I was discussing this earlier and now I want to ask you all. Which movie was the better action movie?

I enjoyed both series, but can we please take a break from sequels? I can't think of a time there has been more sequels than these past couple of years.

M:I 3 in a heartbeat. It was the best of the trilogy as far as I'm concerned. Tom could do at least one or two more before he starts to look too old for the part.

DH4 was good, but nowhere near as good as the first. Plus I don't think Bruce has part 5 left in the tank.

Bruce is gonna look killer in some heavy dury wheel chair stunts in DH5!!!

Bruce Willis is only 52.

I preferred DH4. MI3 seemed well made but all the action lacked excitement.

I loved them both, but I think I'd choose Die Hard 4 because it's simply more fun.

I really enjoyed Die Hard 4 a little more, but that's not to say anything bad about MI3. I'd look forward to any future sequels in both series...the most recent entries were solid.

MI3 by far.

Didn't like DH4 very much - only really love the first one

DH4 had some fantastic action sequences, but the villain sucked and the "truck vs. fighter plane" bit was just laughable. MI3 didn't have the ups of DH4, but it didn't have the downs, either.

I really enjoyed both, but you can't beat a Die Hard movie.

As much as I hate to say it, MI3 was better than DH4.

Bruce Willis kicks Tom Cruise's ass.

Yippie-ki-yay motherfucker!


(Oh, and while MI:III was good, DH4 was better, IMO...)

Neither. They both really really suck. But I would agree that Bruce Willis would beat Tom Cruises ass.

in my opinion D4 sucked more than MIII - the action scenes were waaay too over the top - laughingly so.

DH4 by a hair.

M:I-III wipes the floor with Die Soft 4(hey, that rhymes).

Granted I'll take John McClane over Ethan Hunt any day, but the IMF team in M:I-III was much better than the pairing of McClane and Farrell. Lucy McClane was a hottie, but Michelle Monaghan is really cute too. The bridge scene was cooler than anything in Die Soft. And do I really have to compare Philip Seymour Hoffman with Timothy Olyphant?

I just watched DH4 and it was great fun, but MI:3 was incredible. I think the action was better because it wasn't as cartoony as DH4's and the scenes were more tense.

Still two good movies though.

Not even close, Die Hard 4, MIII was so poor I barely made it through...

Both were highly highly enjoyable. But I made the huge mistake of watching DH4 a second time before sending it back to Netflix. Yeah, so many of the action scenes were just way way way over the top. Specifically him jumping on the wing of the plane, falling, and not breaking a single bone. Ridiculous.

I prefer Die Hard 4, but MI:III is also good. What I think is that both movies are worse than the forerunners. If I'd have to choice between Die Hard and Mission Impossible, I'd choice Die Hard, because I think, Bruce Willis is funnier than Tom Cruise

well it helped that the action, dialogue and the whole film in general was dumb and moronic as Willis' humour.

Well, the first and the second movie on Mission Impossible are rather ok. In my opinion the third tract isn't very good. The same by the forth tract of Die Hard

I liked them both but prefer Die Hard 4 just a tad more.

M:i:III over a barely unrated cut for DH4. Please the only thing that made the unrated cut unrated was the swearing. And I agree with the villian factor also. Phillip Semour Hoffman over Olyphant any day of the week.