Does anyone else think Die Hard 2 Is the Worst in the series!
-
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. -
Behelit — 12 years ago(July 01, 2013 07:37 AM)
The airport is a great location, but too much happened around it. I really did not care about the snowmobile chase at the church, nor about the events on Holly's plane, nor did I believe the way Esperanza freed himself on his plane. It was like "how can this tied up man disarm and kill a soldier who's watching him? oh well let's just make it off camera". Just lazy stuff.
It also killed the pace to switch so many times to Holly's plane with the stewardess offering champagne, or jokes about after shave and mouth washit was simply not interesting and had no direct link to the action at the airport. To me that is a different location.
And by the way Airplane!, Airport, The Terminal, Up in the Air happen are entirely in airports. And there are a lot of other films, not entirely in airports, but where airports are very important locations like Only angels have wings, Casablanca, Catch me if you can, Heat -
Behelit — 12 years ago(July 01, 2013 10:38 AM)
Suspension of disbelief is a conscious effort you have to make. It means the film failed to make you believe in it so you go "I have to force myself to stop thinking so I can enjoy it". But doesn't it mean something's wrong? A better theory is Tolkien's "secondary belief", he said the events must be believable within the secondary reality of the fictional world. Which means it has to be believable according to its own standards for you to believe it. It's not the case when none of the machine gun bullets hit McClane or when the general sets himself free without explanation. I still think this film has qualities though, it's fun and it's still a Die Hard film, unlike 4 & 5. But to me the true great films are both by McTiernan: Die Hard 1 & 3 (even thought I had hoped 3 would end on the phone call to Holly).
-
Behelit — 12 years ago(July 01, 2013 11:20 AM)
centering the movie solely on aviation whereby you got the wings, the runways, the terminals, the walkways - everything gets involved with the action and that's pretty sweet
you make a very valid point, I shall rase my rating
-
A-Town8814 — 12 years ago(July 18, 2013 03:27 PM)
Snowmobile scene ruins this film for me. I mean you have like 5 baddies standing there shooting at McClane from like 10 feet away, and they MISS! They might as well had just been throwing snowballs at him for christs sake!
This scene pisses me off because it is such an insult to basic viewer intelligence, especially since they wiped out that SWAT team earlier in the film. -
bleddrewsoe — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 01:29 PM)
It was a disappointment after the awesome original, but I think you have to look at #2 in a more positive light now compared to the #4 & #5 sequels.
I would rank them like this:- Die Hard
- Die Hard with a Vengeance
- Die Hard 2
- Live Free or Die Hard
- A Good Day to Die Hard(Easily the worst!!!)
-
m-slovak79 — 12 years ago(July 28, 2013 12:27 AM)
1.Die Hard With a Vengeance (1995) - 8/10
2.Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
3.Die Hard (1988) - 7.5-8/10
4.Die Hard 2 - 6.5-7/10
5.A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
but ill have to see how Die Hard 5 holds up on a re-watch (eventually) as it might overtake Die Hard 2 for me overall as i just re-watched the first four films within the last week so my ratings are definitely accurate on the series now.My Vote History
http://imdb.to/rb1gYH -
abraz1-1 — 11 years ago(May 23, 2014 10:36 PM)
For me, it's like this:
Die Hard- 8.5/10
Die Hard 2- 8/10
Die Hard with a Vengeance- 9/10
Live Free or Die Hard- 8/10
I've always really liked "Live Free or Die Hard", even if most people don't. Have not seen the last installment yet. -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 07:39 PM)
To me it's like this.
Die Hard 10/10
Die hard with a Vengeance-10/10
Live Free or Die hard the unrated version-8/10
Die Hard 2-7/10
Die Hard 5-7/10
Then again I tend to like things that most people hate. I liked the Pagemaster a lot as a kid and still do today but most people apparently think it's mediocre.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld -
hnt_dnl — 11 years ago(August 09, 2014 08:44 PM)
Agreed, although I haven't seen AGDTDH yet. Of the ones I've seen, my ranking:
Die Hard
-Perfect action movie. It does everything right. Tight scenes, suspense at every turn, great intimidating (and classy) villains, timely humor. Pulse-pounding from start to finish. In particular, there are several scenes of character interactions where they size each other up and the scenes are tension-filled (McClane-Hans, McClane-Karl, Hans-Holly, Hans-Ellis). These character interactions feel authentic and give the movie it's heart and help elevate it above the typical summer action movie.
Live Free or Die Hard
-Justin Long steals this movie with his great comic relief role. I find the action enjoyable for a PG-13 watered down era of action films. Movie's not great, but I enjoy more than the other sequels. It's kind of a default choice as best sequel.
Die Hard:With A Vengeance
-This movie tries something a little different and goes for the gritty New York setting, but stillcopies from the original, using Gruber's brother as the main villain, with the intimidating "Karl" second-in-command who has none of Karl's scariness. Then the unnecessary female love interest to complicate things. And then Sam Jackson playing the "angry black man" character. I still think Jackson peaked with
Pulp Fiction
.
Die Hard 2
-I hate this movie! It basically references the first movie way too much. Too self-aware, almost like a parody. The dialogue is incredibly corny. The characters are one-dimensional. The villains are not as scary as in the first film. And I actually think this movie looks dated, while the original (made 2 years earlier) still looks pristine! Also, in the original film, the fight scenes feel more brutal and intense and I ALWAYS feared for McClane's life, while in this one, everything is just so generic, machine guns firing everywhere and nothing being hit (and not talking about the dummy rounds scene). The sense of dread and McClane ever being in any real danger was absent.
