Does anyone else think Die Hard 2 Is the Worst in the series!
-
Littlebitsofgaming — 13 years ago(February 26, 2013 07:44 AM)
None of the sequels match the original. But 2 is the closest.
3 was hit n' miss for me. While I enjoyed the film, the last 3rd was a let down and paved the way for what the series would end up becoming.
4&5 are both terrible Die Hard movies.
And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9 -
Kuato_and_George — 13 years ago(March 26, 2013 12:04 PM)
No, I think it's the one that feels like the most like the original.
I haven't seen the latest one, but 4 is my least favorite of all the one's I've seen.
For my latest movie reviews and news:
http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/ -
enriquesinghjr — 13 years ago(April 02, 2013 02:44 AM)
The series has been declining with each movie, the ONLY thing that saves it from being a complete waste has been Bruce Willis's performance as McClane, which has also suffered a lot in the last 2 movies.
Die Hard - 10/10
Die Hard 2 - 8/10
Die Hard 3 - 7.5/10
Die Hard 4 - 6/10
Die Hard 5 - 5/10 -
donttalkaboutfightclub — 13 years ago(April 03, 2013 09:29 AM)
Saw it couple of days ago and it's really bad. They basically did the same thing again. Holly in danger, Christmas again, same journalist, another police chief who doesn't like McClane, black buddy helps McClane, in first Die Hard they launch rockets at the police, McClane is furious, here the terrorists destroy a plane full with people, again McClane furious. I have never seen the 4th one because I refuse to watch a Die Hard movie that is about some cyber beep
Die Hard
Die Hard 3
Die Hard 2 -
mike-4148 — 12 years ago(April 21, 2013 05:41 AM)
Die Hard 2 lacks the tension of the first and just goes for all-out action and violence. For me, 3 was the best sequel and it depends what mood I'm in as to whether I prefer 2 or 4. Ironically I think 4 could have been better if they'd toned up the violence and 2 if they'd toned it down - they both just lack a certain edge to them but in different ways. Still enjoy them all though.
However, not seen the latest one and by all accounts I don't feel like I'm missing much.
Die Hard - 10/10
Die Hard with a Vengeance - 8/10
Die Hard 2/Die Hard 4 - 6/10 -
gpapa1998-24-961204 — 12 years ago(June 03, 2013 03:37 PM)
I agree. I did not like this one at all. And what I did not like about it is that it was supposed to take place at Dulles airport but the airport used in the movie did not resemble Dulles at all. I am very familiar with Dulles because I have flown out of Dulles countless times, and I can tell that the movie was not filmed at Dulles. That's the main reason why I did not like this movie. Also I did not find the story interesting. The first one is the best by far.
-
noxbenton — 12 years ago(June 05, 2013 01:10 PM)
Wow..
1 & 2 are classics, love them both - 3rd one is more modern and the structure differs quite a bit from the usual - it's a very solid movie but doesn't fit the mold what die hard is all about for me - a (hero)cop just happening to be in a place where things go whacko.
Number 4 was OK in today's action movie standards but nothing compared to the first 3, the newest one in the series was utter piece of crap.
So
1/2
3
4
5
for me - and the margins aren't close at all. -
Behelit — 12 years ago(June 30, 2013 05:00 PM)
I agree with you, the first Die Hard was great, apart from a couple far fetched situations, most of the action was believable.
But in this film, EVERY time one of the highly trained men fired at an exposed McClane with their machine guns, they missed Not even a single bullet managed to hit him, while McClane always got them with his handgun. I stopped enjoying the film even before it was halfway through because each time I thought "once again they all missed". Some scenes were really stupid, like when McClane empties an entire blank magazine on Lorenzo and none of the cops react. Or when not only Stuart doesn't see the fuel getting dumped off the plane, but also Esperanza doesn't see anything wrong on his screens (an alarm should trigger, at least a visual alarm)
Also the pace in this movie is wrong. In the first film, the Tower was sealed, and Mclane was the only one inside it, so no one else could do much anyway (they still tried though). Contact with the outside was subtle as McClane was developing an interesting chat with Al (which said a lot about bureaucracy in the police) while looking for a way to get help at the same time. But in this film, there was no reason for all the cops to sit on their asses while McClane did all the work, wanting to do it all by himself, even when he could organize a better plan with the others. And I don't see why no one thought of lighting up the landing sites with fuel like McClane did with in the end, it's not a revolutionary idea Everyone was so passive for no apparent reason. And I hated that we kept switching to the plane all the time while nothing interesting was happening there, it just completely killed the pace.
The tower in Die Hard 1 was great because it was one single closed location, it gave the film so much intensity and made Die Hard unique. But this one was just a common action film, a not so good action film a that and a very pale copy of the first film, trying at times to imitate it but failing miserably. And finally the loss of the offbeat humour really disappointed me. The Lorenzo joke dragged on and on, and it was the only one (oh yeah there were also jokes about bad breath on the plane that were incredibly boring).
I'd give this film a 4, which is half of what I gave the first Die Hard.
