This should be fun. We all know which one is the Granddaddy of all Die Hard films and that is the first one.. Pretty much set the standard for how action movies go! This poll is to determine which film is the 2nd greatest Die Hard film ever? Oh and the Smashing Pumpkins vs Nirvana thread can be found here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=198715
The second one seemed to jumble things up. I like the second one but the third was better. In fact, I didn't even watch the second one until last year.
DH2 is underrated imo. I don't get why it's knocked so much. But With a Vengeance is definitely better. One of Sam Jackson's few decent performances. Liked the challenge/riddle element. Incredibly bloody and violent.
the 3rd was better. The only 3 things i liked about 2: 1.) Franco Nero 2.) Andy Sipowicz 3.) the acknowledgement of McClain's national status
NSFW for language <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BquyQj8TX_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Holly Gennaro milf to anyone??? Also,Why didn't Simon just go after McClane's wife instead of having a city under siege?Seems like a lot of trouble just to get back at a guy who just threw your brother off a 35-storey building? Me personally, I like my Die Hard films in confined spaces/places like the Nakatomi Plaza and/or Dallas airport... The abrupt ending in Part 3?? I agree that Sam Jackson was good in the film, almost to a point where it wasn't the McClane show anymore... That's another thing about the Die Hard films, John McClane works alone!
strong cast + Justin Long & Willis have great chemistry. 2 is the only one where McClane doesn't have a partner
Gotta be kidding. 4 was horrible right down to the yippy kay yay m--- Weak villain, outlandish plot, some stupid stunts, Kevin Smith ---- And Simon's end game in 3 was the gold...getting revenge on Mclane was the icing on the cake.
4 had an 'outlandish plot' but 3's plot was fine? A massive group of Russian terrorist pretending to be construction workers to steal truck-loads of gold and drive away through a sewer all the while planting bombs around town to distract police only to be thwarted by McClain and a mini-mart clerk seems reasonable to you?
Part 4 had Justin Long/Kevin Smith and Les Weisman directing=ouch!... John Mctiernan or even Renny Harlin should only be the ones touching the Die Hard franchise...
All the other films were smaller in scope. A tower heist, an airport crisis to free a ruthless dictator...even three which at it's core was just a bank job. The idea that someone could plant bombs around a city and send everyone into a panic is plausible, at least moreso than one man shutting down the whole grid. And the villain couldn't hold the jockstrap of the Grubers or Col Stuart. It's an embarassment to the franchise.
I prefer 2 because it sticks to the Die Hard concept..wrong place at the wrong time. Trapped in a situation he has to fight his way out of. I'm with JunkyardDwg...I think 2 is underrated. The first one is my favorite action movie, and quite possibly my favorite movie of all time.
