Die Hard 2: Die Harder Review

Die Hard 2

(Note: I’ve been thinking about this movie a lot recently, and have decided I underscored it a little. So I have now edited my review below to reflect my modified opinion on it.)

After the classic that was Die Hard, it’s no surprise that there was a sequel hitting the theaters two years later. While more Die Hard is always a good thing, Die Hard 2 is kind of a rehash of the first movie, and ends up being a very fun movie, but not as good as the original.

A few years after the original Die Hard’s happenings, the aptly named Die Hard 2: Die Harder finds our old friend John McClane once again trying to get to his family for the holidays. Except this time, rather than trying to meet his wife (once again played by Bonnie Bedalia) at her workplace, McClane waits at an airport for her.

Unsurprisingly, McClane gets involved in another terrorist operation that, if not stopped, will result in the death of many innocent people; including his wife. Sound familiar? It should. Die Hard 2 uses almost the exact same formula of the original, and while not necessarily bad, it makes the movie feel less original and a little more stereotypical.

The plot this time around moves a lot slower than the original oddly enough. While Die Hard was firing on all cylinders for its entirety, Die Hard 2 takes its time, spacing out the action scenes throughout the film rather than playing them back to back.

While the slow pace shouldn’t be a bad thing, for a movie like Die Hard, the exposition heavy scenes seemed somewhat out of place. This is a movie that would’ve benefited from a little tighter plot, and more adrenaline throughout.

I recall seeing an awfully familiar scene in the first Die Hard…

 

However, when the action does pick up and bullets start flying, things get much, much more interesting. Die Hard 2 excels at its action sequences, and every time McClane fires his gun you get a rush of adrenaline. The fight scenes are very well choreographed and executed, resulting in some truly riveting set pieces.

Die Hard 2 is great when it lets John McClane do what he does best; shoot people. And when the pace picks up and things start blowing up, the film excels and delivers some truly memorable moments that enliven the film’s somewhat formulaic plot.

Bruce Willis is still great as McClane, and it’s his amazing screen presence that keeps the film alive when the pace slows down. His dialogue is quick and witty, and while he’s still surrounded by some stupid characters, his endlessly entertaining persona keeps things from getting to dull.

I would’ve preferred the villain to be more than your average, run-of-the-mill baddie though. Colonel Stuart is not near as chilling as Hans Gruber, and he lacks that intense presence on screen that should make the audience really feel his villainy.

While Colonel Stuart gets the job done, his character would’ve greatly benefited from more originality.

 

While he gets the job done, Stuart is a pretty stereotypical villain, and I would’ve like to see his character developed more.

Die Hard 2 gets a lot of things right, but it lacks the punch of its predecessor. Although it is burdened by to much exposition, when it delivers, it really delivers. The movie truly shines in its violent, exciting set pieces and there are some truly memorable moments. They’re just a little farther apart than I think they should be.

8.0

Advertisements

2 responses to “Die Hard 2: Die Harder Review

  1. I disagreed with your completely reasonable critique of this movie… up until “slightly forgettable”.

    I have to disagree on that point hard. I remember so much of this movie, its ridiculous. I can remark on at least 4 deaths from this movie (priest, icicle, throat cut betrayal, plane engine), the chases, the office blanks, many, many of the one liners. Every time I’ve ever used a zippo I said “Here’s your ****in’ landin’ lights.” It *might* not be as iconic as the original… but I think it’s nowhere near forgettable. I’ve watched it quite a few more times than you though… maybe that’s the difference.

    Great review, regardless, and we’re not *that* far out of agreement. On a 100 point scale like yours, I’d probably give it an 90 (maybe 85), with the original at a 95. On my 5 scale, they’re both solid 5s.

    Interested to see, now, what you think of “With a Vengeance”. That one can be divisive amongst fans.

    • It did have some truly memorable scenes, but the first I felt just had more. And outside of those few great scenes you mentioned, the rest of the film, in my opinion, is just somewhat average; and just slightly forgettable. And I do mean slightly; it’s not entirely forgettable in any way.
      I may have underscored the movie a little, but that’s just because I saw this one a day after the first Die Hard, so I had that going through my head the whole time. But I totally understand your opinion, and always appreciate the comment. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s