3, 4, then 2.

Die Hard 2: The End of an Era
 

I voted for Die Hard 2 in honor of General Ramon Esperanza, the former leader of the Republic of Valverde. May he rest in peace. However, for my money, President Arius (whose reign directly preceded that of Esperanza's) was a better leader overall. Filmed in the summer of 1989 and released in the summer of 1990, Die Hard 2 represents the last hurrah of the 1980s American action film. What a ride.

Die Hard 2 without a doubt.

4 next, and 3, which I can barely sit through, taking up a deserving last place.

:thumbsup:

Put me in the minority that likes Die Hard 2 the best out of all the sequels.

I'd rate them this way

Die Hard
Die Hard 2
Live Free or Die Hard
Die Hard With A Vengeance

I love them all, but that's how they shake out for me.

Yeah, I hate witty banter between two talented actors, what a couple of women :hscratch:

For me it's a split decision between 2 and 3, leaning towards 2.

2 gets the nod for building an entertaining story using the fundamentals of the original film and preserving the look and feel.

3's strength is that it reinvents the series without blowing it to bits. It's a welcome breath of fresh air and an excellent action/suspense movie in its own right.

Always been a big fan of 12
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AGfmfPYiO1w&mode=related&search=" ></embed>

I used to think #3 was the best sequel until I just recently re-watched the movies as a lead-up to the new one. The first is still the best, but now I think #2 is clearly in second place for me. Despite the far-fetched plot, it still feels the most like the original in spirit: with McClane working alone in a confined location; seeing a lot of the characters from the first one again; an Xmas setting again; the use of some classical music like the first (Beethoven then, Sibelius in this one); even having that tighter "adapted from a novel" feel of the original. It really felt like a continuation of the original film.

#3, though, really suffered on this repeat viewing. It started off not even feeling like a Die Hard movie and then went off on the wrong foot with the whole Harlem scene, which seemed too contrived to just get Samuel L. Jackson in as McClane's partner (McClane with a partner? Is this Die Hard or Lethal Weapon?) There were then some excellent action scenes in the middle part of the movie and Jeremy Irons was a superb villain, but then the whole "bomb in a school" subplot kicked in and was the weakest part of the movie, by far, and really started to deflate the ending. And the finale itself had a weak "made it up as they went along" quality to it (but at least it was better than the really lame "alternate ending" viewable in the DVD extras, which I guess was the originally planned ending).

2 had a better ending that 3 & 4 don't.
Where Willis rides off and the happy Christmas music.