MovieChat Forums > Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) Discussion > The praise over it

The praise over it

posted 10 years ago by Krishthegod
4 replies | jump to latest

I don't know why people keep saying this is a lot better than 2. IMO, maybe the people who said this are only saying this because McTiernan directed and Renny Harlin has become not even a C list director at this point. IMO, 2 and 3 are on the same level of quality and direction, and honestly, they both don't pack quite the punch the 1st movie had.

I will give 3 credit, though. As far as major holes in the plot development were concerned, it was atleast paced in a way to where I couldn't notice them, unlike 2, which had plotholes up the wazoo. However, there are two things that didn't sit well with me. 1st, why doesn't McClane remember Hans the moment the psychologist mentioned the voice having a German accent AND a vendetta. I think Graham Greene mentions that John pissed off practically everyone around him, but even so, I think remembering a German terrorist that almost killed his wife would have been what a normal screenwriter would have written that. Maybe if Simon had actually bothered to hide his accent on the phone, then maybe the reveal would have meant a little more not only for the audience, but for McClane as well. I'm surprised he didn't go D'oh. 2nd, I really did not like the way it ended, the same way 2 ended. I mean, leaving McClane and Zeus alive was a little too contrived, and was an excuse to have an explosive ending, that didn't really fit with the otherwise taut cat and mouse game with the school bombs and of course "Simon Says". And don't get me wrong, I didn't like the original flack jacket ending, either. Imthat wouldn't have fit anymore than the final ending we got. It just seemed that when they got to the boat, to run of steam by that point, and kinda devolved into a typical explosive ending that plagued many of the action movies of the 90s, not that there's anything wrong with explosions, it's just I wanted more out of the ending, given how tight and tense the 1st half was.

Don't get me wrong. I like Die Hard 3 a lot, but I don't think it's exactly the return to form that people think it its. for me, it edges out Die Hard 2 by a notch

[–] clark_gillies 10 years ago

Problem with Die Hard 2 it just fells so cheaply made and lacking, while trying to hard to be a direct copy of the successful first movie.

My problem is there is no "partnership" in it for Willis to feed off.... Die Hard 1 it was all about the communication between McClane and Al and DHWAV its is McClaine and Zeus... even LFODH you have Matt.... all these giving it a buddy movie kind of vibe.... Die Hard 2 is missing this (you kind of want him to feed off Barnes, but there is just no chemistry) and a lot of the witty comments and remarks are lost.

In terms of story, Die Hard 2 is probably better from start to finish.... DHWAV is excellent right up until the bad guys get the gold (basically the original "Simon Says" part of the script before it goes into Die Hard Territory) and really does show in places that they had no clue how to end this movie.

In terms of the original trilogy, Die Hard 2 was the poorest, but time has been good to it I feel and with the "ok-ish" LFODH and the train wreak that is AGDTDH, Die Hard 2 has went up in peoples opinions

[–] Krishthegod 10 years ago

Those are some excellent points, and I suppose 2 is still the weakest of the 1st 3, however you're also right in that the ending you DHWAV REALLY felt tacked on and kinda made lessened the impact of everything before it

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

McTiernan just handles action scenes in a way that isn't matched. Put it like this, I think Part 2 would be better than 3 if HE directed it. Harlin wasn't terrible but watching 1 and 2 back to back, you can see how superior McTiernan was in handling the scenes with gun fire, fighting etc... He just had a knack with the realism. See Predator as an example as well, the gun play in that film is as good as you'll see in an Action Film

[–] Ace_Sax 9 years ago

Because the second film is such a lazy rehash of the original. Only filmed by a far less talented director and featuring a far less memorable group of villains.

Die Hard with a Vengeance is different enough to set itself apart from the original as a film while simulaniously feeling like a very natural progression of McClane's story.

Plus Jeremy Irons always knocks it out of the park as a villain.