this one is absolutely better than die hard 3
-
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
