LW is a decent movie, but DH created an entire genre.

I must be the only person who thinks Rickman's performance was the weakest aspect of the first Die Hard film. I voted for them being about even... I can't decide which I like better. Now, Robocop or Predator up against either of these films and I'd know what to vote.

there was a lot of great action movies before die hard and there have been alot of great action movies since die hard. die hard didn't spawn sh!t! great movie but let's put the crack pipe down. lethal weapon is about equal. the plot wasn't great but die hard's plot wasn't no 7even either.

DH didnt create an entire genre...Commando was the first "one man vs. army film"...add to that the generic one-liners...crappy supporting characters...and a lame story...and you get a pretty generic flick...only truly standout thing in the film is Alan Rickman

LW1&2 far outweigh the DH films...

Better leads...better interaction...better action scenes...far more tense and exciting...great villian (Mr. Joshua is a complete and total madman!) and it came a year before DH...makes it better...

I would go Lethal Weapon. And I seem to remeber these two movies as topic in the Die Hard vs Killer thread. :)

Touch choice. I give edge to Die Hard.

I thought I already pointed out that The Train was the first of these type of film. Besides, Comando is different. It is "opened up". Die Hard (and it's prototype The Train) all take place in confined hostile environments.

Okay...well point is that DH wasnt the first and its really a pretty generic action picture with just standard fair stuff...

I still don't get this. You & several other keep saying this with NO explanation whatsoever. You sound like the "it's so popular & mainstream, it simply must be generic & beneath me". Die Hard is in NO way generic or standard action fair. The movie is what EVERY SINGLE generic & standard action movie was compared to for nearly a decade. The movie upped the bar of action movies for a new generation. The action scenes were phenomenal, blowing up an entire floor of a building is not "generic" especially for it's time. Generic action pictures do not launch careers of one of the biggest movies stars of the past 20 years. If you don't like the movie, that's cool & your loss, but to say it's "pretty generic action picture with just standard fair stuff" is just dumb & shows a lack of cinema knowledge.

I hate to pile on, but your posts are lame. First you try to pass off Commando as a predeccesor, which is just plain wrong. then you are like "Ok, just generic stuff"

Die Hard may look generic now, because of all the copycats out there, but it was hardly generic at the time. (In my opinion, it still looks great, BTW)

I always thought that Lethal Weapon 2 was better than 1 anyway.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

I'm going with Lethal Weapon. I love the dichotomy between the two.

Meanwhile Die Hard for being such a badass flick had a bit too many kind of pillow-playing wussy moments like the weird shoed in scene of the reporter trying to talk with the nanny and the kids (what the fuck? awkward), then the xmas ending seems off somehow, like actually cheesy when they get in the car, i was expecting a Santa sleigh to fly above and Uncle Scrooge to wave them off or something, and the badguy comes back to life and the fat donut cop shoots him like it's a revelation to him -- the movie basically blew a fuse toward the finale.

Meanwhile the ending of LW is great as he has no one but just the partner and his family. Totally unique! The sequels sucked putrid salivated shit pickles though.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

How does one stumble across a thread like this that is 10 years old? I'm curious.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

Tough call between Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. But definitely Lethal Weapon 2 over Die Hard 2. :)

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

I want to like Die Hard more because the guy who made made my favorite movie ever, Predator, however i choose Lethal Weapon although it's reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally tough call. I actually.... enjoy Gary Busey more as the badguy over Alan Rickman -- Busey is this bolt of lightning. The mercs are cooler, there's a sense of freewheeling wonder to this flick that's unexplainable but Donner captured it just like he did with Superman. Plus the rapport between the two leads is great -- however i really love the unusual structure where DH is just him by himself in the tower. The music of DH is better though, the finale of LW is better, way better though, where DH's finale becomes saccharine. As for their respective sequels they all suck, yes all the LW's even 2, and all the DH's. Only these two are good, but LW is better.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

I haven't seen LW in forever but I think that it may have aged better. DH gets cringe worthy for me at times. It's got some fat that could be trimmed. Unlike Predator.

Predator over DH... All the time.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

When one duffbeer threadbump just isn't enough...

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

Surprised you didn't wait another 10 years to comment again.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

oh shit you are right dudes. you know, i just had this movie on my mind again.

Re: Match 3: Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?
 

Die Hard by a country mile...