The Film Buffs: Die Hard I vs. Die Hard III

Die Hard I

Long Story Short:

Bruce Willis saves Nakatomi Towers in Los Angeles. German terrorists are no match for him, and neither is Carl Winslow – the guy from “Family Matters.”

Alan Says:

First off, I’d like to say that I enjoy the entire Die Hard trilogy. In my humble opinion the original is the best. Here’s why:

Die Hard follows Bruce Willis’s John McClane, a New York cop who runs into a few German terrorists in L.A. The individual struggle of Willis’ character is the highlight of this movie; he doesn’t need to rely a sidekick to help his cause like in Die Hard With a Vengeance.

The plot of the original is simple: Willis vs. Alan Rickman and his band of terrorists. There are no riddles or complex twists like the sequels, just lots of guns and explosions (not to mention a smooth limo driver named Argyle). The third installment of the trilogy is a great movie, but for a better action experience stick with the original.

Die Hard III

Long Story Short:

Everyone’s favorite hung-over tough guy John McClane takes on gold-stealing, bomb-planting, cop-killing terrorists in NYC. This one’s for the ladies.

Jeff Says:

This is the best movie in the trilogy. What makes it superior to the original? Three points:

 The story. The third has a clever storyline, with John becoming the terrorists’ puppet. Plus, it takes place throughout the city, giving it a more epic feel.

 The action. Again, the first set many standards in action sequences. But the “big” action scenes are few and far between; most are him running and shooting. In this one, scenes like the flood in the aqua duct, the subway explosion and the bridge-to-boat wire drop are not only over the top but plentiful.

 Samuel Jackson. Oh, like this needs more explanation. Add this man to wasabi, and it’ll cool down.

The Hatchet has disabled comments on our website. Learn more.