Is this one better than the third one in your opinion?
What do you think?share
I don't know if it's a better movie, but I enjoyed it more, if that makes sense.share
Makes perfect sense. It's all a matter of preference. In what way did you enjoy it more than the third one? Also did you enjoy it more than the first one? I enjoyed it more than the third, but I like the first one the best.share
I like the first one the best. I also don't like any after 3 either. I don't know why I'm not a fan of the 3rd one, other than it doesn't have the same tone. It takes place during the day. I know that they had to do something different as the second really is a rehash of the first, but it just wasn't "Die Hard". I probably would have liked it better if it weren't part of the series and just a stand alone film.share
I agree. Also do you think that Colonel Stuart was more evil than Hans Gruber?share
Oooh. That's a tough one. I don't know if evil is the correct word. I think that they had different motivations. But Alan Rickman was amazing as Gruber and as much as I like William Sadler, I prefer Gruber.share
The first movie was better in every way. However, I think that Hans only killed people in order to make his plan succeed. When Colonel Stuart caused the plane to crush, this didn't help him achieve his goal. It was just to teach the authorities a lesson. It didn't help him achieve his goal. Also Gruber betrayed the soil he was sworn to protect. So Stuart was far more evil in my book.share
I liked the first and third movies more than the second, the first being the best. The second seemed edited poorly or the whole thing seemed to be done on the cheap. If I remember, some of the scenes in the bowels of the airport weren't convincing, like when boxes are obviously empty and the bad guys can't shoot a barn door. The villains in 1 and 3 were much cooler also.share
Yeah. And the first one. Die Hard 2 is peak Die Hard.
It's got snow, so it's more Christmas than Die Hard 1. I also like the whole hackneyed, cheesy "how can this be happening to the same guy at the same time" angle.
In fact they blew it after this one. The series should have gone full classic Bond with every subsequent sequel following the same Christmas Eve formula putting McLane in an ever more unlikely Christmas Eve hostage situation, e.g. McLane takes his kid ice skating, terrorists take everyone in the rink hostage, McLane tries to escape the Xmas Eve curse by going remote overseas but lands up next door to a terrorist training camp. Every. Single. Time. McLane gives it "shiiiit, how can the happen to the same guy..." line! And every single time he goes on to defeat the terrorists despite a complete lack of help from whatever local law enforcement.
That would have been quality.
DH1/2 are Christmas movies (despite what anyone says) DH3 (and the rest) is like a summer movie set in the blaring heat of the summer which was a fun excursion for the 3rd film but really DH belongs at xmas. if they had any sense theyd have gone back to xmas for DH4 or 5 (or 6 if they bother to make it)share
the 3rd just pales in comparison
Man, it has been a while. :) But I vaguely remember thinking the second one was not very good. I thought the same about the third one. The ones after that were just horrid. The first movie was fantastic, however.share
No. I like the 3rd one more. I enjoy this one but the New York setting is just more interesting to me than the Airport premise of this one. Also I liked Hans Gruber's brother Simon Gruber in the 3rd one more than Stuart.share
I prefer the third one to this. While I do like DH2, it still comes off as a retread of the first film. I also wasn’t a fan of the military conspiracy stuff, either. It would’ve worked better in a different franchise. I prefer McClane taking down thieves and terrorists.share