The Doctor wrote:
I actually liked 4 better than 3. In all honesty, the first one is the only one I'd consider to be an awesome movie. All the sequels were pretty crappy. I might see it but at the $1.50 theater or on Netflix.
What what WHAT?
There's a bit in 4 when the ninja chick gets hit by a car and doesn't appear to have sustained any injury whatsoever (consistent with being hit by a car), not even shock. There's also the bit when he drives a car up a piece of bridge/building/whatever and catapults the car into a helicopter. The main villain is about as dangerous as a Saturday morning cartoon character.
The main criticism I have for 3 is the very
abrupt ending. It's as if the director said "oh crap, we've almost run out of film and we've forgotten to make an ending!".
2 was pretty forgettable. TBH, Die Hard 1 isn't something particularly fantastic, it's just a good action movie. I thought 3 was ok.
4 was basically the Die Hard equivalent of AvP, carrying with it all the watered-down-ness of what is normally at heart an action movie and draining it until it's suitable to be rated PG, without putting anything back in to it that makes it worth watching.
"Let's back up the Internets!"... bah.http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/2175 ... mh-L-2.jpg