Best Action Saga? (NEW POLL)

Honestly, they all seem pretty much equally good to me 😁 just like any of the others

vivideagle7 said:Honestly, they all seem pretty much equally good to me 😁 just like any of the others

🤣

A man wants it all—if he can get his hands on it, he'll take it. 🙂

Rambo and Die Hard. Honestly, as far as I’m concerned, Rambo 4 is easily the best action saga we've seen in the last 15 years or so. I can't even remember the last time a fourth installment in a franchise actually managed to be that good.

Die Hard.

It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around why people claim Die Hard is leading the pack by such a wide margin—I mean, seriously... Don't get me wrong, I love the Die Hard saga; it’s practically woven into my childhood memories and all that—but saying it stands head and shoulders above everything else? It just isn't true.

The problem is judging an entire saga based on one single film. Let's be real here: if we're talking about pure quality, the only thing that can actually hold its own against the first three Bourne films is maybe one film from another franchise. If Die Hard fans could just set aside the nostalgia for a second, they might realize we need to be a bit more objective.

Besides, when you actually sit down and weigh the pros and cons, I don't think Die Hard even edges out Mission: Impossible in terms of overall value—but hey, I respect that everyone has their own take.🙂

Exactly, it’s just nostalgia talking. We tend to think every old movie was a masterpiece just because we grew up with them. Let's move past these tired "arguments."

The Die Hard series has three good movies. The second and third are solid, but the first is one of the best action films ever made. Plus, you have Bruce Willis—a guy with actual presence and charisma. Now, look at Matt Damon; he’s got a baby face, he's an average actor, and the Bourne film is something I just can't connect with. All that shaky camera nonsense just ruins the experience. Searching for identity worked for the first one, but everything after that was a letdown. I enjoy the Mission: Impossible series much more than those movies. They lack soul, and more importantly, they don't have Willis.

As long as it works, I'm happy.

Two Word - Lethal Weapon.

bluenomad2 said:Exactly, it’s just nostalgia talking. We tend to think every old movie was a masterpiece just because we grew up with them. Let's move past these tired "arguments."

The Die Hard series has three good movies. The second and third are solid, but the first is one of the best action films ever made. Plus, you have Bruce Willis—a guy with actual presence and charisma. Now, look at Matt Damon; he’s got a baby face, he's an average actor, and the Bourne film is something I just can't connect with. All that shaky camera nonsense just ruins the experience. Searching for identity worked for the first one, but everything after that was a letdown. I enjoy the Mission: Impossible series much more than those movies. They lack soul, and more importantly, they don't have Willis.

As long as it works, I'm happy.

Look, if anyone here is being driven by nostalgia, it’s me—but I make a point of staying objective. You know perfectly well I wasn't the person you were aiming at with that comment. 🙂

My stance is simple (and this is just my personal take): I don't think Die Hard is *that* much better than everything else out there—not that I think it beats Mission: Impossible, the Bourne film series, or the Lethal Weapon franchise in general, but that's where I stand. In my book, the only Die Hard film that actually holds its own against the three Bourne films, the first two Lethal Weapon films, or the first and fourth Mission: Impossible entries is the original itself. The rest? Not quite in that tier. Now, as much as I love them—and believe me, I spent my childhood watching them on TV every single year around Christmas—I'm just stating my view. I respect that others see it differently, so if you want to argue, go ahead. 🙂

wiredraven82 said:It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around why people claim Die Hard is leading the pack by such a wide margin—I mean, seriously... Don't get me wrong, I love the Die Hard saga; it’s practically woven into my childhood memories and all that—but saying it stands head and shoulders above everything else? It just isn't true.

The problem is judging an entire saga based on one single film. Let's be real here: if we're talking about pure quality, the only thing that can actually hold its own against the first three Bourne films is maybe one film from another franchise. If Die Hard fans could just set aside the nostalgia for a second, they might realize we need to be a bit more objective.

Besides, when you actually sit down and weigh the pros and cons, I don't think Die Hard even edges out Mission: Impossible in terms of overall value—but hey, I respect that everyone has their own take.🙂

Man, look—the first one is definitely up there with the best; the story holds up, the pyrotechnics are even more intense, and the gunfights feel way punchier... just pure, unadulterated action. The third installment gets a little messy toward the end—the editing is kind of all over the place—but it’s still a solid watch. Honestly, though, the fourth one blows the third out of the water in almost every way, mostly because it doesn't try so hard to copy the first movie like the third one did... though the action goes a bit overboard, getting pretty caricatured, which makes the whole thing feel a little goofy, like some over-the-top comic book nonsense. As for the fifth one? Total miss. We're talking four decent movies here, not just one...

Honestly, when you really break it all down and look at the math, Die Hard isn't even better than Mission: Impossible in my book... but hey, I truly respect everyone's take on it. 🙂

Let’s get one thing straight—Mission: Impossible isn't really an "action movie," it’s more like a techno-spy thriller... Duja is definitely action, sure, but at least there's a decent plot involved—it feels like it was inspired by that old Hitch vibe—but the action itself is so try-hard that the whole movie just ends up floating somewhere in limbo, neither great nor terrible. The third one is better, I guess, but it lacks any real class because it can't quite find the balance between being a thriller and an action flick. Then you've got the fourth installment, which is solid enough, though it kind of sits in that same tier as Live Free or Die Hard; you've got the humor, the stunts, and that totally cartoonish villain that feels like he was pulled straight out of some 80s vault... haven't checked out the fifth one yet. So, looking at the lineup: one excellent (but not strictly action), one good, one lost in the middle, and one just fun... When you add them all up, Die Hard still takes the crown for pure, unadulterated action flavor...

briskhound2 said:Man, look—the first one is definitely up there with the best; the story holds up, the pyrotechnics are even more intense, and the gunfights feel way punchier... just pure, unadulterated action. The third installment gets a little messy toward the end—the editing is kind of all over the place—but it’s still a solid watch. Honestly, though, the fourth one blows the third out of the water in almost every way, mostly because it doesn't try so hard to copy the first movie like the third one did... though the action goes a bit overboard, getting pretty caricatured, which makes the whole thing feel a little goofy, like some over-the-top comic book nonsense. As for the fifth one? Total miss. We're talking four decent movies here, not just one...

Honestly, when you really break it all down and look at the math, Die Hard isn't even better than Mission: Impossible in my book... but hey, I truly respect everyone's take on it. 🙂

Let’s get one thing straight—Mission: Impossible isn't really an "action movie," it’s more like a techno-spy thriller... Duja is definitely action, sure, but at least there's a decent plot involved—it feels like it was inspired by that old Hitch vibe—but the action itself is so try-hard that the whole movie just ends up floating somewhere in limbo, neither great nor terrible. The third one is better, I guess, but it lacks any real class because it can't quite find the balance between being a thriller and an action flick. Then you've got the fourth installment, which is solid enough, though it kind of sits in that same tier as Live Free or Die Hard; you've got the humor, the stunts, and that totally cartoonish villain that feels like he was pulled straight out of some 80s vault... haven't checked out the fifth one yet. So, looking at the lineup: one excellent (but not strictly action), one good, one lost in the middle, and one just fun... When you add them all up, Die Hard still takes the crown for pure, unadulterated action flavor...

I don't know if I'd say the second film is really on par with the first; it isn't a bad movie, by all means, but... personally, I wouldn't put it in the same league as the original.

For me, the third one is actually more enjoyable than the second, even if the critics didn't exactly shower Die Hard 3 with praise.

My take on what constitutes true quality—the absolute top tier—is that only the first Die Hard stands alongside the first three Bourne films (which, in my eyes, are all masterpieces). Beyond that, I'd put the remaining Mission: Impossible and Lethal Weapon movies in that same category.

🍿

briskhound2 said:Man, look—the first one is definitely up there with the best; the story holds up, the pyrotechnics are even more intense, and the gunfights feel way punchier... just pure, unadulterated action. The third installment gets a little messy toward the end—the editing is kind of all over the place—but it’s still a solid watch. Honestly, though, the fourth one blows the third out of the water in almost every way, mostly because it doesn't try so hard to copy the first movie like the third one did... though the action goes a bit overboard, getting pretty caricatured, which makes the whole thing feel a little goofy, like some over-the-top comic book nonsense. As for the fifth one? Total miss. We're talking four decent movies here, not just one...

Honestly, when you really break it all down and look at the math, Die Hard isn't even better than Mission: Impossible in my book... but hey, I truly respect everyone's take on it. 🙂

Let’s get one thing straight—Mission: Impossible isn't really an "action movie," it’s more like a techno-spy thriller... Duja is definitely action, sure, but at least there's a decent plot involved—it feels like it was inspired by that old Hitch vibe—but the action itself is so try-hard that the whole movie just ends up floating somewhere in limbo, neither great nor terrible. The third one is better, I guess, but it lacks any real class because it can't quite find the balance between being a thriller and an action flick. Then you've got the fourth installment, which is solid enough, though it kind of sits in that same tier as Live Free or Die Hard; you've got the humor, the stunts, and that totally cartoonish villain that feels like he was pulled straight out of some 80s vault... haven't checked out the fifth one yet. So, looking at the lineup: one excellent (but not strictly action), one good, one lost in the middle, and one just fun... When you add them all up, Die Hard still takes the crown for pure, unadulterated action flavor...

Well, look, I'd frame it this way: the 1996 Mission: Impossible isn't JUST action, it's a spy thriller. I agree it's primarily a spy thriller, but those action sequences are undeniably top-tier and create a truly incredible—in my opinion, legendary and cult classic—symbiosis with the spy elements.

To this day, not a single Mission: Impossible entry has surpassed the first one for me; it just has "that something."

The fourth one came close, and honestly, I haven't seen a better or higher quality action film since the last Bourne film starring Matt Damon; Mission: Impossible 4 was genuinely impressive.

I haven't sat through the fifth one either.

To reiterate:

Die Hard 2 is a great movie 👍 but for me, it isn't a masterpiece and isn't in the same league as the first; it's just a great movie to watch, something we grew up on and all that.

Live Free or Die Hard actually surprised me—it was probably the best version of this kind of thing made in the modern era.

As for the fifth one? No comment. "Catastrophe" is putting it lightly.

It's not that I have anything against Die Hard as a whole, I just don't think this specific franchise is significantly stronger than the others—quite the opposite, actually. But hey, that's just my opinion; to each their own.🙂

But look, at least the LW crowd is keeping up with the poll.

People always seem to overlook Live Free or Die Hard, but honestly? It’s great. It feels like the definitive Die Hard movie for the 21st century—you’ve got all those high-tech gadgets and cyber-terrorists, which provides such a cool contrast to McClane. He’s this old-school, analog hero stuck navigating a digital world, usually landing in the wrong place at the exact wrong time. It works perfectly. As far as fourth installments in any franchise go, I’d say Rambo IV is pretty much the only one that actually holds up better than Live Free or Die Hard.

Jack Morgan2 said:Rambo and Die Hard. Honestly, as far as I’m concerned, Rambo 4 is easily the best action saga we've seen in the last 15 years or so. I can't even remember the last time a fourth installment in a franchise actually managed to be that good.

To be completely honest, Rambo IV actually blew me away—it was a massive surprise. The sound design for the gunfire and the sheer brutality of the combat scenes? It was incredibly realistic. Just incredible.

The main reason I enjoyed Rambo IV so much, though, was the pure satisfaction I got watching him tear through those sick bastards. I’m being blunt here—I genuinely relished it. There were moments where I felt he should have been even more ruthless, but what we got was plenty. 🙏

That’s the kind of thing that should happen in the real world with members of the Islamic State—not just neutralizing them, but absolutely annihilating them. Killing them isn't enough; they need to be wiped out.

P.S.: Obviously, the original Rambo will always be a classic for many reasons. It wasn't just an action flick or some standard war movie—it carried a message, and Sly was brilliant in it. But again, I’ll say it: in Rambo 4, I truly found joy in seeing him butcher that filth. They deserve exactly that—no mercy, no forgiveness, and zero sympathy. There’s a specific kind of punishment reserved for people like that.

That’s why, ever since I was a kid, my favorite Marvel's hero has always been the Punisher. 😁 God, I love it when he goes off on criminals and degenerates; that’s how justice should look.

I could watch this once a day. The way he handles those scumbags is top tier—it's the only kind of justice that actually makes sense: PUNISHER - DIRTY LAUNDRY [BOOTLEG UNIVERSE]

And the icing on the cake in that video? When he asks that piece of trash if he knows the difference between justice and retribution, before dousing him in Jack Daniel's and flicking his Zippo... man... 🙏

Rambo 4 is just brutal. Honestly, combined with the first installment, it’s got more drama than anything else, and man, there is absolutely no shortage of action either—supposedly there are more deaths in this one than in the first three movies put together. And that moment at the end when he finally makes it back home after all those years? It was executed perfectly. Seeing his name on the house right before the credits roll... Stallone really nailed that. It feels like Rambo has come full circle. This movie totally blew my expectations out of the water, which is saying something because they were insanely high. I grew up on the Rambo trilogy, watching every single part over and over again until my parents felt awkward lending me the Rambo films. Usually, things don't hold up as well once you grow up, but that's not the case with Rambo for me. Because of that, I'll always maintain that Rambo 4 is the best action flick, not just from the last 15 years, but from the last 25.

I ended up voting for the action saga "Die Hard" because, honestly, it looked like the best option on the table at the time, though it hit me later that the fourth installment is just a mediocre flick, and the fifth one was such total garbage I actually turned it off after only 15 minutes.
If we’re talking about maintaining actual quality from the very first film all the way through to the end, I’d argue that "Deadly Weapon" is the superior choice. But even then, my heart still leans toward "Die Hard," despite how much they stumbled with those subpar sequels...

Jessica Morris6 said:I ended up voting for the action saga "Die Hard" because, honestly, it looked like the best option on the table at the time, though it hit me later that the fourth installment is just a mediocre flick, and the fifth one was such total garbage I actually turned it off after only 15 minutes.
If we’re talking about maintaining actual quality from the very first film all the way through to the end, I’d argue that "Deadly Weapon" is the superior choice. But even then, my heart still leans toward "Die Hard," despite how much they stumbled with those subpar sequels...

I mean, if we're just talking about the first two installments, sure. But by the third one, things really start to lag behind—mostly because the plot is paper-thin (I knew who the bad guy was, but honestly, I had no clue what his actual motive was)... then the fourth one just veers off into this messy, bloated territory where there are way too many characters running around. Plus, Chris Rock is so grating he almost ruins the whole movie just by being on screen.

(image)[/IMG]

briskhound2 said:I mean, if we're just talking about the first two installments, sure. But by the third one, things really start to lag behind—mostly because the plot is paper-thin (I knew who the bad guy was, but honestly, I had no clue what his actual motive was)... then the fourth one just veers off into this messy, bloated territory where there are way too many characters running around. Plus, Chris Rock is so grating he almost ruins the whole movie just by being on screen.

They might be lower in quality, I suppose, but I still hold all the entries in pretty high regard... personally, I didn't find Chris Rock quite that annoying in the fourth one, though Jet Li really rubbed me the wrong way since I've never been much of a fan of his. But at the end of the day, my favorite part about the series is definitely Joe Pesci, who is just fantastic.

Jessica Morris6 said:They might be lower in quality, I suppose, but I still hold all the entries in pretty high regard... personally, I didn't find Chris Rock quite that annoying in the fourth one, though Jet Li really rubbed me the wrong way since I've never been much of a fan of his. But at the end of the day, my favorite part about the series is definitely Joe Pesci, who is just fantastic.

In the fourth installment, he went from being this sharp, witty genius to just some pathetic, weeping caricature—that’s easily my biggest gripe with how they handled him. Jet Li is basically the face of the whole thing 😁

Die Hard has two solid sequels, the first two. The third and fourth aren't really my thing. Die Hard masculine three, four, and five? No thanks. I can't take Bourne seriously because of Damon and the poor directing. And Mission Impossible isn't even classic action, just like briskhound2 said.

Die Hard is easily in my top five action movies, but the other four sequels don't make the cut. One of them is a series, but unfortunately, it's not on this list.

I’m honestly a bit puzzled—why wasn't the Thunder Warrior trilogy included in the poll? I mean, you’ve got Bobby Svenson and Mark Gregory working their magic under the brilliant direction of the legendary Fabrizio de Angelis, the mastermind behind that incredible Karate Warrior hexalogy! It just feels like such a massive oversight, don't you think? 🤷