I think Die hard is a better movie If you compare First Blood to Die Hard they are both epic. Once you start with the sequels I can take it or leave it.
Shattered glass scene? Pfffttt. Rambo was fighting in Thailand with a dude who dipped his gloves in glue and then broken glass. BTW...funny that you mention a tally up of all the injuries because I just happened to run into this... http://chisblassternardone.blogspot.com/2008/01/action-hero-showdown-why-john-rambo-is.html
I concur. This isn't even a contest. BTW, everyone dumps on Die Hard 2, but I think it's a pretty good movie. Die Hard 3, on the other hand, is pure crap.
This is insulting. Die Hard is the greatest action movie ever made, and there is no close second. Certainly not Rambo.
Why am I the only other person on the planet who agrees with this? DH2 still followed the concept of DH. Trapped...caught in a situation he'd like to get out of but can't. The reluctant hero on some level. DH3 didn't have that at all.
Okay that's a way to look at it. The way I see it, Die Hard 2 tried too hard to be Die Hard. It had a different director, a crappy plot, and bad guys you didn't care about. Die Hard 3 came around and showed great character development of McClain. He is an alchoholic and a wreck. They did not try to be DH1, but made a movie with the same awesome character. He had to solve puzzles and stuff. This was definitely not better than the first one, but it was a damn close second.
You're not. Not fair to compare Die Hard to any other action movie, really. First Blood is an outstanding movie.
Granted, Die Hard 2 was a rehash of the first film. But it was a good rehash. Die Hard 3 had a solid first half when McClane was running around town with Sam Jackson. But once Simon's real plan is revealed(which is a ripoff of Goldfinger, BTW), the movie turns into a real bore. And the ending was awful(the original one on the DVD should've been used. Also, I hate that McClane is reduced to a drunk loser. That's fine if they didn't wanna bring his family back for the 3rd film, but don't undo all the character development from the first movie. The 4th film improved on this a little by having his daughter around.
While I did think Die Hard 2 was the weakest of the original three films (can't put my finger on it but something bored me at times, maybe some of the fight scenes where I knew no one was getting hurt cause of the special magazines), it was still quite a thrill. I don't quite understand why it's seen as a rehash. The villains aren't chasing after money and the location isn't reduced to a single building but an entire airport. And while I don't think there's quite as much character development for McClane, there is a lot more development between him and Holly (at least imo). I guess the villains weren't quite as compelling. But still, some of the scenes were insane (the cockpit ejection, emergency plane landing, the new terminal sequence, the icicle fight, the final plane explosion). ... Also don't get the half hate for Vengeance. True, the movie might have been better if they had stayed with the puzzle game...but then again I like how McClane tears down Simon's character into that of a petty thief, just like his brother. So once the "games" ended and the real plot started to unfold, there's was still plenty of intense action. The ending was a little weak though. Getting back to Rambo, I never saw First Blood all the way through, but I did see the second and third (will see the fourth). I'll agree that he's the best, but there's something about McClane; he's always in the underdog role, always dismissed, but somehow he keeps on chugging along. That's why I think they'd end up just killing each other.
