Die Hard 3 is fucking awesome, even if it does not touch the first

Die Hard 3 is fucking awesome, even if it does not touch the first.

Do you agree, how do you rank the franchise?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/0X3Me_MVR90
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

1>3>>>>>the other movies are not die hard movies

i hate niggers

I always thought it was better than 1 honestly. I definitely watch it more.

1 > 3 > 2

I refuse to acknowledge other Die Hard movies but I've got to admit, pretty solid trilogy. Definitely grew on me over the years

1 > 4 > > 2 > > > > 3 > > > > > > > > > > > 5

youtu.be/0X3Me_MVR90

t h i s

1>2=3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 > 3 >>>>> 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>> 5

I do agree, I fucking love DH3.

But I would rank it:
1 > 3 > 2 > Don't watch the rest

1>3>4>2

Didn't bother to see 5.

2 was a boring rehash of 1 with awful pacing and poorly directed action scenes.

1 > 3 > 2 > 4 is ""ok"" and i pretend 5 doesn't exist.

5 is like a poorly put together direct-to-video action movie.

1>3>2

But I don't know why people hate 2 so much. It's still a great film and I prefer it when John is in one area rather than running across the city

>4>2
First time I've ever seen that opinion. Why do you like it more? There's a lot of clunky shit in 2 but at the very least it's r-rated and has a nice Christmassy feel.

actually having said that, the suv driving over traffic in the opening chase was actually pretty badass. but that's it.

The only decent action scene in 2 is the skyway shootout and even then parts of it are poorly made. 4 has better and arguably more brutal action scenes despite not having the R rating. There's more hand-to-hand in 4 where you get to see John using brute force and underhanded shit to beat faster and more skilled enemies. All 2 did with its R rating are shitty bloodspurts in that shootout and that icicle stab scene. When John got completely beat by the main bad guy in 2, he did use a trick to beat him but it was totally unbelievable and disconnected from the action, there was no sense of immediacy. One of the things that 4 did better is having nemesis-like underlings which John couldn't beat the first time and had to make a comeback and kill them in another way which makes it more memorable than the faceless goons of 2.

It's worse than 1 by a wide margin.

Agreed. I love the relentless pacing in the third one. You can't go wrong with the first three Die Hards though.

1>3>2>>>>>>>>>>

If the movie had ended with John calling Holly it would rival the first imo, but that tacked on ending knocks it down a few pegs. Still a great fucking movie don't get me wrong.

1 > 3 > 2

1 is a classic, 3 is great but would have been better with the original ending, and 2 is basically an over-the-top rehash of 1. Haven't bothered with 4 and 5 since I've heard so many bad things, might get around to it eventually.

1>3>2>4

5 doesn't exist.

>3 is great but would have been better with the original ending

The RPG ending is garbage.

1 > 3 > 2 > 4 > 5

1 >>>> 3 >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5

Len Wiseman THREATENING to continue to be a hack director as he's prepping a DIE HARD prequel called YEAR ONE.

>“After doing the fourth one, there were so many conversations that Bruce [Willis] and I were having about what he put into the character for Die Hard 1. That character comes in with so much baggage, emotionally, and experience. He’s already divorced, he’s bitter, his Captain hates him and doesn’t want him back. So, what created that guy?”
> “We’ve never seen the actual love story. We know its demise, but we’ve never seen what it was like when he met Holly, or when he was a beat cop in ‘78 in New York when there was no chance of him making detective. It’s always been something I’ve been thinking about, and now we’re doing it. And it ties in.”
>“The reason I say prequel/sequel is because I wasn’t going to do it without Bruce. I’m also not going to do it with Bruce being a cameo bookend gimmick. It’s really working into the plot, with the ‘70s having ramifications on present-day Bruce. It inter-cuts in a very fun, imaginative way with present-day John McClane.”
>“The film itself will take place on New Years’ Eve 1979, so trying to gear things towards that would be fun, if we could come out around the same time, but these movies take their own paths.”
>“It has to be somebody that has the swagger and the confidence, but also the charm, the wit, the charisma and the toughness. It’s asking a lot, especially in somebody that’s younger. It has to feel like the guy owns it, rather than is trying to put it on.”

1 > 3 >>>> 2=4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 only "good" thing was McClaine flipping the finger at the helicopter