Best Action Saga? (NEW POLL)

bluenomad2 said: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.

Paul Greengrass actually killed it with the ultimatum (or whatever you want to call those "smart" tactical thrillers). xD. For me, that's his best Bourne. That shaky cam during the fight scenes is awesome—though, honestly, I watched The Man from Nowhere a few years later and totally forgot about this one. xD

One look at an early Woo film and everything else just fades away 😁

bluenomad2 said:One look at an early Woo film and everything else just fades away 😁

straight out of True Romance. Tarantino had to have stuffed it in there. xD

bluenomad2 said: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.

Bad directing in Bourne? Honestly, if you can't handle a film just because you aren't a fan of Matt Damon, then there's really no hope for anyone—but to make a claim like that about Bourne? Look, if we're talking about the first three films—and let’s be clear, I'm not even counting the fourth one since, unlike you, I actually adore Matt Damon—then we might as well just give up on cinema entirely.

What exactly are we talking about when we discuss Die Hard 1—specifically that "suicide unit" vibe? I’m not saying it isn't a cult classic, because obviously it is, but how can anyone argue that the direction is somehow superior to the Bourne series? It just doesn't track for me.

If you ask me, all three Bourne films are essentially the cinematic equivalent of the Die Hard unit—in terms of pure filmmaking value, that is. Every single technical and narrative aspect holds up to that standard. Personally, though? I’d argue they actually surpass them.

The sheer level of direction in Die Hard is absolutely staggering—honestly, you don't even see this kind of stuff when people talk about Jason Bourne. It’s just wild. You have this half-dead cop essentially saving an entire building from terrorists, limping around in nothing but a white undershirt while dropping badass one-liners every five minutes. And the grit? Those bloody footprints all over the glass—it’s constant. I truly don't know who could have conceptualized something this layered. Between the "killing" plot, the acting, Willis's performance, and that directing—my God.

What kind of background did Willis actually have in the Die Hard universe to justify taking out an entire terrorist cell single-handedly? (I won't even get into the other sequels here.) Was his brain somehow wired to turn him into a literal killing machine—something akin to Jason Bourne? Probably not. Did he lose everything meaningful in life, much like Gibson's character, Riggs—who, by the way, was part of an elite special unit before joining the police—leading him to walk straight into gunfire just to end it all? Unlikely. Or maybe he was dealing with PTSD from Vietnam after serving as the top man in a special forces unit before returning home to the USA, similar to Rambo? No...

Look, you basically need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of witty one-liners thrown around mid-scene, and a limp that affects every single muscle and limb in your body—just like Willis's character—and suddenly, all of that serves as some sort of qualification for what the guy actually pulls off. Now, I didn’t intend to write this about Die Hard—it's a personal favorite of mine, truly—but since I'm being dragged by my own linguistic nitpicking...

If you actually take a moment to look at the substance, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—specifically that whole "suicide unit" dynamic—are easily five times more complex than Die Hard. There’s a depth there that most pure action flicks just can't touch. Mel Gibson is nothing short of masterful in those roles; he brings something to the table that goes beyond mere adrenaline. His character isn't just some cardboard cutout designed to trigger explosions—you actually feel his weight, his trauma, and his humanity on a legitimate dramaturgical level. It’s not just mindless movement; it's character study disguised as an action movie. Anyone who has actually sat down and watched them will tell you the exact same thing.

Honestly, this one single scene from Lethal Weapon holds more weight than the rest of the movie combined. When you look at this through the lens of pure performance—specifically how an actor carries themselves within the framework of an action movie—you start to see why certain films stick while others just vanish. Take a film like Lethal Weapon, for example. It’s not just about the explosions or the stunts; it’s about the chemistry and the weight the actors bring to the roles. If you analyze the acting caliber in relation to the overall impact of the action saga, you realize that the grit isn't just scripted—it's lived. It's one thing to follow a beat, but it's another thing entirely to inhabit a character in a way that makes the high-stakes tension feel earned rather than manufactured. Looking at Lethal Weapon as a whole, the synergy between the leads elevates it from a standard genre flick to something much more substantial. It’s like half of the Lethal Weapon - suicide unit: The "Lethal Weapon - suicide" scene—if we’re talking about that specific moment where everything hits the fan—really sets the tone for the whole franchise. It isn't just some mindless explosion; it’s that gritty, high-stakes tension that defines the genre. You can see the groundwork being laid right there, showing how far these characters are willing to go before they hit the breaking point. It’s visceral, it's messy, and honestly, it’s exactly why the movie works so much better than your standard, polished Hollywood thriller.

Mel Gibson’s performance in this specific scene—especially that moment where he's grappling with suicidal ideation—is absolute peak. It’s just one standout moment from a movie that absolutely drips with that classic Lethal Weapon energy; it’s an action saga, sure, but it’s built on this incredibly dense, messy web of character drama. To me, the way they weave his internal agony—the raw, crushing weight of losing his wife—directly into the pacing of the action is masterfully done. It isn't just mindless explosions; the character's actual suffering drives the momentum.

Just imagine—just for a second—if you had Willis in this specific scene from Die Hard mother. Seriously, try to picture that.

Mel Gibson's portrayal of Riggs is an incredibly complex character—his entire presence within the unit and his sheer intensity, particularly during that specific sequence, almost brings a man to tears just watching him. That opening scene I posted? It’s masterfully executed, truly. Just one more standout moment from a massive collection:

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Honestly, all that other stuff doesn't mean a damn thing when you've got a total badass like Willis leading the charge—the kind of guy who steps up and saves an entire skyscraper!

Look, I don't have anything against Die Hard, really—but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard? I just don't follow the logic there.

The direction, the screenplay, the narrative, and the sheer performances in the Bourne trilogy—the first three films, specifically—are masterfully executed. Whether you personally enjoy them or not is irrelevant; both audiences and critics have acknowledged it. These films consistently pull in near-perfect scores—8s, 9s, 10s across the board—and Bourne Ultimatum was essentially the victory lap that tied everything together perfectly.

That’s my take on it. ☕

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82 said:Bad directing in Bourne? Honestly, if you can't handle a film just because you aren't a fan of Matt Damon, then there's really no hope for anyone—but to make a claim like that about Bourne? Look, if we're talking about the first three films—and let’s be clear, I'm not even counting the fourth one since, unlike you, I actually adore Matt Damon—then we might as well just give up on cinema entirely.

What exactly are we talking about when we discuss Die Hard 1—specifically that "suicide unit" vibe? I’m not saying it isn't a cult classic, because obviously it is, but how can anyone argue that the direction is somehow superior to the Bourne series? It just doesn't track for me.

If you ask me, all three Bourne films are essentially the cinematic equivalent of the Die Hard unit—in terms of pure filmmaking value, that is. Every single technical and narrative aspect holds up to that standard. Personally, though? I’d argue they actually surpass them.

The sheer level of direction in Die Hard is absolutely staggering—honestly, you don't even see this kind of stuff when people talk about Jason Bourne. It’s just wild. You have this half-dead cop essentially saving an entire building from terrorists, limping around in nothing but a white undershirt while dropping badass one-liners every five minutes. And the grit? Those bloody footprints all over the glass—it’s constant. I truly don't know who could have conceptualized something this layered. Between the "killing" plot, the acting, Willis's performance, and that directing—my God.

What kind of background did Willis actually have in the Die Hard universe to justify taking out an entire terrorist cell single-handedly? (I won't even get into the other sequels here.) Was his brain somehow wired to turn him into a literal killing machine—something akin to Jason Bourne? Probably not. Did he lose everything meaningful in life, much like Gibson's character, Riggs—who, by the way, was part of an elite special unit before joining the police—leading him to walk straight into gunfire just to end it all? Unlikely. Or maybe he was dealing with PTSD from Vietnam after serving as the top man in a special forces unit before returning home to the USA, similar to Rambo? No...

Look, you basically need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of witty one-liners thrown around mid-scene, and a limp that affects every single muscle and limb in your body—just like Willis's character—and suddenly, all of that serves as some sort of qualification for what the guy actually pulls off. Now, I didn’t intend to write this about Die Hard—it's a personal favorite of mine, truly—but since I'm being dragged by my own linguistic nitpicking...

If you actually take a moment to look at the substance, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—specifically that whole "suicide unit" dynamic—are easily five times more complex than Die Hard. There’s a depth there that most pure action flicks just can't touch. Mel Gibson is nothing short of masterful in those roles; he brings something to the table that goes beyond mere adrenaline. His character isn't just some cardboard cutout designed to trigger explosions—you actually feel his weight, his trauma, and his humanity on a legitimate dramaturgical level. It’s not just mindless movement; it's character study disguised as an action movie. Anyone who has actually sat down and watched them will tell you the exact same thing.

Honestly, this one single scene from Lethal Weapon holds more weight than the rest of the movie combined. When you look at this through the lens of pure performance—specifically how an actor carries themselves within the framework of an action movie—you start to see why certain films stick while others just vanish. Take a film like Lethal Weapon, for example. It’s not just about the explosions or the stunts; it’s about the chemistry and the weight the actors bring to the roles. If you analyze the acting caliber in relation to the overall impact of the action saga, you realize that the grit isn't just scripted—it's lived. It's one thing to follow a beat, but it's another thing entirely to inhabit a character in a way that makes the high-stakes tension feel earned rather than manufactured. Looking at Lethal Weapon as a whole, the synergy between the leads elevates it from a standard genre flick to something much more substantial. It’s like half of the Lethal Weapon - suicide unit: The "Lethal Weapon - suicide" scene—if we’re talking about that specific moment where everything hits the fan—really sets the tone for the whole franchise. It isn't just some mindless explosion; it’s that gritty, high-stakes tension that defines the genre. You can see the groundwork being laid right there, showing how far these characters are willing to go before they hit the breaking point. It’s visceral, it's messy, and honestly, it’s exactly why the movie works so much better than your standard, polished Hollywood thriller.

Mel Gibson’s performance in this specific scene—especially that moment where he's grappling with suicidal ideation—is absolute peak. It’s just one standout moment from a movie that absolutely drips with that classic Lethal Weapon energy; it’s an action saga, sure, but it’s built on this incredibly dense, messy web of character drama. To me, the way they weave his internal agony—the raw, crushing weight of losing his wife—directly into the pacing of the action is masterfully done. It isn't just mindless explosions; the character's actual suffering drives the momentum.

Just imagine—just for a second—if you had Willis in this specific scene from Die Hard mother. Seriously, try to picture that.

Mel Gibson's portrayal of Riggs is an incredibly complex character—his entire presence within the unit and his sheer intensity, particularly during that specific sequence, almost brings a man to tears just watching him. That opening scene I posted? It’s masterfully executed, truly. Just one more standout moment from a massive collection:

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Honestly, all that other stuff doesn't mean a damn thing when you've got a total badass like Willis leading the charge—the kind of guy who steps up and saves an entire skyscraper!

Look, I don't have anything against Die Hard, really—but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard? I just don't follow the logic there.

The direction, the screenplay, the narrative, and the sheer performances in the Bourne trilogy—the first three films, specifically—are masterfully executed. Whether you personally enjoy them or not is irrelevant; both audiences and critics have acknowledged it. These films consistently pull in near-perfect scores—8s, 9s, 10s across the board—and Bourne Ultimatum was essentially the victory lap that tied everything together perfectly.

That’s my take on it. ☕

wiredraven82, you ever actually read Bourne?

Not strictly about the movies, but just a little side note—that character Richard Chamberlain played in that mini-series is actually way closer to Bourne than he is to Matt Damon. Like, he’s just an ordinary guy... no special skills, no crazy kung-fu moves or anything like that... just a normal dude. As for what you were asking, the answer is pretty straightforward—it's all about clarity. You want nice, smooth visibility where you can actually see the intention behind the action. Bourne is just mediocre at everything—from how they tweaked the character just to fit modern trends (because apparently, you aren't a top-tier spy if you don't have some "cool" tricks up your sleeve, right?) to the action itself, which is edited so poorly with that shaky cam nonsense that I honestly can't remember a single decent, iconic, or memorable scene from any of those movies... none at all.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, basically, you need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of badass one-liners throughout the movie, and that signature limp where he’s nursing every single muscle and bone in his body just like Willis's character... and apparently, all that is what actually qualifies him for what he pulls off. Look, I didn't mean to write this about Die Hard—it's a great movie, seriously, I love it—but since the language was already bugging me...

Nah, honestly, you’ve gotta be a simple guy to really get it. Just a regular, relatable dude. But what’s actually "relatable" about a character like Jason Bourne? He’s this super spy who knows all the fancy moves, speaks a bunch of languages, and can handle basically any weapon thrown his way—so what’s the draw there? It's that whole vibe where he can just fix everything... like, nothing can touch him...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, if you ask me, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—especially that whole die hard unit : Lethal Weapon - suicide vibe—are easily five times more complex as action movies than Die Hard... honestly. Mel Gibson is just masterful in Lethal Weapon and the sequel; his character isn't some one-dimensional action trope you just watch blow stuff up, he's someone you actually feel on a deep, dramatic level. It’s one of those things where everyone here can probably back me up on that...

He’s basically a walking stereotype—just your classic burnt-out cop on the edge... honestly, it’s straight out of a cliché handbook. But look, that's just how it goes with Mel Gibson. His performance hits the spot because he plays that "charming psycho" vibe so well. Even though the unit itself has this slightly darker tone, a bit of an edge to his character, and a hint of unpredictability, the sequel just feels like the usual over-the-top nonsense...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper...

Wait, you’re actually messing with me right now, aren't you? You really think it's some deep, heavy drama—you know, where a guy who looks just like James Dean, cigarette tucked coolly into the corner of his mouth, strolls up to a sniper and just casually shouts at him? You want to know why that actually got cut from the original version? It's because the scene was just way too over the top and totally unrealistic... or so Richard Donner said. And that's coming from the guy who actually directed the movie...

I mean... look, I have absolutely nothing against Die Hard, but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard... I just don't get where you're coming from.

That’s why Die Hard is going to be a cult classic forever—it was the absolute turning point for the action saga, a total innovator that basically birthed its own subgenre... whereas all Bourne leaves behind is shaky cam. Honestly, thanks for that, whoever came up with that mess.

I haven't actually sat down to read the Jason Bourne books yet.

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82, you ever actually read Bourne?

Not strictly about the movies, but just a little side note—that character Richard Chamberlain played in that mini-series is actually way closer to Bourne than he is to Matt Damon. Like, he’s just an ordinary guy... no special skills, no crazy kung-fu moves or anything like that... just a normal dude. As for what you were asking, the answer is pretty straightforward—it's all about clarity. You want nice, smooth visibility where you can actually see the intention behind the action. Bourne is just mediocre at everything—from how they tweaked the character just to fit modern trends (because apparently, you aren't a top-tier spy if you don't have some "cool" tricks up your sleeve, right?) to the action itself, which is edited so poorly with that shaky cam nonsense that I honestly can't remember a single decent, iconic, or memorable scene from any of those movies... none at all.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, basically, you need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of badass one-liners throughout the movie, and that signature limp where he’s nursing every single muscle and bone in his body just like Willis's character... and apparently, all that is what actually qualifies him for what he pulls off. Look, I didn't mean to write this about Die Hard—it's a great movie, seriously, I love it—but since the language was already bugging me...

Nah, honestly, you’ve gotta be a simple guy to really get it. Just a regular, relatable dude. But what’s actually "relatable" about a character like Jason Bourne? He’s this super spy who knows all the fancy moves, speaks a bunch of languages, and can handle basically any weapon thrown his way—so what’s the draw there? It's that whole vibe where he can just fix everything... like, nothing can touch him...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, if you ask me, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—especially that whole die hard unit : Lethal Weapon - suicide vibe—are easily five times more complex as action movies than Die Hard... honestly. Mel Gibson is just masterful in Lethal Weapon and the sequel; his character isn't some one-dimensional action trope you just watch blow stuff up, he's someone you actually feel on a deep, dramatic level. It’s one of those things where everyone here can probably back me up on that...

He’s basically a walking stereotype—just your classic burnt-out cop on the edge... honestly, it’s straight out of a cliché handbook. But look, that's just how it goes with Mel Gibson. His performance hits the spot because he plays that "charming psycho" vibe so well. Even though the unit itself has this slightly darker tone, a bit of an edge to his character, and a hint of unpredictability, the sequel just feels like the usual over-the-top nonsense...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper...

Wait, you’re actually messing with me right now, aren't you? You really think it's some deep, heavy drama—you know, where a guy who looks just like James Dean, cigarette tucked coolly into the corner of his mouth, strolls up to a sniper and just casually shouts at him? You want to know why that actually got cut from the original version? It's because the scene was just way too over the top and totally unrealistic... or so Richard Donner said. And that's coming from the guy who actually directed the movie...

I mean... look, I have absolutely nothing against Die Hard, but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard... I just don't get where you're coming from.

That’s why Die Hard is going to be a cult classic forever—it was the absolute turning point for the action saga, a total innovator that basically birthed its own subgenre... whereas all Bourne leaves behind is shaky cam. Honestly, thanks for that, whoever came up with that mess.

He’s a likable enough guy—essentially an everyday American dude, much like Al Bundy if he were cast as an action hero. Look, I get it, and I certainly have nothing against Die Hard, but we all have our own specific preferences when it comes to these things.

Jason Bourne is the kind of character who executes every high-level maneuver with absolute precision—we’re talking about tactical moves we simply haven't seen anywhere else. Even when those sequences look absolutely mind-blowing to the average viewer, for me, they land perfectly. They aren't just flashy for the sake of being flashy; they are executed flawlessly.

Look, I’d much prefer the explanation that someone was engineered to be a human killing machine—you know, the kind of brainwashed operative whose existence was scrubbed by the CIA as dirty laundry, only to eventually "wake up" and tear their whole operation apart—rather than some story about an average cop who just happens to stumble into the wrong place at the wrong time and somehow manages to mow down a literal army of professional terrorists. We aren't talking about some small-time stick-up artists from a backwater town like Sinj or Dugopolj here; we are talking about seasoned, professional soldiers and terrorists.

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82, you ever actually read Bourne?

Not strictly about the movies, but just a little side note—that character Richard Chamberlain played in that mini-series is actually way closer to Bourne than he is to Matt Damon. Like, he’s just an ordinary guy... no special skills, no crazy kung-fu moves or anything like that... just a normal dude. As for what you were asking, the answer is pretty straightforward—it's all about clarity. You want nice, smooth visibility where you can actually see the intention behind the action. Bourne is just mediocre at everything—from how they tweaked the character just to fit modern trends (because apparently, you aren't a top-tier spy if you don't have some "cool" tricks up your sleeve, right?) to the action itself, which is edited so poorly with that shaky cam nonsense that I honestly can't remember a single decent, iconic, or memorable scene from any of those movies... none at all.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, basically, you need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of badass one-liners throughout the movie, and that signature limp where he’s nursing every single muscle and bone in his body just like Willis's character... and apparently, all that is what actually qualifies him for what he pulls off. Look, I didn't mean to write this about Die Hard—it's a great movie, seriously, I love it—but since the language was already bugging me...

Nah, honestly, you’ve gotta be a simple guy to really get it. Just a regular, relatable dude. But what’s actually "relatable" about a character like Jason Bourne? He’s this super spy who knows all the fancy moves, speaks a bunch of languages, and can handle basically any weapon thrown his way—so what’s the draw there? It's that whole vibe where he can just fix everything... like, nothing can touch him...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, if you ask me, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—especially that whole die hard unit : Lethal Weapon - suicide vibe—are easily five times more complex as action movies than Die Hard... honestly. Mel Gibson is just masterful in Lethal Weapon and the sequel; his character isn't some one-dimensional action trope you just watch blow stuff up, he's someone you actually feel on a deep, dramatic level. It’s one of those things where everyone here can probably back me up on that...

He’s basically a walking stereotype—just your classic burnt-out cop on the edge... honestly, it’s straight out of a cliché handbook. But look, that's just how it goes with Mel Gibson. His performance hits the spot because he plays that "charming psycho" vibe so well. Even though the unit itself has this slightly darker tone, a bit of an edge to his character, and a hint of unpredictability, the sequel just feels like the usual over-the-top nonsense...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper...

Wait, you’re actually messing with me right now, aren't you? You really think it's some deep, heavy drama—you know, where a guy who looks just like James Dean, cigarette tucked coolly into the corner of his mouth, strolls up to a sniper and just casually shouts at him? You want to know why that actually got cut from the original version? It's because the scene was just way too over the top and totally unrealistic... or so Richard Donner said. And that's coming from the guy who actually directed the movie...

I mean... look, I have absolutely nothing against Die Hard, but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard... I just don't get where you're coming from.

That’s why Die Hard is going to be a cult classic forever—it was the absolute turning point for the action saga, a total innovator that basically birthed its own subgenre... whereas all Bourne leaves behind is shaky cam. Honestly, thanks for that, whoever came up with that mess.

So, this guy—Riggs—basically has a death wish. I honestly don't know why that scene feels like such a cliché to some people, but he’s quite literally looking to die, and he keeps doing it constantly until he meets his partner at the police department—who, by the way, becomes his family for the rest of the franchise. To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen an action hero portrayed with that much dramatic weight before, even if it does lean into certain tropes. Take that scene with the sniper: the man walks right into the line of fire. I mean, let's be real—some idiot firing a sniper rifle isn't going to hit a zombie reliably, let alone a living person; the odds were basically fifty-fifty. Of course, he isn't going to get killed because, well, it’s a movie—but if you look at it from a realistic standpoint, that kind of move only works if the character truly has zero fear. He just shows up, empties his entire magazine into the shooter, and then, like a total maniac, retreats back to his car without saying a single word.

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82, you ever actually read Bourne?

Not strictly about the movies, but just a little side note—that character Richard Chamberlain played in that mini-series is actually way closer to Bourne than he is to Matt Damon. Like, he’s just an ordinary guy... no special skills, no crazy kung-fu moves or anything like that... just a normal dude. As for what you were asking, the answer is pretty straightforward—it's all about clarity. You want nice, smooth visibility where you can actually see the intention behind the action. Bourne is just mediocre at everything—from how they tweaked the character just to fit modern trends (because apparently, you aren't a top-tier spy if you don't have some "cool" tricks up your sleeve, right?) to the action itself, which is edited so poorly with that shaky cam nonsense that I honestly can't remember a single decent, iconic, or memorable scene from any of those movies... none at all.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, basically, you need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of badass one-liners throughout the movie, and that signature limp where he’s nursing every single muscle and bone in his body just like Willis's character... and apparently, all that is what actually qualifies him for what he pulls off. Look, I didn't mean to write this about Die Hard—it's a great movie, seriously, I love it—but since the language was already bugging me...

Nah, honestly, you’ve gotta be a simple guy to really get it. Just a regular, relatable dude. But what’s actually "relatable" about a character like Jason Bourne? He’s this super spy who knows all the fancy moves, speaks a bunch of languages, and can handle basically any weapon thrown his way—so what’s the draw there? It's that whole vibe where he can just fix everything... like, nothing can touch him...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, if you ask me, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—especially that whole die hard unit : Lethal Weapon - suicide vibe—are easily five times more complex as action movies than Die Hard... honestly. Mel Gibson is just masterful in Lethal Weapon and the sequel; his character isn't some one-dimensional action trope you just watch blow stuff up, he's someone you actually feel on a deep, dramatic level. It’s one of those things where everyone here can probably back me up on that...

He’s basically a walking stereotype—just your classic burnt-out cop on the edge... honestly, it’s straight out of a cliché handbook. But look, that's just how it goes with Mel Gibson. His performance hits the spot because he plays that "charming psycho" vibe so well. Even though the unit itself has this slightly darker tone, a bit of an edge to his character, and a hint of unpredictability, the sequel just feels like the usual over-the-top nonsense...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper...

Wait, you’re actually messing with me right now, aren't you? You really think it's some deep, heavy drama—you know, where a guy who looks just like James Dean, cigarette tucked coolly into the corner of his mouth, strolls up to a sniper and just casually shouts at him? You want to know why that actually got cut from the original version? It's because the scene was just way too over the top and totally unrealistic... or so Richard Donner said. And that's coming from the guy who actually directed the movie...

I mean... look, I have absolutely nothing against Die Hard, but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard... I just don't get where you're coming from.

That’s why Die Hard is going to be a cult classic forever—it was the absolute turning point for the action saga, a total innovator that basically birthed its own subgenre... whereas all Bourne leaves behind is shaky cam. Honestly, thanks for that, whoever came up with that mess.

Whether you call it a cliché or not, Riggs represents the absolute peak of that trope—he’s executed so perfectly that he transcends being just another stereotype, whereas everyone else follows the pattern 🙂

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82, you ever actually read Bourne?

Not strictly about the movies, but just a little side note—that character Richard Chamberlain played in that mini-series is actually way closer to Bourne than he is to Matt Damon. Like, he’s just an ordinary guy... no special skills, no crazy kung-fu moves or anything like that... just a normal dude. As for what you were asking, the answer is pretty straightforward—it's all about clarity. You want nice, smooth visibility where you can actually see the intention behind the action. Bourne is just mediocre at everything—from how they tweaked the character just to fit modern trends (because apparently, you aren't a top-tier spy if you don't have some "cool" tricks up your sleeve, right?) to the action itself, which is edited so poorly with that shaky cam nonsense that I honestly can't remember a single decent, iconic, or memorable scene from any of those movies... none at all.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, basically, you need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of badass one-liners throughout the movie, and that signature limp where he’s nursing every single muscle and bone in his body just like Willis's character... and apparently, all that is what actually qualifies him for what he pulls off. Look, I didn't mean to write this about Die Hard—it's a great movie, seriously, I love it—but since the language was already bugging me...

Nah, honestly, you’ve gotta be a simple guy to really get it. Just a regular, relatable dude. But what’s actually "relatable" about a character like Jason Bourne? He’s this super spy who knows all the fancy moves, speaks a bunch of languages, and can handle basically any weapon thrown his way—so what’s the draw there? It's that whole vibe where he can just fix everything... like, nothing can touch him...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, if you ask me, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—especially that whole die hard unit : Lethal Weapon - suicide vibe—are easily five times more complex as action movies than Die Hard... honestly. Mel Gibson is just masterful in Lethal Weapon and the sequel; his character isn't some one-dimensional action trope you just watch blow stuff up, he's someone you actually feel on a deep, dramatic level. It’s one of those things where everyone here can probably back me up on that...

He’s basically a walking stereotype—just your classic burnt-out cop on the edge... honestly, it’s straight out of a cliché handbook. But look, that's just how it goes with Mel Gibson. His performance hits the spot because he plays that "charming psycho" vibe so well. Even though the unit itself has this slightly darker tone, a bit of an edge to his character, and a hint of unpredictability, the sequel just feels like the usual over-the-top nonsense...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper...

Wait, you’re actually messing with me right now, aren't you? You really think it's some deep, heavy drama—you know, where a guy who looks just like James Dean, cigarette tucked coolly into the corner of his mouth, strolls up to a sniper and just casually shouts at him? You want to know why that actually got cut from the original version? It's because the scene was just way too over the top and totally unrealistic... or so Richard Donner said. And that's coming from the guy who actually directed the movie...

I mean... look, I have absolutely nothing against Die Hard, but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard... I just don't get where you're coming from.

That’s why Die Hard is going to be a cult classic forever—it was the absolute turning point for the action saga, a total innovator that basically birthed its own subgenre... whereas all Bourne leaves behind is shaky cam. Honestly, thanks for that, whoever came up with that mess.

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you’re overstating the case regarding Bourne. There isn't nearly as much of that frantic camera movement as people claim, and even when it is used, it usually works in tandem with the cinematography rather than distracting the viewer. If it were truly bothersome, I’d be the first to complain—I hate it when they overdo it—but in those instances, it’s clearly meant to create a sense of three-dimensional immersion, following the character through the moment. When used in moderation, it works, like that sequence in Morocco or the building chases.

I never claimed Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by today's standards, but if we're labeling Riggs a cliché, then Willis's character is one too—just a gritty version of Harry designed specifically for the 80s and 90s audiences (before things shifted toward heavier action)—and he’ll never quite become the definitive Harry. 🍿

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82 said:I haven't actually sat down to read the Jason Bourne books yet.

He’s a likable enough guy—essentially an everyday American dude, much like Al Bundy if he were cast as an action hero. Look, I get it, and I certainly have nothing against Die Hard, but we all have our own specific preferences when it comes to these things.

Jason Bourne is the kind of character who executes every high-level maneuver with absolute precision—we’re talking about tactical moves we simply haven't seen anywhere else. Even when those sequences look absolutely mind-blowing to the average viewer, for me, they land perfectly. They aren't just flashy for the sake of being flashy; they are executed flawlessly.

Look, I’d much prefer the explanation that someone was engineered to be a human killing machine—you know, the kind of brainwashed operative whose existence was scrubbed by the CIA as dirty laundry, only to eventually "wake up" and tear their whole operation apart—rather than some story about an average cop who just happens to stumble into the wrong place at the wrong time and somehow manages to mow down a literal army of professional terrorists. We aren't talking about some small-time stick-up artists from a backwater town like Sinj or Dugopolj here; we are talking about seasoned, professional soldiers and terrorists.

So, this guy—Riggs—basically has a death wish. I honestly don't know why that scene feels like such a cliché to some people, but he’s quite literally looking to die, and he keeps doing it constantly until he meets his partner at the police department—who, by the way, becomes his family for the rest of the franchise. To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen an action hero portrayed with that much dramatic weight before, even if it does lean into certain tropes. Take that scene with the sniper: the man walks right into the line of fire. I mean, let's be real—some idiot firing a sniper rifle isn't going to hit a zombie reliably, let alone a living person; the odds were basically fifty-fifty. Of course, he isn't going to get killed because, well, it’s a movie—but if you look at it from a realistic standpoint, that kind of move only works if the character truly has zero fear. He just shows up, empties his entire magazine into the shooter, and then, like a total maniac, retreats back to his car without saying a single word.

Whether you call it a cliché or not, Riggs represents the absolute peak of that trope—he’s executed so perfectly that he transcends being just another stereotype, whereas everyone else follows the pattern 🙂

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you’re overstating the case regarding Bourne. There isn't nearly as much of that frantic camera movement as people claim, and even when it is used, it usually works in tandem with the cinematography rather than distracting the viewer. If it were truly bothersome, I’d be the first to complain—I hate it when they overdo it—but in those instances, it’s clearly meant to create a sense of three-dimensional immersion, following the character through the moment. When used in moderation, it works, like that sequence in Morocco or the building chases.

I never claimed Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by today's standards, but if we're labeling Riggs a cliché, then Willis's character is one too—just a gritty version of Harry designed specifically for the 80s and 90s audiences (before things shifted toward heavier action)—and he’ll never quite become the definitive Harry. 🍿

Just read it. Only then will you realize just how much of a waste of time these movies actually are...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

He’s just this likable, everyday American guy—kind of like Al Bundy if he actually stepped up as an action hero... look, I get it, I really do. I have nothing against Die Hard, but hey, we all have our own specific tastes...

Look, this guy deals with constant friction at home, faces daily headaches, and just vents through a bit of dry humor to blow off steam... he’s the type who’s willing to take a beating, someone who'll fight tooth and nail—literally—just to crawl out of the mess he's in. That’s exactly why McLean hits home for people... because he isn't some perfect Superman.

Jason Bourne is just one of those guys who knows all the fancy moves—you know, those high-level maneuvers we’ve never really seen before... honestly, no matter how unbelievable they might look to some people, if you ask me, they're executed perfectly...

Haven't seen you around... Ever since The Matrix dropped, it feels like every single character suddenly knows kung-fu out of nowhere. Even those flashy, stylized moves during a fight scene—we already saw that kind of stuff back in Lethal Weapon 4, where that whole Asian-inspired martial arts vibe finally made its way over to the West... It’s really nothing groundbreaking or original, honestly—just a bunch of stuff getting hyped up because someone else did it first...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, I’d much rather take the explanation where some guy is basically a walking experiment—you know, like he was engineered by the CIA to be this unstoppable killing machine, which the agency tried to sweep under the rug as dirty laundry, only for him to finally "wake up" and absolutely wreck everyone... that just makes more sense to me. It's way more believable than some random beat cop just happening to be in the wrong place at the right time and somehow taking out a whole squad of professional terrorists. I'm talking actual high-level operatives here, not just some small-time thugs robbing a convenience store in a suburb outside of Phoenix or something...

Where do you even get the idea that those guys are such high-level pros? They’re basically just mercenaries—and honestly, it's been pretty clear in certain spots that they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. I mean, Johnny boy really had to scrap for it while he was picking them off, taking some serious hits himself along the way... Look, I get it—it’s super cool when a character just breezes through everyone, pulling off these fancy moves without even breaking a sweat, all because "oh, he's a top-tier spy with some top-secret training." Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against those kinds of characters, but even someone like Bond takes a hit here and there... especially when you're dealing with a seasoned veteran of the spy game.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, this guy—Riggs—he’s basically looking to die... honestly, I don't even know why that scene feels like such a massive cliché, but there you have it...

It’s just a scene, really—but let's be honest, the way Riggs is handled there is so lackluster that it makes total sense why Donner cut it... He comes off as this massive poser, someone who's trying way too hard to look like a tough guy instead of actually looking like someone who has nothing left to lose. He doesn't look like he wants to die hard; he just looks like he wants to be cool... That bit in the trailer where he's biting the bullet? Now *that* was a much better moment. Much more visceral...

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you're going a bit overboard with the whole Bourne thing... there isn't actually *that* much shaky cam in those movies, and even when they use it, it flows right along with the rest of the film—it doesn't really bother the viewer. If it were actually annoying, I’d be the first one to say so, but I just don't like it when they overdo it. It feels like they were just trying too hard to get that sense of three-dimensional immersion while following the character in the moment—which is basically why people use shaky cam in the first place, when used in moderation—like that scene in Morocco or the building chases...

It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers ME. It was so irritating that, honestly, I can barely remember anything from Ultimatum today, let alone any of the action scenes. Yeah, I get what he was aiming for, but it's just so exhausting that it's unreal. That specific kind of "realism" in action sequences was actually pioneered by Tony Scott in enemy of the state, but man, he knew how to keep it at a watchable level, which is why that movie actually sticks with you.

I never said Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by now, but if Riggs is a cliché, then so is Willis's character—just another version of a gritty Harry tailored for that 80s and 90s crowd (before things shifted into heavier action), and he's never going to be Harry. 🍿

Well, yeah, the last Harry came out the same year, if I recall correctly, so you're looking at a total passing of the torch. A pretty damn good one, if I do say so myself. And honestly, it's probably for the best that there'll never be another Harry, because that would just be stupid.

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Just read it. Only then will you realize just how much of a waste of time these movies actually are...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

He’s just this likable, everyday American guy—kind of like Al Bundy if he actually stepped up as an action hero... look, I get it, I really do. I have nothing against Die Hard, but hey, we all have our own specific tastes...

Look, this guy deals with constant friction at home, faces daily headaches, and just vents through a bit of dry humor to blow off steam... he’s the type who’s willing to take a beating, someone who'll fight tooth and nail—literally—just to crawl out of the mess he's in. That’s exactly why McLean hits home for people... because he isn't some perfect Superman.

Jason Bourne is just one of those guys who knows all the fancy moves—you know, those high-level maneuvers we’ve never really seen before... honestly, no matter how unbelievable they might look to some people, if you ask me, they're executed perfectly...

Haven't seen you around... Ever since The Matrix dropped, it feels like every single character suddenly knows kung-fu out of nowhere. Even those flashy, stylized moves during a fight scene—we already saw that kind of stuff back in Lethal Weapon 4, where that whole Asian-inspired martial arts vibe finally made its way over to the West... It’s really nothing groundbreaking or original, honestly—just a bunch of stuff getting hyped up because someone else did it first...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, I’d much rather take the explanation where some guy is basically a walking experiment—you know, like he was engineered by the CIA to be this unstoppable killing machine, which the agency tried to sweep under the rug as dirty laundry, only for him to finally "wake up" and absolutely wreck everyone... that just makes more sense to me. It's way more believable than some random beat cop just happening to be in the wrong place at the right time and somehow taking out a whole squad of professional terrorists. I'm talking actual high-level operatives here, not just some small-time thugs robbing a convenience store in a suburb outside of Phoenix or something...

Where do you even get the idea that those guys are such high-level pros? They’re basically just mercenaries—and honestly, it's been pretty clear in certain spots that they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. I mean, Johnny boy really had to scrap for it while he was picking them off, taking some serious hits himself along the way... Look, I get it—it’s super cool when a character just breezes through everyone, pulling off these fancy moves without even breaking a sweat, all because "oh, he's a top-tier spy with some top-secret training." Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against those kinds of characters, but even someone like Bond takes a hit here and there... especially when you're dealing with a seasoned veteran of the spy game.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, this guy—Riggs—he’s basically looking to die... honestly, I don't even know why that scene feels like such a massive cliché, but there you have it...

It’s just a scene, really—but let's be honest, the way Riggs is handled there is so lackluster that it makes total sense why Donner cut it... He comes off as this massive poser, someone who's trying way too hard to look like a tough guy instead of actually looking like someone who has nothing left to lose. He doesn't look like he wants to die hard; he just looks like he wants to be cool... That bit in the trailer where he's biting the bullet? Now *that* was a much better moment. Much more visceral...

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you're going a bit overboard with the whole Bourne thing... there isn't actually *that* much shaky cam in those movies, and even when they use it, it flows right along with the rest of the film—it doesn't really bother the viewer. If it were actually annoying, I’d be the first one to say so, but I just don't like it when they overdo it. It feels like they were just trying too hard to get that sense of three-dimensional immersion while following the character in the moment—which is basically why people use shaky cam in the first place, when used in moderation—like that scene in Morocco or the building chases...

It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers ME. It was so irritating that, honestly, I can barely remember anything from Ultimatum today, let alone any of the action scenes. Yeah, I get what he was aiming for, but it's just so exhausting that it's unreal. That specific kind of "realism" in action sequences was actually pioneered by Tony Scott in enemy of the state, but man, he knew how to keep it at a watchable level, which is why that movie actually sticks with you.

I never said Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by now, but if Riggs is a cliché, then so is Willis's character—just another version of a gritty Harry tailored for that 80s and 90s crowd (before things shifted into heavier action), and he's never going to be Harry. 🍿

Well, yeah, the last Harry came out the same year, if I recall correctly, so you're looking at a total passing of the torch. A pretty damn good one, if I do say so myself. And honestly, it's probably for the best that there'll never be another Harry, because that would just be stupid.

Man, they seemed like pros to me at first, until they suddenly turned into total idiots halfway through the movie. But hey, I'll watch Die Hard without complaining, 🙂

To me, Bond has been nothing more than a cartoon for a long time now... seriously. It's fine to sit down and enjoy a good old Bond flick, but the whole franchise has lost its purpose—is he some kind of vampire or something? He just never ages.🤣

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Just read it. Only then will you realize just how much of a waste of time these movies actually are...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

He’s just this likable, everyday American guy—kind of like Al Bundy if he actually stepped up as an action hero... look, I get it, I really do. I have nothing against Die Hard, but hey, we all have our own specific tastes...

Look, this guy deals with constant friction at home, faces daily headaches, and just vents through a bit of dry humor to blow off steam... he’s the type who’s willing to take a beating, someone who'll fight tooth and nail—literally—just to crawl out of the mess he's in. That’s exactly why McLean hits home for people... because he isn't some perfect Superman.

Jason Bourne is just one of those guys who knows all the fancy moves—you know, those high-level maneuvers we’ve never really seen before... honestly, no matter how unbelievable they might look to some people, if you ask me, they're executed perfectly...

Haven't seen you around... Ever since The Matrix dropped, it feels like every single character suddenly knows kung-fu out of nowhere. Even those flashy, stylized moves during a fight scene—we already saw that kind of stuff back in Lethal Weapon 4, where that whole Asian-inspired martial arts vibe finally made its way over to the West... It’s really nothing groundbreaking or original, honestly—just a bunch of stuff getting hyped up because someone else did it first...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, I’d much rather take the explanation where some guy is basically a walking experiment—you know, like he was engineered by the CIA to be this unstoppable killing machine, which the agency tried to sweep under the rug as dirty laundry, only for him to finally "wake up" and absolutely wreck everyone... that just makes more sense to me. It's way more believable than some random beat cop just happening to be in the wrong place at the right time and somehow taking out a whole squad of professional terrorists. I'm talking actual high-level operatives here, not just some small-time thugs robbing a convenience store in a suburb outside of Phoenix or something...

Where do you even get the idea that those guys are such high-level pros? They’re basically just mercenaries—and honestly, it's been pretty clear in certain spots that they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. I mean, Johnny boy really had to scrap for it while he was picking them off, taking some serious hits himself along the way... Look, I get it—it’s super cool when a character just breezes through everyone, pulling off these fancy moves without even breaking a sweat, all because "oh, he's a top-tier spy with some top-secret training." Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against those kinds of characters, but even someone like Bond takes a hit here and there... especially when you're dealing with a seasoned veteran of the spy game.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, this guy—Riggs—he’s basically looking to die... honestly, I don't even know why that scene feels like such a massive cliché, but there you have it...

It’s just a scene, really—but let's be honest, the way Riggs is handled there is so lackluster that it makes total sense why Donner cut it... He comes off as this massive poser, someone who's trying way too hard to look like a tough guy instead of actually looking like someone who has nothing left to lose. He doesn't look like he wants to die hard; he just looks like he wants to be cool... That bit in the trailer where he's biting the bullet? Now *that* was a much better moment. Much more visceral...

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you're going a bit overboard with the whole Bourne thing... there isn't actually *that* much shaky cam in those movies, and even when they use it, it flows right along with the rest of the film—it doesn't really bother the viewer. If it were actually annoying, I’d be the first one to say so, but I just don't like it when they overdo it. It feels like they were just trying too hard to get that sense of three-dimensional immersion while following the character in the moment—which is basically why people use shaky cam in the first place, when used in moderation—like that scene in Morocco or the building chases...

It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers ME. It was so irritating that, honestly, I can barely remember anything from Ultimatum today, let alone any of the action scenes. Yeah, I get what he was aiming for, but it's just so exhausting that it's unreal. That specific kind of "realism" in action sequences was actually pioneered by Tony Scott in enemy of the state, but man, he knew how to keep it at a watchable level, which is why that movie actually sticks with you.

I never said Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by now, but if Riggs is a cliché, then so is Willis's character—just another version of a gritty Harry tailored for that 80s and 90s crowd (before things shifted into heavier action), and he's never going to be Harry. 🍿

Well, yeah, the last Harry came out the same year, if I recall correctly, so you're looking at a total passing of the torch. A pretty damn good one, if I do say so myself. And honestly, it's probably for the best that there'll never be another Harry, because that would just be stupid.

Well, I already covered that in my previous post 🙂

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Just read it. Only then will you realize just how much of a waste of time these movies actually are...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

He’s just this likable, everyday American guy—kind of like Al Bundy if he actually stepped up as an action hero... look, I get it, I really do. I have nothing against Die Hard, but hey, we all have our own specific tastes...

Look, this guy deals with constant friction at home, faces daily headaches, and just vents through a bit of dry humor to blow off steam... he’s the type who’s willing to take a beating, someone who'll fight tooth and nail—literally—just to crawl out of the mess he's in. That’s exactly why McLean hits home for people... because he isn't some perfect Superman.

Jason Bourne is just one of those guys who knows all the fancy moves—you know, those high-level maneuvers we’ve never really seen before... honestly, no matter how unbelievable they might look to some people, if you ask me, they're executed perfectly...

Haven't seen you around... Ever since The Matrix dropped, it feels like every single character suddenly knows kung-fu out of nowhere. Even those flashy, stylized moves during a fight scene—we already saw that kind of stuff back in Lethal Weapon 4, where that whole Asian-inspired martial arts vibe finally made its way over to the West... It’s really nothing groundbreaking or original, honestly—just a bunch of stuff getting hyped up because someone else did it first...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, I’d much rather take the explanation where some guy is basically a walking experiment—you know, like he was engineered by the CIA to be this unstoppable killing machine, which the agency tried to sweep under the rug as dirty laundry, only for him to finally "wake up" and absolutely wreck everyone... that just makes more sense to me. It's way more believable than some random beat cop just happening to be in the wrong place at the right time and somehow taking out a whole squad of professional terrorists. I'm talking actual high-level operatives here, not just some small-time thugs robbing a convenience store in a suburb outside of Phoenix or something...

Where do you even get the idea that those guys are such high-level pros? They’re basically just mercenaries—and honestly, it's been pretty clear in certain spots that they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. I mean, Johnny boy really had to scrap for it while he was picking them off, taking some serious hits himself along the way... Look, I get it—it’s super cool when a character just breezes through everyone, pulling off these fancy moves without even breaking a sweat, all because "oh, he's a top-tier spy with some top-secret training." Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against those kinds of characters, but even someone like Bond takes a hit here and there... especially when you're dealing with a seasoned veteran of the spy game.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, this guy—Riggs—he’s basically looking to die... honestly, I don't even know why that scene feels like such a massive cliché, but there you have it...

It’s just a scene, really—but let's be honest, the way Riggs is handled there is so lackluster that it makes total sense why Donner cut it... He comes off as this massive poser, someone who's trying way too hard to look like a tough guy instead of actually looking like someone who has nothing left to lose. He doesn't look like he wants to die hard; he just looks like he wants to be cool... That bit in the trailer where he's biting the bullet? Now *that* was a much better moment. Much more visceral...

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you're going a bit overboard with the whole Bourne thing... there isn't actually *that* much shaky cam in those movies, and even when they use it, it flows right along with the rest of the film—it doesn't really bother the viewer. If it were actually annoying, I’d be the first one to say so, but I just don't like it when they overdo it. It feels like they were just trying too hard to get that sense of three-dimensional immersion while following the character in the moment—which is basically why people use shaky cam in the first place, when used in moderation—like that scene in Morocco or the building chases...

It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers ME. It was so irritating that, honestly, I can barely remember anything from Ultimatum today, let alone any of the action scenes. Yeah, I get what he was aiming for, but it's just so exhausting that it's unreal. That specific kind of "realism" in action sequences was actually pioneered by Tony Scott in enemy of the state, but man, he knew how to keep it at a watchable level, which is why that movie actually sticks with you.

I never said Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by now, but if Riggs is a cliché, then so is Willis's character—just another version of a gritty Harry tailored for that 80s and 90s crowd (before things shifted into heavier action), and he's never going to be Harry. 🍿

Well, yeah, the last Harry came out the same year, if I recall correctly, so you're looking at a total passing of the torch. A pretty damn good one, if I do say so myself. And honestly, it's probably for the best that there'll never be another Harry, because that would just be stupid.

We definitely don't agree when it comes to Bourne, haha, but so what? Regardless of how you feel about him, you can't objectively say those movies are bad. I get that what bugs you doesn't bother me in the first three films.

I'm not a fan of shaky cam either; it gets on my nerves, but in that case, it's just a fact. Anyway, is this still that incredible mystery to me where people, for some reason, just don't like Damon? For God's sake... 🙂

briskhound2 said:Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Just read it. Only then will you realize just how much of a waste of time these movies actually are...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

He’s just this likable, everyday American guy—kind of like Al Bundy if he actually stepped up as an action hero... look, I get it, I really do. I have nothing against Die Hard, but hey, we all have our own specific tastes...

Look, this guy deals with constant friction at home, faces daily headaches, and just vents through a bit of dry humor to blow off steam... he’s the type who’s willing to take a beating, someone who'll fight tooth and nail—literally—just to crawl out of the mess he's in. That’s exactly why McLean hits home for people... because he isn't some perfect Superman.

Jason Bourne is just one of those guys who knows all the fancy moves—you know, those high-level maneuvers we’ve never really seen before... honestly, no matter how unbelievable they might look to some people, if you ask me, they're executed perfectly...

Haven't seen you around... Ever since The Matrix dropped, it feels like every single character suddenly knows kung-fu out of nowhere. Even those flashy, stylized moves during a fight scene—we already saw that kind of stuff back in Lethal Weapon 4, where that whole Asian-inspired martial arts vibe finally made its way over to the West... It’s really nothing groundbreaking or original, honestly—just a bunch of stuff getting hyped up because someone else did it first...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, I’d much rather take the explanation where some guy is basically a walking experiment—you know, like he was engineered by the CIA to be this unstoppable killing machine, which the agency tried to sweep under the rug as dirty laundry, only for him to finally "wake up" and absolutely wreck everyone... that just makes more sense to me. It's way more believable than some random beat cop just happening to be in the wrong place at the right time and somehow taking out a whole squad of professional terrorists. I'm talking actual high-level operatives here, not just some small-time thugs robbing a convenience store in a suburb outside of Phoenix or something...

Where do you even get the idea that those guys are such high-level pros? They’re basically just mercenaries—and honestly, it's been pretty clear in certain spots that they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. I mean, Johnny boy really had to scrap for it while he was picking them off, taking some serious hits himself along the way... Look, I get it—it’s super cool when a character just breezes through everyone, pulling off these fancy moves without even breaking a sweat, all because "oh, he's a top-tier spy with some top-secret training." Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against those kinds of characters, but even someone like Bond takes a hit here and there... especially when you're dealing with a seasoned veteran of the spy game.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, this guy—Riggs—he’s basically looking to die... honestly, I don't even know why that scene feels like such a massive cliché, but there you have it...

It’s just a scene, really—but let's be honest, the way Riggs is handled there is so lackluster that it makes total sense why Donner cut it... He comes off as this massive poser, someone who's trying way too hard to look like a tough guy instead of actually looking like someone who has nothing left to lose. He doesn't look like he wants to die hard; he just looks like he wants to be cool... That bit in the trailer where he's biting the bullet? Now *that* was a much better moment. Much more visceral...

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you're going a bit overboard with the whole Bourne thing... there isn't actually *that* much shaky cam in those movies, and even when they use it, it flows right along with the rest of the film—it doesn't really bother the viewer. If it were actually annoying, I’d be the first one to say so, but I just don't like it when they overdo it. It feels like they were just trying too hard to get that sense of three-dimensional immersion while following the character in the moment—which is basically why people use shaky cam in the first place, when used in moderation—like that scene in Morocco or the building chases...

It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers ME. It was so irritating that, honestly, I can barely remember anything from Ultimatum today, let alone any of the action scenes. Yeah, I get what he was aiming for, but it's just so exhausting that it's unreal. That specific kind of "realism" in action sequences was actually pioneered by Tony Scott in enemy of the state, but man, he knew how to keep it at a watchable level, which is why that movie actually sticks with you.

I never said Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by now, but if Riggs is a cliché, then so is Willis's character—just another version of a gritty Harry tailored for that 80s and 90s crowd (before things shifted into heavier action), and he's never going to be Harry. 🍿

Well, yeah, the last Harry came out the same year, if I recall correctly, so you're looking at a total passing of the torch. A pretty damn good one, if I do say so myself. And honestly, it's probably for the best that there'll never be another Harry, because that would just be stupid.

Die Hard 1 is an absolute masterpiece and a total cult classic, Die Hard 2 is great, and personally, I actually prefer Die Hard with a Vengeance over the others. As for the fourth installment, given the era it was produced in, it couldn't have turned out any better—so, all things considered, I love the Die Hard action saga. I just wanted to offer my own take: this franchise isn't QUITE as superior to the rest of the genre as people claim. 🙂 🙂

And yeah, that was a smooth generational handoff, I'll give you that.

Just to circle back to M.I. for a second.
Whenever I hear that M.I. theme song kick in and the rhythm starts driving—man, I get chills. It’s just on another level. 🙂I mean, who could even afford to recreate that kind of energy? And honestly, Luther has been my favorite character from the very start.

P.S. I’ve been hearing some chatter lately suggesting that Pitt should step in for Cruise—look, there is absolutely no way. What the hell is Brad Pitt supposed to do? There is only one Ethan, and that’s Cruise. 🙂

Honestly, Die Hard is easily my favorite franchise on this list. All four movies are solid, though I’d say the third one is just a little bit weaker than the rest... I haven't gotten around to the fifth one yet, but I'll get to it eventually.
Following that, Rambo and M.I. are basically tied for second place in my book. When it comes to Rambo, the fourth one and the original are the standout hits for me, which is pretty much the same deal with M.I. too.
I also put my vote in for Bond, but he still ends up at the bottom of my ranking because these recent movies just aren't really doing it for me... The Pierce Brosnan era was definitely the peak for me.

Matthew Walker21 said:Honestly, Die Hard is easily my favorite franchise on this list. All four movies are solid, though I’d say the third one is just a little bit weaker than the rest... I haven't gotten around to the fifth one yet, but I'll get to it eventually.
Following that, Rambo and M.I. are basically tied for second place in my book. When it comes to Rambo, the fourth one and the original are the standout hits for me, which is pretty much the same deal with M.I. too.
I also put my vote in for Bond, but he still ends up at the bottom of my ranking because these recent movies just aren't really doing it for me... The Pierce Brosnan era was definitely the peak for me.

I'm with you on that. 😁

For me, the best Bond movies are the ones with Connery; he’ll always be the definitive Bond. His films have this specific soul and spirit that the newer versions just can't replicate, no matter how many fancy special effects or high-tech gadgets they throw at them. The Moore era was pretty solid too. Honestly, I used to think Pierce Brosnan was a subpar Bond until I saw Craig—now *that* is a bad Bond. I watched the first one with him and that's enough for me; I have absolutely zero interest in the rest.

Personally, I’ve always had a soft spot for action sagas like The Expendables, The Raid, and Ong Bak; they all possess such an overwhelming, raw intensity.👍👍👍
If we’re being honest, Barn Rose is such a complete powerhouse that if he ever found himself in a one-on-one scrap against either Ethan Hunt or Jason Bourne, he wouldn't just win—he'd probably chew them both up, spit them out, and then go back for seconds!

This might be a bit of an awkward question to pose. We've all seen those incredible action flicks that eventually get saddled with absolutely desperate sequels, while on the flip side, we have some classic franchises that just stay consistently great. Rick Deckard mentioned Death Wish earlier, which totally slipped my mind—honestly, I think the first one is lightyears better than any of the later Die Hard or Mission: Impossible entries.

Maybe I should have voted for some alternative pick, but since I just went with the options provided, Dirty Harry is the only one that truly hits the mark for me. Die Hard, for instance, falls into that category of terrible flicks where they feel forced to inject comedic relief through Bruce Willis’s clownish outbursts—it’s exhausting. And every sequel just seems to be more about smashing as much property as possible. LW is actually watchable for the first two installments, while Mission: Impossible feels like nothing more than overstuffed, forced adrenaline rushes. Bourne is just okay, though I suppose Matt Damon is a solid actor. James Bond drags on far too long, and Rambo... well, that's just background noise while you're dusting off your bookshelves.

For anyone out there who lives for a good action saga, I’d suggest checking out two relatively recent entries: Marine and Rounds. Both series were produced by the WWE, and what's interesting is that they swap out the lead actor in every single installment—though, naturally, they're all wrestlers. In the first film of both franchises, you get to see the famous wrestler and occasional actor John Cena taking center stage. They are quite decent, really solid, old-school action movies if you're looking for that specific vibe.

That first Marine flick from 2006 was actually pretty solid, but honestly, most of the sequels that followed have been a total letdown... I haven't gotten around to watching Rounds yet, but I do have the third installment on my hard drive because Dean Ambrose is in it, so I might check it out just to see how he handled himself in an action role. As for the first two, they starred John Cena and Randy Orton... though, if I'm being completely honest, I have a feeling any movie centered around Orton isn't exactly going to be a masterpiece...

Joshua Kern said:For anyone out there who lives for a good action saga, I’d suggest checking out two relatively recent entries: Marine and Rounds. Both series were produced by the WWE, and what's interesting is that they swap out the lead actor in every single installment—though, naturally, they're all wrestlers. In the first film of both franchises, you get to see the famous wrestler and occasional actor John Cena taking center stage. They are quite decent, really solid, old-school action movies if you're looking for that specific vibe.

Ugh, I happened to catch some of that... honestly, it's pretty bad trash, even by old-school standards.

Lethal Weapon, simply because the quality stays consistent across the entire franchise. Sure, the first one had its silly moments—I mean, in the sequel, a toilet survives a C4 explosion completely unscathed—but regardless, as far as I'm concerned, you'll never see better chemistry between two lead action stars than these two.
Die Hard has a solid first trilogy, but that whole cyber nonsense really ruined it for me. Plus, unlike LW, I actually felt bad when the bad guys died, so sorry John... The third one is the best.
John Rambo is the powerhouse of this group. Pure genius social commentary and perfect timing. Honestly, it’s one of the greatest films of the eighties. A classic among classics. The second one is significantly weaker, and the third is especially bad. The fourth is decent.

Bourne lost his way and got lost in himself. The first one was fine, but kind of lukewarm. I can't even remember the rest. That's a bad sign.
James Bond. With all due respect to the fans, those stiff British agents just aren't my thing. It's been oscillating and annoying me for years.

Dirty Harry. Sometimes Clint's stiffness works for me, sometimes it doesn't. It's a movie that has been surpassed by time; now it just relies on its name.

Mission: Impossible. This series used to be the gold standard. If Tommy isn't nailing it, then the movie isn't hitting either. Sean Connery was much better in "Mission: Impossible Trap" than this guy is in all the sequels.

terminator.