|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Dec 14, 2018 13:06:16 GMT
Despite having a lower rating on both Rotten tomatoes and Metacritic, I think the second sequel works better largely due to the chemistry between Willis and Jackson despite no Christmas setting or being largely confined to a singular location. The ending, at a truck stop in Quebec, isn't very satisfying, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 14, 2018 13:40:31 GMT
Die Hard 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Dec 14, 2018 13:59:41 GMT
Originally I preferred the first sequel, but upon re-watching them both within the last year, I now have to go with the second. The first one is still top-notch action mind you, and I love the supporting cast, but it has a bit more of a cheese flavor at this point. The two of them are still close though, the drop-off in quality didn't come until they went all PG-13 on us, and then of course that trip to Russia was really when the bottom fell out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raimo47 on Dec 14, 2018 14:10:12 GMT
1. Die Hard 2
2. Die Hard
3. Die Hard with a Vengeance
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 14, 2018 14:15:36 GMT
Die Hard: with a Vegeance.
The ending is not as good as Die Hard 2 but the overall film is better IMO. Die Hard 2 is pretty much a carbon copy of the first one with a different setting but the third works better by pairing Willis with Jackson and having them running across New York City. Jeremy Irons also does a better villain than William Sadler.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Dec 14, 2018 14:17:23 GMT
Die Hard: with a Vegeance. The ending is not as good as Die Hard 2 but the overall film is better IMO. Die Hard 2 is pretty much a carbon copy of the first one with a different setting but the third works better by pairing Willis with Jackson and having them running across New York City. Jeremy Irons also does a better villain than William Sadler. I do like the use of New York locations throughout but this film lacked Jeremy Irons doing naked karate. |
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Dec 14, 2018 14:20:01 GMT
Die Hard: with a Vegeance
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Dec 14, 2018 15:08:26 GMT
Both are AWESOME Movies but I voted for "DIE HARD 2".
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Dec 14, 2018 15:18:26 GMT
Die Hard with a Vengeance. Besides a weak ending, it has some awesome action sequences, good chemistry with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, and a stellar villain with Jeremy Irons.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 14, 2018 15:50:39 GMT
Die Hard 3 (1995) ; quite clearly. 1) Die Hard 3 (1995) - 8/10 2)Die Hard (1988) - 7.5-8/10 3)Die Hard 2 (1990) - 6-6.5/10 4)Die Hard 4 (2007) - 6/10 5)Die Hard 5 (2013) - 2/10 (boring) ArchelausExactly. at the end of the day... it's the all around most interesting Die Hard movie. personally... I don't mind the ending as a small portion of a movie can't really sway my opinion up or down all that much in general as I tend to judge movies based on my all-around interest in them. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Dec 14, 2018 16:32:23 GMT
I like them both... (voted for Die Harder)
The only real flaw in With A Vengeance is that one scene where they hook back up when Samuel Jackson is coincidently driving by the one manhole that Bruce Willis is being shot out of.... That is way too weak and hackneyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Dec 14, 2018 16:34:29 GMT
Die Hard 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 14, 2018 18:36:37 GMT
DIE HARD 2 - 3/10
DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE - 5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 14, 2018 18:40:51 GMT
Die Hard 2 has higher critical reviews? That's shocking. It's the standard "same movie, different setting" sequel. Between the addition of Samuel L. and a great villain in Simon Gruber, WaV is way better.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 14, 2018 18:46:04 GMT
Die Hard With a Vengeance. Part 2 tried too hard to replicate the plot of the first movie. The villains (Grant & Stuart) are really intimidating though.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Dec 14, 2018 19:07:56 GMT
I think 2 is pretty good, but With a Vengeance is far superior and in my opinion about on par with the original. Willis and Jackson are awesome together, it has a great villain, the action scenes are terrific and overall it's one of the most purely entertaining films ever made as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 14, 2018 19:26:11 GMT
Despite having a lower rating on both Rotten tomatoes and Metacritic, I think the second sequel works better largely due to the chemistry between Willis and Jackson despite no Christmas setting or being largely confined to a singular location. The ending, at a truck stop in Quebec, isn't very satisfying, though.
Plus directed by the returning John McTiernan, and in my hometown city...
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 14, 2018 22:28:52 GMT
Die Hard With a Vengeance.
As previously mentioned, Die Hard 2 tries too hard to recreate the dynamic of the first film, whereas the second sequel adopts a completely new approach, abandons the Christmas and confined space settings and adds a whole lot of Samuel L. Jackson. Ending aside, it's the better film.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Dec 14, 2018 22:31:46 GMT
I think 2 is pretty good, but With a Vengeance is far superior and in my opinion about on par with the original. Willis and Jackson are awesome together, it has a great villain, the action scenes are terrific and overall it's one of the most purely entertaining films ever made as far as I'm concerned. ^^^^^^^This |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 14, 2018 22:36:21 GMT
Die Hard with a Vengeance is one of the best action movie sequels of all time imo.
|
|
