5 ms·

"sadly, the series is unremarkable for the fact that each film is substantially worse than the one before" Patently false! The third is better than the second.

sleepybrett 3y ago
The terrible diarrhea I had yesterday was worse the than the terrible diarrhea I had today... not exactly a high bar ;)
- omnicognate 3y ago
  The third film is fantastic, including in ways relevant to the article, playing with similar abuse-of-infrastructure ideas at city- rather than building-level. It's actually a better city-level example of the first film's architectural ideas than the Nablus raid the article brings up. The Israeli forces' (horrifying, from the account in the article) "reconfiguration" of Nablus was a massively forceful one, blasting through wall after (residential) wall throughout the entire city *. In Die Hard (1 and 3) the protagonists' interactions with the civil infrastructure were far more involuntary and far less forceful, with the characters often being imperilled by those hostile spaces. Blasting through them like a Terminator wouldn't have been at all in keeping with the movies and the article does the first one a disservice by describing it in those terms. The second one isn't great but I've always rather enjoyed it too. Far from diarrhoea, anyway. * I should say, I know absolutely nothing about Nablus besides what's described in the article, and have no idea how accurate it is.
  - sleepybrett 3y ago
    They are both terrible, and they only get more terrible from there, sorry.
    - omnicognate 3y ago
      Oh, in that case I suppose I hate them now. Thanks for setting me right.
      - inputError 3y ago
        [dead]
  - mdonahoe 3y ago
    Completely agree! The antagonists also dig tunnels and otherwise subvert city infrastructure. I feel like it was a perfect example of what the author talked about.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    Would you have a documentary or further reading about the Nablus battle? It sounds absolutely amazing.
- seemaze 3y ago
  I'm sorry for your ailments.
bena 3y ago
Die Hard with a Vengeance may be the best of the series. It's either that or the first, but regardless of what you think, it's a conversation.
MikusR 3y ago
The second is good, but it's mostly the plot of the first one. The third is a good Lethal Weapon movie, but with different cast. And I personally also liked the fourth one. Thankfully there was no fifth movie.
- omnicognate 3y ago
  > Thankfully there was no fifth movie. If that's intended as a commentary on the fifth movie I agree with it, but in case it's an actual misapprehension, sadly there was one [1]. It's more part of Bruce Willis' output during his cognitive decline than part of the Die Hard series, really. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Day_to_Die_Hard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Day_to_Die_Hard

sleepybrett 3y ago

The terrible diarrhea I had yesterday was worse the than the terrible diarrhea I had today... not exactly a high bar ;)

omnicognate 3y ago
The third film is fantastic, including in ways relevant to the article, playing with similar abuse-of-infrastructure ideas at city- rather than building-level. It's actually a better city-level example of the first film's architectural ideas than the Nablus raid the article brings up. The Israeli forces' (horrifying, from the account in the article) "reconfiguration" of Nablus was a massively forceful one, blasting through wall after (residential) wall throughout the entire city *. In Die Hard (1 and 3) the protagonists' interactions with the civil infrastructure were far more involuntary and far less forceful, with the characters often being imperilled by those hostile spaces. Blasting through them like a Terminator wouldn't have been at all in keeping with the movies and the article does the first one a disservice by describing it in those terms. The second one isn't great but I've always rather enjoyed it too. Far from diarrhoea, anyway. * I should say, I know absolutely nothing about Nablus besides what's described in the article, and have no idea how accurate it is.
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  They are both terrible, and they only get more terrible from there, sorry.
  - omnicognate 3y ago
    Oh, in that case I suppose I hate them now. Thanks for setting me right.
    - inputError 3y ago
      [dead]
- mdonahoe 3y ago
  Completely agree! The antagonists also dig tunnels and otherwise subvert city infrastructure. I feel like it was a perfect example of what the author talked about.
- eastbound 3y ago
  Would you have a documentary or further reading about the Nablus battle? It sounds absolutely amazing.
seemaze 3y ago
I'm sorry for your ailments.

bena 3y ago

Die Hard with a Vengeance may be the best of the series. It's either that or the first, but regardless of what you think, it's a conversation.

MikusR 3y ago

The second is good, but it's mostly the plot of the first one. The third is a good Lethal Weapon movie, but with different cast. And I personally also liked the fourth one. Thankfully there was no fifth movie.

omnicognate 3y ago
> Thankfully there was no fifth movie. If that's intended as a commentary on the fifth movie I agree with it, but in case it's an actual misapprehension, sadly there was one [1]. It's more part of Bruce Willis' output during his cognitive decline than part of the Die Hard series, really. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Day_to_Die_Hard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Day_to_Die_Hard