So Utterly Disappointing…
-
-
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(July 18, 2022 09:53 PM)
Also, I hated the whole race angle. It felt like it was shoehorned into the movie in an ill-advised attempt to give it some "edge."
Yeah, you know it's the 90s when that stuff starts getting shoved down your throats. -
— 3 years ago(July 18, 2022 10:23 PM)I DON'T know WHY so MANY prefer this OVER
Die HARD 2
?? Makes NO SENSE to me! My guess is that they are
NOT
TRUE ACTION flick fans. IF you are a TRUE action film buff, then one and two are SUPERIOR to three.
“Call a SPADE, a SPADE; and a TRANNY, a TRANNY, or an IT!!!”.
"THAT'S SOME BAD
SHIT
,
HARRY
!". -
bigbadwolf666 — 3 years ago(July 26, 2022 02:43 PM)
Here, you're right. Im not a fan of Die Hard action. I am of Action like 90's Chuck, Stallone, Segal, etc… but not of Bruce in these films so that makes sense why I like this one over the other ones.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(July 18, 2022 10:07 PM)
I think this one suffers a lot from its generic location. New York City is featured in so many thrillers and action movies to the point were it's lost a lot of its luster. The first two Die Hard films benefitted tremendously from their novel locations of being set in an office building and an airport.
Agreed 100%.
The skyscraper & airport are some of the more original settings for an action film.
That's why I dig Under Siege, got a great setting like Die Hard. -
] — 3 years ago(July 27, 2022 12:57 AM)
you're the dumb one. the misspelling is intentional, ya staggit.