this one is absolutely better than die hard 3
-
jcmgee — 11 years ago(October 07, 2014 03:56 PM)
I don't see how Vengeance ignores the events of DH 2. It wasn't necessary to bring up the events in 2 because it didn't in any way serve the story in 3. I'm sure McClane has had his share of adventures in between part 2 and 3 that we don't really need to know about. I mean for him and Holly to be separated once again who knows what happened. The point is, McClane seems like a humble guy who doesn't like the spotlight so he wouldn't go about bragging about saving people in a Washington airport. Point is, just because those events in 2 weren't brought up, doesn't mean they aren't canon.
Also, keep in mind that the third film wasn't just trying to live up to the first two films, but they also had to compete with the Die Hard clones as well. And McTiernan said he didn't want to make the same film twice so the formula was changed. We still had McClane; the blue collar, profanity-laden, everyman police officer. Bruce was great here and at the top of jis game at this point in his career. This was his last great performance as McClane imo. The script was witty and funny and the film never really let up once it got going.
Simon was a great bad guy played by the always good Jeremy Irons. I also see no problem with McClane having a sidekick. McClane did have plenty of help from people in the second film as well. He would not have been able to do all of what he did in 2 alone.
DH 2 still gets a lot of flack for being too similar to the first film and 3 gets it for being too different. Not everyone will be pleased. I myself have 3 as my favorite of the bunch. It's an interesting series though which imo was tainted with the last two abhorrent efforts. -
jcmgee — 11 years ago(October 08, 2014 02:48 PM)
For a start, the film is called 'With a Vengeance' instead of DH3 which means they're totally ignoring this movie altogether. I also remember Willis & McTiernan bashing the second movie and saying the third was the real sequel.
I thought the title was just in keeping with the tradition of having a catchy title like the previous film. Just a thought. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are totally ignoring the second film based on them dropping the number 3 from the title. There is no real solid evidence to back that up, just speculation. I believe that McTiernan had enough respect for the fans to leave it all open-ended. The third film does nothing to contradict the events that came before it.
Also, I know Willis has bashed the second film on many occasions because he's an a$$. In the 90s though, he spoke very highly of the sequel and praised it in an interview while making the third film. Now of course, this is the same guy who said that the fourth film was as good as the first. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt. McTiernan on the other hand I've never heard of him saying anything negative about the sequel. Then again, who knows?
There's even a subtle jab at DH2 when Simon threatens to blow up a school. When asked later by McLane whe he didn't blow it up Simon claims "I'm not a monster". I'm pretty sure this is a link to DH2 where they blow up an airliner, and McLane finds a doll in the wreckage. So they're basically saying the bad guys in the third are not child killers, just thieves (as if they forgot their murderous terrorist bombing spree across NYC which is much worse - the DH2 guys crashed the plane as punishment and it served a purpose, they didn't put bombs on crowded streets for no reason).
Perhaps it was a jab at 2, but then again who knows? I do recall a scene in 3 where McClane is riding a huge wall of water on a dump truck. This seemed like an obvious nod to the sequel because of how silly it was. Not in a bad way. I'd like to believe that McTiernan respected what Renny brought to the table by upping the ante and delivering a great story full of heart where the characters came before the action.
This was probably my main beef with DH3. McLane looks like an out of shape alcoholic in the third. In DH2 you had Willis in peak condition - he looked more athletic than even in the first and he nailed his acting performance.
Willis became jaded with action movies after DH2, hence the reason why he branched out soon after. He looks like someone who doesn't really care as much about the material in the third movie. He's not quite phoning it in like he does now, but he looks quite disinterested.
He looked like an alcoholic because, well, he was. It made sense for him to look better in the first sequel because his life was back on track and his rocky marriage to Holly was looking much better. By the third film it had all collapsed. It is true Willis had grown a bit tired of making these types of films, but with McTiernan returning and a fresh take on Die Hard, Willis was certainly game to make the best film he could. Not one frame does he look disinterested. Willis was McClane through and through. Sardonic sense of humor, charsimatic and full of energy.
Irons is a great actor, but his role was poor. He looked and acted like a fag. His band of sleazy eurotrash terrorists and his mute wench sidekick pale in comparison to Colonel Stuart's imposing and powerful group of rogue special forces operatives - they all looked the part, and even had T-1000 amongst them. I couldn't stand the villains in DH3 - they were so cheesy and forgettable. The bad guys in DH2 had a certain air of mystery about them, plus a lot of them were very good actors. They were hard asses and looked ice cool.
All your opinion here and certainly welcome. I thought Targo and the knife-weilding maniac woman had their qualities. Karl was a great baddie and fueled by his rage to avenge the death of his brother at the hands of McClane so it was going to be hard to top that. Targo was pretty intimidating in his own right and a good no-nonsense type character. Irons oozed charisma and intelligence in his role. I completely bought him as the brother of Hans.
In regards to having a sidekick, yes McLane had help in DH2 but he didn't have an angry token black guy running everywhere with him screaming in his ear. A sidekick/partner is different from supporting characters who drop by from time to time to help the hero as the story unfolds like in DH2. McLane should always be a lone warrior.
Fair enough. I just loved the chemistry between Jackson and Willis. One of my favorite things about the film.
DH2 actually gets flack for everything and that's the problem. People can't see the originality of setting an action movie in an airport. Its story is simply phenomenal, no matter how far fetched - and gives the film a certain charm and uniqueness. People also bash DH2 because they can't appreciate the ingenuity of its set up (the atmosphere, produ -
jcmgee — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 06:37 PM)
Well thanks first up for a friendly and intelligent reply. Usually a lot of people on here get very bitchy, butthurt or even abusive when you criticize their fav movie (and it's a freakin chore to reason with them), but you made some great points defending DH3 which I do agree with to a certain level.
No problem. I've always said that the anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in people. I've dealt with some straight up beep on here. At the end of the day though we're just discussing film and no one should have to put up with that crap.
I thought that as well, but always wondered why it wasn't called 'Die Hard 3' which I think sounds better - like it's part of a proper trilogy that includes the full series equally. It was like they avoided calling it 3 so they wouldn't have to count the second one. The movie Predators did the same to Predator 2 - Robert Rodriguez bashing the first sequel and saying the third was a return to the original's style - hence no Predator 3 title.
Yeah it's an interesting thought. I just believe that McTiernan had enough respect for fans of 2 to keep it all open-ended. We don't know why McClane is back in NY as a cop instead of in LA or what happened with Holly. People can make up their own theories. At the end of the day, there is no real hard evidence on whether or not 2 is ignored, just speculation.
I strongly remember either Willis or McTiernan (or both) saying the second movie was basically to be ignored (probably as it was seen as a mere cash in on the original at that time). I can't find any direct quotes from the time but that was the general attitude. It was definitely looked down on, even in 95.
Willis said he had a great time making the sequel. He used to speak very highly of the film. While making the third film he did an interview in which he praised the first two films. It's only recently that he's changed his tune and even went as far as to say that the fourth film was as good as the first. From then on I pay no attention to what he says. As for McTiernan, I'm still trying to find any quotes or interviews from him on DH 2.
It was just a hunch on my part. I remember DH2 got a lot of heat for the scene of crashing a full civilian airliner (which I did agree was a touch much), turning the movie from a summer actioner to a disaster type movie. It seemed like DH3 was addressing that somewhat.
The plane crash scene was also pure fantasy - it's not possible for that to happen in real life (terrorists letting a plane fly blind into the ground using a hijacked control tower). However, terrorist bombs on high streets and across cities is very close to the bone and very realistic and has been seen worldwide. I know which one is less jarring.
Yeah. DHWAV did get a lot of unfair criticism for coming out right on the heel of the OKC bombing. The film's themes just hit too close to home. Though in subsequent years the film has gained a newfound appreciation. And the plane crash in part 2 was certainly ballsy. I did hear it put some people off but I'd say it was necessary to see just how sick these guys were. Also, seeing them blown to hell at the end is much more satisfying for it.
Interesting points and I like that evolution in JM's character dynamic - it's something new. I'm not so sure if he's actually supposed to be a full blown alcoholic, is he? I remember him being hung-over in the first scene and dedicated drinker but not to that extent.
Yeah true I'm not so sure McClane was a step above AA meetings, though with how bad his life had gotten I wouldn't rule it out either. It was interesting seeing McClane in such a jolly mood in the second film though. It really is the only DH film where he is really happy. And why not since his marriage to Holly is in much better standing. It is extremely depressing to know that they will not be together in the next film. Though I'd like to believe that phone call to Holly at the end of 3 ended positively. Screw what DH 4 gave us.
What made DH2 more epic was that scene where he jumps into the annex skywalk from high above, an iconic scene not only in the series but in the entire genre. He flips around, somersaults, pivots, jumps, knocks full force into $hit - and looks totally convincing doing so. In DH3 I didn't get that anywhere near as much, but Willis was 5 years older so it was probably just a victim of time itself. He's still really cool in 3, but in DH2 he was a bonafide action superhero.
Yeah he definitely seemed more agile in the first two films. Though to be fair he was recovering from a bad hangover in the third film. Or it could just be that McTiernan's McClane is a bit less superheroish and more of an everyman than Harlin's McClane. McTiernan's McClane is always down on his luck and more cynical than McClane from part 2. McTiernan's McClane might be a bit more relatable as well since he rarely looks cool doing what he does. He's just a guy trying desperately to survive the situation. McTiernan must have something agains -
OneSixteen — 11 years ago(October 25, 2014 07:49 AM)
I agree! Its the perfect action sequel, familiar characters return along with lines & phrases that make plenty of reference to the 1st DH. The 1st DH was a great movie overall but DH2 is more a typical action movie to love knowing the hero will prevail in some way
-
IndianaMcClane — 11 years ago(December 07, 2014 01:44 PM)
As much as I like
Die Hard 2
, I disagree. (I give DH2 an 8/10 and WAV a 9/10 for reference) I found the villain's just as if not more interesting than those in 2 (seeing the interplay between the different factions involved, a lot of it involving the different personalities and motivations between Simon and Targo, and so forth) Zeus Carver IMO is the best sidekick of the series who has a great rapport and arc with McClane, and I like that they managed to create a story that had a similar feel to the original without feeling to harken to it's structure quite as much as 2 does. (I don't think 2 does it to a bad degree, but it does feel like it does it more than 3) Though naturally that is just in my own opinion. -
Bad T. — 11 years ago(December 08, 2014 03:44 PM)
Hmm, tough one. I like part 2 and 3 for different reasons. 2 is more of your 90's style, wham-bam action thriller with fights, one liners and explosions while 3 is a little more cerebral?
If you're near Los Angeles, come check out part 2 on the big screen the way it was meant to be seen at The Arclight Hollywood on Tuesday, 12.16 @ 7:30PM. Die Hard 1&2 writer Steven E de Souza will be on hand for Q&A.
https://www.arclightcinemas.com/en/news/qa-tis-the-season?promo=spotlightM2
Ok ramblers let's get rambling. http://viendammage.blogspot.com/ -
InternationaleClique — 11 years ago(January 12, 2015 12:29 PM)
DH3 is the renegade, realistic sequel. DH 2 is straight up Hollywood. More, bigger but the same.
The problem with DH3 is that in an effort to stand out it is forced to leave the atmosphere which made DH1 great. DH2 stays with it, but only succeeds halfway.
The airport scheme is a good continuation of the skyscraper, limited environment concept.
The stunts, effects and shoot outs are innovative and exciting, just like DH1. Albeit veering on the cartoonish side.
John McClane is still John McClane.
But it also suffers tremendously in dialogue and repetition. Where it does make some sense for a James Bond or superhero to always meet new villains, for a movie that is built on "ordinary guy gets into trouble" it gets old real fast to have Holly, Thornburg, Powell and McClane to continue meeting up in the middle of a terror plot. DH2 goes with this shamelessly and it does work because the concept is so good, but the jokes are already in fast decline, villains more evil than clever and the acting starting to slide. The franchise would have been dead by the third movie if they stuck with it.
This is why McTiernan didn't like it, and why he doesn't like sequels in general. So he tries to make it as realistic as possible. McClane is divorced, one brave evening is not going to change the problems in his relationship. He's back in New York, drunken, down and dirty. Only way he's getting into the middle of anything again is if he's the subject of some revenge. Enter Gruber brother. To avoid retreading some things are turned upside down. Where 1 was claustrophobic you here go for the open sprawl. Winter in LA becomes summer in New York. Al Powell becomes Samuel L Jackson. Then some things stay the same. Action is top notch, villain clever, charismatic. Willis and Jackson both deliver.
The lack of Christmas and a limited environment is what DH3 suffers the most. It is also lazy in parts. Targo and the blonde aren't nearly as inspired henchmen as Karl and Theo. The climax is an outright abortion. The big explosion is not nearly as cool as in the original.
In the end they both have strengths and weaknesses and I find it hard to separate them. -
ajtaylor82 — 10 years ago(April 26, 2015 07:19 AM)
While I somewhat agree with everyones' views, and am a huge fan of DH2, to me, DH3 is a much more enjoyable watch. The jury is out, for me, on which one is the better movie. DH3 has much better action and literally starts out with a bang and just doesn't stop. I will admit the action gets fairly ridiculous towards the end, but really, no more than DH2 in terms of suspension of disbelief. I probably would say DH3 is better bc it was much harder to make. Think about the filming process and complications of tearing down NYC, when DH2 was mostly sets.
Different strokes for different folks, but how many outrageously hilarious lines do I need to quote from DH3? I would rank it as one of the funniest movies of all time, to me at least.
John is a huge smart**s from the get go (which is one of the things we all love about him) and in DH3 it's taken to a whole new level. Throw in Samuel L. who is equally hilarious and you have a movie that laughs you into tears. Their chemistry is the best out of all of the other "pairs" or supporting actors, by far. -
HiFiAudioGuy — 10 years ago(February 02, 2016 04:02 AM)
I agree. I used to condemn Roger Ebert for panning Die Hard (specifically the 2nd act and so forth) but when I see that movie today I just cringe at the whole campy element of itwhich begins when Paul Gleason shows up. Why they had to make his character so unrealistically silly is beyond me. I mean this was the Deputy Police Chief of L.A. They basically made all the cops look like idiots except Powell. Even the little moments like when the SWAT guy hurts himself on the prickly bush are annoying and unnecessary.
Die Hard II had very little cheese and was more serious.
Die Hard III? I hated that movie when I saw it in the theater. Still do. -
Hendry_William_French — 10 years ago(February 02, 2016 05:08 PM)
Die Hard III? I hated that movie when I saw it in the theater. Still do.
Die Hard 3 aka Die Hard: With a Lethal Weapon. The movie's script was originally intended to be the fourth lethal weapon movie. Now, Die Hard has gone from McLane the lone wolf to a buddy cop movie with nothing but car chase scenes and bombs on public transport or public places (jeez where have we seen that before?). At lease Die Hard 2 had an original story.
Buckle up back there, we're going into hyperactive
