong time twice over. This is why people like Die Hard 3 much better -- they didn't ask you to believe it happened to him a third time. Btw, if we're talking about tight scripts, I think T2 definitely beats Die Hard. Die Hard was good, but T2 was the best.
1. wait a second...you can suspend disbelief for a robot who hunts people down through timetravel, but you can't believe a guy gets caught up in two terrorist situations? 2. as for scripts...we'll agree to disagree...i can say that i've heard it said that those in the industry say that die hard had the tightest script of any action movie ever...that no scene was wasted..everything had a purpose ultimately it's a matter of opinion...i just happen to like the john mclane character a lot...easy to identify with a reluctant hero
We are all letting drapg off the hook here. No sci-fi, no action movies, no gangster movies, no guy movies at all, then the strange non-sequitor about british accents as he tries to head off the only sensible conclusion... drapg only watches Merchant-Ivory style costume dramas! Admit it!
Die Hard and Terminator are both such incredible movies that it's hard to pick one over the other. I guess if I had too, I'd pick Terminator though. Die Hard may have better character interaction, but it has nothing to compare to Ah-nold as a unstoppable killing machine.
i'm impressed B-Bob, you caught on for the reason of my non-sequitor. I tried avoid the onslaught of jokes that I must only like "lovey-dovey Olde English" cinema just coincidence i haven't seen the movies i mentioned. i wasn't a big movie buff until about 3 years ago and whenever i rent movies, i always head to the "new releases"... so i never took the time to see the classics i missed growing up.
i finally know what non sequitor means!!! Thanks drapg.. but I think the Bruce Willis movie about a guy in the jungle is actually Tears of the Sun and not Die Hard 4.
IMNHO, of all the movies you have not seen, I would start with the Godfather, an amazing film by all accounts. I'm actually with you on the sci-fi front, but I'd recommend getting to some of the real classics.
