you get 3 sophisticated and cool villains in this movie:
-
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
