...but other than that, there's very little going against the second in the series. It helps (but not enough) that the character realizes he's basically in a sequel. There are some minor variations in the formula, but basically the movie relies on the Bruce Willis' charisma and humor, and elaborate action sequences. William Sadler is okay, but no Alan Rickman (or Jeremy Irons in #3). It's still enjoyable, though.
466 Reviews
A solid sequel
axlrhodes28 September 2008
Like the Lethal Weapon films of the late 80's and early 90's i found the Die Hard films to be very satisfying action entertainment.Much seems to be made of this sequel being inferior to its predecessor but i thought that it matched Die Hard for scale and has some breathtaking moments of action.Bruce Willis is still on top form as our hero and the airport setting during the busy Christmas period gives the film a positive buzz and a certain sense of hyperactivity.Although the film is missing a villain as much fun as Alan Rickmans Hans Gruber,William Sadler is nonetheless bad enough to hate and actually turns out a lot more ruthless than Gruber.In summary director Renny Harlin has succeeded in making a quick paced film that retains the sense of scale felt in the first film whilst making the most of Bruce Willis comic timing and action man charisma. 8/10
A strong follow-up to the original
Agent1015 May 2002
I was expecting the worse when I saw this film, but this movie seemed to escape the curse of the cheesy sequel. Just as action packed and enthralling as the original, the wit displayed in this film saved it from being a mediocre follow-up. Bruce Willis was once again a great hero, showing how little being considered a hero means to him. A good film with a great plot twist, this is one of those action films which is just as good as the original.
You can't get too much of a good thing
trevor-415 March 2001
For those who argue that Die Hard 2 is a desperate re-hash of the original... So what? I didn't expect a companion piece like The Godfather Part II. Die Hard was about a really cool guy in a really bad situation, and the result was probably the greatest action movie ever made. Die Hard 2 achieves status on its own just by being about the same thing. When so many movies want to be Die Hard but fail, why not just make another Die Hard? Director Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger)realized that because it's a sequel, there had to be more stunts and explosions. So there is. Die Hard 2 (appropriately called Die Harder) ups the ante a bit and has fun with a flurry of furious action scenarios. The fight on the wing of the plane is a classic in its own right, and Die Hard 2 stands alone as one of the best of the genre.
Die Harder--And More Violently
virek2132 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The 1988 action thriller DIE HARD was such a huge critical, commercial, and artistic success that it was probably inevitable, given Hollywood's mentality that there is never too much of a good thing, that a sequel would follow. The result, thus, is DIE HARD 2.
Bruce Willis returns as John McClane, who on this Christmas Eve is at Dulles International Airport in Washington awaiting the arrival of his wife (Bonnie Bedelia) from Los Angeles. Flights, however, are being delayed all across the board into D.C. by one of the biggest blizzards on record. And when Willis spots Army mercenaries in sensitive areas of the airport where nobody is supposed to go, his cop instincts take hold. As it turns out, these mercenaries are led by a hard-nosed right-wing colonel (William Sadler) whose aim is to snatch a known Latin-American drug dealer (Franco Nero) from the hands of U.S. justice agents. Their reason, as Sadler puts it, is because he had "the guts to stand up against Communist aggression." To prove his point, Sadler and his minions shut the entire airport down, putting all those planes in the snowbound skies over the nation's capital in mortal peril, until Nero's military plane arrives. The result is a battle in more ways than one, as Willis must not only tangle with Sadler's gang, but also with an incompetent airport cop (Dennis Franz) who thinks Willis is a lunatic.
Very solid acting from Willis, as well as Fred Dalton Thompson and Art Evans, who portray the two sympathetic airport officials, helps DIE HARD 2 remain leagues ahead of the majority of testosterone-laden action flicks. But many of the same flaws that were in DIE HARD 1 creep up here again. To paint the airport cops as incompetent buffoons just so that Willis can be the hero of the piece is grossly inaccurate and offensive. Even the media, in the guise of the ultra-obnoxious Dick Thornberg (William Atherton), gets slammed, and not in a very fair or accurate fashion. And the violence and language in DIE HARD 2 are far more pervasive than the original, with at least two scenes (the icepick to the eye; and Sadler's ex-commander [John Amos] getting sucked into the engine of the getaway 747 at the end) approaching extreme in terms of bloodshed, and the use of the 'F' word approaching SCARFACE in terms of occasions when it is used.
Still, there is plenty of suspense and tension to be had here, with the direction of Renny Harlin evincing, at times, the feel of a Spielberg or Peckinpah at their edge-of-the-seat best. Michael Kamen's score, which interpolates Jean Sibelius' "Finlandia" at the end, is also a plus.
The verdict is that DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER is not an unflawed film, but one can certainly do much worse.
Bruce Willis returns as John McClane, who on this Christmas Eve is at Dulles International Airport in Washington awaiting the arrival of his wife (Bonnie Bedelia) from Los Angeles. Flights, however, are being delayed all across the board into D.C. by one of the biggest blizzards on record. And when Willis spots Army mercenaries in sensitive areas of the airport where nobody is supposed to go, his cop instincts take hold. As it turns out, these mercenaries are led by a hard-nosed right-wing colonel (William Sadler) whose aim is to snatch a known Latin-American drug dealer (Franco Nero) from the hands of U.S. justice agents. Their reason, as Sadler puts it, is because he had "the guts to stand up against Communist aggression." To prove his point, Sadler and his minions shut the entire airport down, putting all those planes in the snowbound skies over the nation's capital in mortal peril, until Nero's military plane arrives. The result is a battle in more ways than one, as Willis must not only tangle with Sadler's gang, but also with an incompetent airport cop (Dennis Franz) who thinks Willis is a lunatic.
Very solid acting from Willis, as well as Fred Dalton Thompson and Art Evans, who portray the two sympathetic airport officials, helps DIE HARD 2 remain leagues ahead of the majority of testosterone-laden action flicks. But many of the same flaws that were in DIE HARD 1 creep up here again. To paint the airport cops as incompetent buffoons just so that Willis can be the hero of the piece is grossly inaccurate and offensive. Even the media, in the guise of the ultra-obnoxious Dick Thornberg (William Atherton), gets slammed, and not in a very fair or accurate fashion. And the violence and language in DIE HARD 2 are far more pervasive than the original, with at least two scenes (the icepick to the eye; and Sadler's ex-commander [John Amos] getting sucked into the engine of the getaway 747 at the end) approaching extreme in terms of bloodshed, and the use of the 'F' word approaching SCARFACE in terms of occasions when it is used.
Still, there is plenty of suspense and tension to be had here, with the direction of Renny Harlin evincing, at times, the feel of a Spielberg or Peckinpah at their edge-of-the-seat best. Michael Kamen's score, which interpolates Jean Sibelius' "Finlandia" at the end, is also a plus.
The verdict is that DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER is not an unflawed film, but one can certainly do much worse.
Die Hard 2 is my all time personal favorite Action film an underrated
ivo-cobra84 October 2015
Die Hard 2 in my opinion is my third favorite decent action flick in a "Die Hard" series and a good movie to watch. It is one of my personal favorite action movies. It is one of the most underrated "Die Hard" films in the series and that not a bad one. His wife again a hostage, Christmas again, the same reporter from the 1st film, now a janitor Marvin is a helper instead of Argyle and so on. As far as sequels go, Die Hard 2 is excellent. Of course it isn't better than the first, but sequels rarely are. This film is like going to a circus: you sit back and watch crazy stuff happen, laugh, cheer, joke, and just have a good time. Bruce Willis gives a great performance in the lead, we have some solid villains, and some brilliant action set pieces. I say check it out.
I'm not one to subtract points for a lack of realism, or "real world believability" in films. Because of that, Die Hard 2 poses a very interesting case study for me. Real world believability is very difficult to not think about when watching this film. Why wouldn't the planes just reroute to other nearby airports? There are a bunch less than an hour's flight away, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, the three New York City-area airports, and so on. Why wouldn't they be able to call another close airport, or the Pentagon, or somewhere else nearby to have them contact the planes? They're near Washington, D.C., after all (don't forget that Dulles is 26 miles away from D.C., in Virginia, making it unlikely that planes out of fuel would begin "dropping on the White House lawn"). It seems like maybe this film should have been set somewhere like Salt Lake City, Utah instead. Why wouldn't they be able to show the runways through some other means, like a line of emergency or police vehicles with their sirens on? If the "terrorists" started shooting at the vehicles, or trying to blow them up, at least they'd be given an indication where the fire is coming from/given their location. Just how likely would it be that there's a big storm in the area on the day when General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) is being extradited? How likely is it that he'd be extradited on Christmas Eve? Why the hell is John standing out on the runway in the snow waving a couple of flaming poles--just what does he think that will do?
Die Hard 2 is still awesome movie and sequel to the first one for me and I don't know why people are saying it is the worst one or why they hate it. I don't, I love it, more than the first one I love it. In 2005 was my first best action movie than the first one. What I love about this film is they show John McClain more as a human being. In the beginning at the airport when his car was taken away at the airport, the whole movie show's an actual terror the villains are more of a threat cause they're actual terrorists! The Action sequences are awesome, there is barely any Cgi in it, John McClane is again in another elevator shafts. I love the plot twist that was wonderful, the snow in the film, the mobile snow chase whit McClane was awesome. This film is not perfect It is good, it has some problems in it. Always enjoyed watching it. The problems for the airport I already mentioned, the most annoying to me was after McClane kills the henchman when he was saving Leslie Barnes he pushed a terrorist of the latter and that latter tower falls on a terrorist you can see that it is a dummy from close that should not been seen from close camera.
It is still It is one of my personal favorite action movies mostly in the winter when it is snowing. The first movie was hug success, Renny Harlin's job by making this movie make it even harder for him, to find a good story, and make a snow because they didn't had any actual snow at the time it was really hard.
I love it. The facts I love: Chase with the Snowmobile, shooting with blanks on Carmine Lorenzo, fights on an airplane, double cross, John's jokes... The General Esperanza on airplane from Val Verde the same country was named in Schwarzenegger's movie Commando, John's shooting with snowmobile, than John's fight by the church. Movie to me is really awesome. I enjoy watching Die Hard 2. 10/10 Grade: Bad-Ass Seal Of Approval It is my second favorite Die Hard film in the series.
I'm not one to subtract points for a lack of realism, or "real world believability" in films. Because of that, Die Hard 2 poses a very interesting case study for me. Real world believability is very difficult to not think about when watching this film. Why wouldn't the planes just reroute to other nearby airports? There are a bunch less than an hour's flight away, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, the three New York City-area airports, and so on. Why wouldn't they be able to call another close airport, or the Pentagon, or somewhere else nearby to have them contact the planes? They're near Washington, D.C., after all (don't forget that Dulles is 26 miles away from D.C., in Virginia, making it unlikely that planes out of fuel would begin "dropping on the White House lawn"). It seems like maybe this film should have been set somewhere like Salt Lake City, Utah instead. Why wouldn't they be able to show the runways through some other means, like a line of emergency or police vehicles with their sirens on? If the "terrorists" started shooting at the vehicles, or trying to blow them up, at least they'd be given an indication where the fire is coming from/given their location. Just how likely would it be that there's a big storm in the area on the day when General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) is being extradited? How likely is it that he'd be extradited on Christmas Eve? Why the hell is John standing out on the runway in the snow waving a couple of flaming poles--just what does he think that will do?
Die Hard 2 is still awesome movie and sequel to the first one for me and I don't know why people are saying it is the worst one or why they hate it. I don't, I love it, more than the first one I love it. In 2005 was my first best action movie than the first one. What I love about this film is they show John McClain more as a human being. In the beginning at the airport when his car was taken away at the airport, the whole movie show's an actual terror the villains are more of a threat cause they're actual terrorists! The Action sequences are awesome, there is barely any Cgi in it, John McClane is again in another elevator shafts. I love the plot twist that was wonderful, the snow in the film, the mobile snow chase whit McClane was awesome. This film is not perfect It is good, it has some problems in it. Always enjoyed watching it. The problems for the airport I already mentioned, the most annoying to me was after McClane kills the henchman when he was saving Leslie Barnes he pushed a terrorist of the latter and that latter tower falls on a terrorist you can see that it is a dummy from close that should not been seen from close camera.
It is still It is one of my personal favorite action movies mostly in the winter when it is snowing. The first movie was hug success, Renny Harlin's job by making this movie make it even harder for him, to find a good story, and make a snow because they didn't had any actual snow at the time it was really hard.
I love it. The facts I love: Chase with the Snowmobile, shooting with blanks on Carmine Lorenzo, fights on an airplane, double cross, John's jokes... The General Esperanza on airplane from Val Verde the same country was named in Schwarzenegger's movie Commando, John's shooting with snowmobile, than John's fight by the church. Movie to me is really awesome. I enjoy watching Die Hard 2. 10/10 Grade: Bad-Ass Seal Of Approval It is my second favorite Die Hard film in the series.
Tries Hard...
fmarkland3228 June 2007
Bruce Willis returns as John McClane who this time faces off against mercenaries who have taken over an airport and are threatening to have all the plane crashes, McClane's wife Holly(Bonnie Bedelia) is on one such plane and so it's McClane back in action as he ponders how the same thing can happen to the same guy twice. Die Hard 2 to tell you the truth was a mixed bag. On one hand it had lots of action and a brutal edge to the action but also lacks the suspense of the first. In either case though Die Hard 2 is not bad as sequels go. Indeed even though it's directed by Renny Harlin, Die Hard 2 works in-spite of itself. The only flaw is that the movie is feels too much like a carbon copy of the first film only with a bigger is better approach to the stunts. That being said this is a minor flaw to behold and one really doesn't understand the mixed reaction to this film, when the movie is overall very entertaining.
* * * out of 4-(Good)
* * * out of 4-(Good)
A Total Thrill Ride
ReelCheese10 March 2007
Bruce Willis takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', nearly outdoing himself in one of the great actioneers of our time. DIE HARD 2 has everything a true action fan could ever want: explosions, chases, plot twists, suspense, drama and all that other good stuff.
Just two years after his last near-death adventure, John McClane (what a great action hero name) battles bad guys who take over an airport's communication system around the holidays. Unless their demands are met, they will unceremoniously plummet planes to the ground one by one -- including one on which Mrs. McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) is a passenger. Of course Johnny, he of wise-cracking ways, is the only one who can save the day.
Like its predecessor, set almost entirely in a skyscraper, DIE HARD 2 makes the most out of its setting. McClane is as multi-purpose as can be, chasing mercenaries through luggage conveyors, grasping onto aircraft wings, running out onto the runway and, in a truly awesome scene, ejecting from a plane a split second before it bursts into flames. Throw in a snowmobile chase, the standard trip through the air ducts and a legitimate, interesting motivation for the crooks and you have a total thrill ride guaranteed to recharge your batteries.
Efforts like DIE HARD 2 won't win any major awards, but they'll do what films are supposed to do: thrust us into another world and entertain us. This is truly Willis and director Renny Harlin at their best.
Just two years after his last near-death adventure, John McClane (what a great action hero name) battles bad guys who take over an airport's communication system around the holidays. Unless their demands are met, they will unceremoniously plummet planes to the ground one by one -- including one on which Mrs. McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) is a passenger. Of course Johnny, he of wise-cracking ways, is the only one who can save the day.
Like its predecessor, set almost entirely in a skyscraper, DIE HARD 2 makes the most out of its setting. McClane is as multi-purpose as can be, chasing mercenaries through luggage conveyors, grasping onto aircraft wings, running out onto the runway and, in a truly awesome scene, ejecting from a plane a split second before it bursts into flames. Throw in a snowmobile chase, the standard trip through the air ducts and a legitimate, interesting motivation for the crooks and you have a total thrill ride guaranteed to recharge your batteries.
Efforts like DIE HARD 2 won't win any major awards, but they'll do what films are supposed to do: thrust us into another world and entertain us. This is truly Willis and director Renny Harlin at their best.
Not Enough Respect for the Audience
scubergmu13 September 2004
Okay, I have one big problem with this sequel to Die Hard. The movie was entertaining at times with McClain taking on more bad-ass terrorists and their ultra-elaborate plan. But unlike the first film in this series, this particular entry was utterly preposterous. Sure, the action of the first was huge and explosive itself, but in the scheme of the movie it always basically made sense. In Die Hard 2 though, there were individual scenes that made no sense, and a plot with holes so big you could fly a 747 through them. I do not mean to be the overly discriminating film reviewer who knit-picks at technical details and writes the movie off as a result. No, if you see one or even a handful of discrepancies, things that violate reality, you dismiss them. But this movie is just a series of them, over and over and over. I mean, how can you shut your brain off that much and just sit back and enjoy the action, when the movie couldn't happen in a million years for reasons that you don't even have to be some kind of expert to be conscious of. For example, at the beginning of the movie, National Airport is shut down because of the snow and you hear airport controllers discussing how they will be taking over its flight load. So my question is, if the terrorists disable Dulles, couldn't the reverse occur? How could the terrorists have counted on National being shut down for a snowstorm when they'd been planning for months? And then of course there is Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), which was never even mentioned of course, that may have come in handy for people trying to land planes circling over DC. Also, how can they expect us to believe that the planes circling overhead are doomed to crash in two hours when they run out of fuel, when a flight from DC to Memphis, Philly, New York, or Atlanta takes less than that. And of course, why couldn't the controllers have transmitted to the planes using radios in planes that were already on the ground? My point is, you just can't sidestep reality in such a plethora of ways and expect an audience to follow you through the whole plot. If you have to do that so much to make your movie work then perhaps it never should have been made. Oh yeah, and having John McClain simply say at one point, 'How can the same thing happen to the same guy twice?', doesn't successfully negate the fact the odds on that are too infinitesimal to even be contemplated. So, bottom line, it had too many holes to be enjoyable, even though it was only trying to entertain with a series of explosions. The first movie was so much more plausible, and that's why people actually buy the first one by itself. I have a feeling the vast majority of Die Hard 2 owners bought it as part of the trilogy set, mostly as a means of seeing the other two.
P.S. I almost forgot about the grenades that took 20+ seconds to explode. Riiiiigghhht.
P.S. I almost forgot about the grenades that took 20+ seconds to explode. Riiiiigghhht.
Dying Just Got That Little Harder!
Old Joe6 March 2001
I have watched many movies where they have had a sequel which left me disappointed and uneasy, but the sequel to the smash, Die Hard, Die Hard 2 (Die Harder) was what think a sequel should be - more of what made the first film so successful. So its all out war for unlucky Police Detective named McClane, in a heart-stopping, jet-propelled journey through excitement and terror.
On a snowy Christmas Eve in the nation's capital, a team of terrorist have seized a major international airport, and now holds thousands of holiday travellers hostage. The terrorists, a renegade band of crack military commandos led by murderous rogue officer, have come to rescue a drug lord from justice. They've prepared for every contingency, except one: John McClane, an off-duty cop seized by a feeling of deadly deja vu. The heroic cop not only has to battle terrorists, but also an incompetent airport police chief, the hard headed commander of the army's anti-terrorist squad and a deadly winter snowstorm. The runways are littered with death and destruction, and McClane is in a race against time. His wife is trapped on one of the planes circling somewhere overhead, desperately low on fuel!
Die Hard 2 makes Bruce Willis look better and better. The role of John McClane is one filled with the fight for right and to trying to stop the bad guys. Again a lot of the stunts would have been done by Willis considering the professionalism of the man. Running all over an airport in a fierce snowstorm, fighting scenes on the wing of a real 747 jet and trying to save lives he has no attachment to, L.A. cop John McClane puts his body on the line, so justice is served and so did the actor Bruce Willis in my view to bring a great action movie back for a second time. Willis is one of my favourite actors, but I have only started to watch his movies in about the last 2-3 years and what a mistake that has been.
This film has more freedom as it is held at an airport. McClane is like I have said all over the place. The freedom and space this story has makes this film much easier to watch. Another thing which is impressive about Die Hard 2 is the effort to put more thrills in the movie. The snow (which of course is man made) has a major role, so do all the planes making quite a crisis on their hands. Not only do they fight on the wing of a 747, but also fly a real helicopter on the wing of the plane also. The scene where McClane ejects himself from the exploding plane is another favourite scene of mine. Other parts of this movie which stunned me I wont tell you about as it will give too much away, but trust me they are exceptionally done.
Again the bad guys have a major role in this one. William Saddler is Colonial Stuart, a heartless leader, who only cares that a drug lord escapes and can get in on all the money making scheme. I loved his role in this. Another face that I remember in Die hard 2 who was a bad guy is Robert Patrick. I loved his role in Terminator 2. But the conflict between the good guys is extremely tense. Especially between McClane and Police Officer Lorenzo played by L.A law star Dennis Franz. It is hard to understand if this character is on the side for good or not.
Here comes another analogy on Die Hard 2, do you ever know who is on the side of good or bad? Well for at least three quarters of the film it is unsure. The storywriters need to be commended because the story left me intrigued and when you think you know what is about to happen, the circumstances change. Also having a different director, gave this sequel new prospective. Director Renny Harlin threw his hand into the ring. What a gamble? An unknown director, but to my surprise I say that it worked. His other films worth mentioning include A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and Cliffhanger.
So overall Die Hard 2 was extremely enjoyable sequel to watch. The story, the characters and the situation are all of a great tension, which I love in a movie. So one cop who is so vulnerable and emotional ends up being the one person who you would most like to have save your life. Like Willis said in an interview Die Hard 2 - Die Harder - it's bigger, badder and louder. I will leave you with one question, the first Die Hard had approximately 20 people die, can you count for me how many perish in this film? It is quite a turn around!
Rating: 4/5 or 9/10
On a snowy Christmas Eve in the nation's capital, a team of terrorist have seized a major international airport, and now holds thousands of holiday travellers hostage. The terrorists, a renegade band of crack military commandos led by murderous rogue officer, have come to rescue a drug lord from justice. They've prepared for every contingency, except one: John McClane, an off-duty cop seized by a feeling of deadly deja vu. The heroic cop not only has to battle terrorists, but also an incompetent airport police chief, the hard headed commander of the army's anti-terrorist squad and a deadly winter snowstorm. The runways are littered with death and destruction, and McClane is in a race against time. His wife is trapped on one of the planes circling somewhere overhead, desperately low on fuel!
Die Hard 2 makes Bruce Willis look better and better. The role of John McClane is one filled with the fight for right and to trying to stop the bad guys. Again a lot of the stunts would have been done by Willis considering the professionalism of the man. Running all over an airport in a fierce snowstorm, fighting scenes on the wing of a real 747 jet and trying to save lives he has no attachment to, L.A. cop John McClane puts his body on the line, so justice is served and so did the actor Bruce Willis in my view to bring a great action movie back for a second time. Willis is one of my favourite actors, but I have only started to watch his movies in about the last 2-3 years and what a mistake that has been.
This film has more freedom as it is held at an airport. McClane is like I have said all over the place. The freedom and space this story has makes this film much easier to watch. Another thing which is impressive about Die Hard 2 is the effort to put more thrills in the movie. The snow (which of course is man made) has a major role, so do all the planes making quite a crisis on their hands. Not only do they fight on the wing of a 747, but also fly a real helicopter on the wing of the plane also. The scene where McClane ejects himself from the exploding plane is another favourite scene of mine. Other parts of this movie which stunned me I wont tell you about as it will give too much away, but trust me they are exceptionally done.
Again the bad guys have a major role in this one. William Saddler is Colonial Stuart, a heartless leader, who only cares that a drug lord escapes and can get in on all the money making scheme. I loved his role in this. Another face that I remember in Die hard 2 who was a bad guy is Robert Patrick. I loved his role in Terminator 2. But the conflict between the good guys is extremely tense. Especially between McClane and Police Officer Lorenzo played by L.A law star Dennis Franz. It is hard to understand if this character is on the side for good or not.
Here comes another analogy on Die Hard 2, do you ever know who is on the side of good or bad? Well for at least three quarters of the film it is unsure. The storywriters need to be commended because the story left me intrigued and when you think you know what is about to happen, the circumstances change. Also having a different director, gave this sequel new prospective. Director Renny Harlin threw his hand into the ring. What a gamble? An unknown director, but to my surprise I say that it worked. His other films worth mentioning include A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and Cliffhanger.
So overall Die Hard 2 was extremely enjoyable sequel to watch. The story, the characters and the situation are all of a great tension, which I love in a movie. So one cop who is so vulnerable and emotional ends up being the one person who you would most like to have save your life. Like Willis said in an interview Die Hard 2 - Die Harder - it's bigger, badder and louder. I will leave you with one question, the first Die Hard had approximately 20 people die, can you count for me how many perish in this film? It is quite a turn around!
Rating: 4/5 or 9/10
McClane is at it again
disdressed1216 February 2008
this is still a good movie,although it's not as good as the first one.for one thing,it's a lot slower paced and there is less action.John McClane is once again the only person who seems to be standing in the way of terrorists carrying out there plan.this time,it just happens to an airport which is the scene.Bruce Willis is back as McClane,of course,and he actually has some more and funnier lines than in the first.William Sadler plays the main bad guy in this one,and puts in a great performance.i liked his character better than the main villain in the first movie.the biggest problem with this movie,like i mentioned,is the pacing.it is a bit slow especially compared to the first one.but that makes a big difference in how enjoyable it is is.it's just not as fun or thrilling.for me,Die Hard 2 is a 7/10
Nostalgic and incredibly entertaining
rainbowmachine17 December 2020
I think I watched Die Hard 2 almost every December throughout my childhood. I vividly remember watching it on that huge '90s Trinitron in my old living room. Twenty-plus years later, it's still one of my favorite films to watch during the holidays.
John McClane (Bruce Willis) returns as our stereotypical '80s/'90s American action hero. This time, he's not hunting German terrorists; he's after former U. S. Special Forces Colonel William Stuart (William Sadler) and other former members of his unit. Colonel Stuart lacks that specific 'charm' Hans Gruber had, but I think he's an interesting antagonist from the very first shot. McClane's wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), also returns; she's stuck on a plane with that nuisance Thornberg (William Atherton). Most of the plot is set at Washington Dulles International Airport. The cinematography reminds me of Gremlins, and I absolutely adore it! The action scenes are a joy to watch, sometimes horrifying, like the ice shard scene. In general, the film is entertaining from the very beginning. If you enjoy action films from this era, you'll definitely enjoy watching this one.
Die Hard 2 (1990) - 10 jolly stars out of 10!
John McClane (Bruce Willis) returns as our stereotypical '80s/'90s American action hero. This time, he's not hunting German terrorists; he's after former U. S. Special Forces Colonel William Stuart (William Sadler) and other former members of his unit. Colonel Stuart lacks that specific 'charm' Hans Gruber had, but I think he's an interesting antagonist from the very first shot. McClane's wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), also returns; she's stuck on a plane with that nuisance Thornberg (William Atherton). Most of the plot is set at Washington Dulles International Airport. The cinematography reminds me of Gremlins, and I absolutely adore it! The action scenes are a joy to watch, sometimes horrifying, like the ice shard scene. In general, the film is entertaining from the very beginning. If you enjoy action films from this era, you'll definitely enjoy watching this one.
Die Hard 2 (1990) - 10 jolly stars out of 10!
There is no comparison to the first Die Hard, but this was still a fun sequel!
Smells_Like_Cheese2 August 2004
John McClane is back! I had heard a few bad things about Die Hard 2, I was a bit nervous to see this film just because of that. But I think it was just because of the fact that a lot of people really compare it to the first Die Hard, like I said there really is no comparison, the first Die Hard was an absolute blast and can't be beat. However, Die Hard 2 is a little looked over, it's still a great sequel in my opinion. It has great action, the same fun characters, and an awesome story. While it was somewhat bland compared to the first Die Hard, this was a fun movie to watch I think.
John McClane is back to square one in life, his wife doesn't like him very much right now since he hasn't kept his promises. But she is coming into town for a report and John is there to pick her up. But things are quickly interrupted when Col. Stuart takes control of the airport with high demands of money and power. Unfortunately he doesn't realize who he's messing with when he is aware of John's wife being aboard of one of the planes. Since the airport's power is now out, the planes cannot land and are quickly running out of gas to keep them going. John is on the case though and isn't going to let Col. Stuart get away with this.
Die Hard 2 is a cool movie in my books. William Sadler made a good villain, he's really intense looking and got into character very well. I loved how this movie ended, Holly really kicked more butt in this film. But it is Bruce who really wins the movie over, he's even more bad than ever before, he's just so awesome, you can't help but to keep rooting for him. Not to mention one of the most memorable lines ever "Yippe-Kia-Mother-", you get it, but he's the only one that could deliver that line right. I would recommend this movie for anyone, just give it a shot, it's pretty good.
7/10
John McClane is back to square one in life, his wife doesn't like him very much right now since he hasn't kept his promises. But she is coming into town for a report and John is there to pick her up. But things are quickly interrupted when Col. Stuart takes control of the airport with high demands of money and power. Unfortunately he doesn't realize who he's messing with when he is aware of John's wife being aboard of one of the planes. Since the airport's power is now out, the planes cannot land and are quickly running out of gas to keep them going. John is on the case though and isn't going to let Col. Stuart get away with this.
Die Hard 2 is a cool movie in my books. William Sadler made a good villain, he's really intense looking and got into character very well. I loved how this movie ended, Holly really kicked more butt in this film. But it is Bruce who really wins the movie over, he's even more bad than ever before, he's just so awesome, you can't help but to keep rooting for him. Not to mention one of the most memorable lines ever "Yippe-Kia-Mother-", you get it, but he's the only one that could deliver that line right. I would recommend this movie for anyone, just give it a shot, it's pretty good.
7/10
Exciting Action Film with a Totally Unbelievable Premise
OFG-Movie26 March 2006
I have no problems with the action in this movie. The acting is fine and the characters are interesting. Add the plot twists and you have a watchable entertaining movie that is worth your time.
What caused me to rate this film a couple of stars lower that I would have otherwise is an idiotic part of the plot. Airliners are stacked up over Dulles and the tower can't communicate with them. Their radio engineer comes up with the idea of rigging the outer marker beacon to transmit a voice communication to all of the aircraft apprising them of the situation. Meanwhile the Army is being called by phone, TV news crews are transmitting back to their stations and ground vehicles are moving in and out of the airport. If one can communicate by phone, TV link and ground, why not just get hold of the regional traffic center to alert the airliners and divert them to other airports. Meanwhile John McClane's wife is on board one of these planes and it has 90 min of fuel on-board. Hmmm, 90 minutes at 500 mph. gives one lots of time and distance to find some kind of alternate destination. But alas, that would ruin the plot line of John trying to save his wife once more from certain death. This hole in the plot is big enough to fly an Airbus A380 through.
What caused me to rate this film a couple of stars lower that I would have otherwise is an idiotic part of the plot. Airliners are stacked up over Dulles and the tower can't communicate with them. Their radio engineer comes up with the idea of rigging the outer marker beacon to transmit a voice communication to all of the aircraft apprising them of the situation. Meanwhile the Army is being called by phone, TV news crews are transmitting back to their stations and ground vehicles are moving in and out of the airport. If one can communicate by phone, TV link and ground, why not just get hold of the regional traffic center to alert the airliners and divert them to other airports. Meanwhile John McClane's wife is on board one of these planes and it has 90 min of fuel on-board. Hmmm, 90 minutes at 500 mph. gives one lots of time and distance to find some kind of alternate destination. But alas, that would ruin the plot line of John trying to save his wife once more from certain death. This hole in the plot is big enough to fly an Airbus A380 through.
Good action film - but no where near the original
bob the moo28 November 2001
John McClane is in Washington to meet his wife as she arrives at the airport. However as he waits for her plane to come in terrorists seize control of the control equipment and keep the planes circling. They plan to rescue captured dictator General Esperanza by landing his plane at the airport and making their escape. However as the terrorists wait the circling planes get shorter and shorter on fuel, leading John McClane to take what action he can to regain control of the planes.
This second of the exciting die hard series has a hard act to follow. The first film was amazing and broke the mould relating to action films, it showed that action could occur in everyday locations, caused English actors to get lots of work as bad guys and set many other copycat films in motion (die hard on a mountain, die hard on a bus etc). However this is nothing special. The plot tries to be similar to the original but it lacks as much originality as the first. The terrorist plot is not quite as likely and it doesn't have the same flow as the first. Story-wise the main flaw is in McClane's involvement - in the first film he was very much trapped and forced to take action, in fact his first instinct was to run away from the terrorists. Here the same is not true, Willis tries to make it seem that he doesn't want all this again ("how can the same **** happen to the same guy") but really he throws himself into the thick of the battle. This takes away from the image of him as an ordinary guy put into a difficult situation.
The action scenes don't help this problem. Yes all the action scenes are good and exciting, but many of them are too big. In the first the action occurred in short standoffs, usually with McClane running away or sneaking around. Here there's too many of one man v's the world style action with Willis running in against a large number of terrorists and winning. Again this takes away from the tension and claustrophobia of the other film and makes it feel like a Arnie blockbuster. That said the action is still good and won't disappoint action fans.
The main failing of the film is that it tries to be like the first film without success. It retains the same set-up (McClane trying to rescue his wife from terrorists), brings back the same Christmas time setting and music, it even wheels back in as many repeat characters as it can (Veljohnson as Sergeant Powell, Atherton as Thornburg) but it loses the most important item - the set parameters of the action. Die Hard was great because it had very tightly set locations for it's action in the office block. Here the action can spread out all over so a lot of the tension and claustrophobia is lost. The decision to make the second film so similar to the first can only lead us to comparing the two and seeing the inferiorities.
The performances are quite good generally. Willis can almost do this type of thing in his sleep while the other repeat characters simply redo their roles. Unfortunately many of the repeat characters don't have much to do and seem out of place. The 'new' characters fill the stereotyped shoes of previous actors. Dennis Franz takes on the mantle of incompetent cop standing in McClane's way by going by the book, Sheila McCarthy takes on the story hungry journalist role etc. The bad guys do have a lot to live up to by replacing Alan Rickman and they don't quite reach that standard. William Sadler is good as Colonel Stuart but doesn't have any style of his own, anyway it's good to see Franco Nero (cult star of western Django) in an American film.
The film has some nice twists towards the end but it just doesn't come close to the atmosphere of the first film. By trying to be similar to the first film, Renny Harlin shows that he's not as capable as McTiernan in creating a mood of tension mixed with the action. The result is a great action movie but one that cowers in the shadow of it's better bigger brother.
This second of the exciting die hard series has a hard act to follow. The first film was amazing and broke the mould relating to action films, it showed that action could occur in everyday locations, caused English actors to get lots of work as bad guys and set many other copycat films in motion (die hard on a mountain, die hard on a bus etc). However this is nothing special. The plot tries to be similar to the original but it lacks as much originality as the first. The terrorist plot is not quite as likely and it doesn't have the same flow as the first. Story-wise the main flaw is in McClane's involvement - in the first film he was very much trapped and forced to take action, in fact his first instinct was to run away from the terrorists. Here the same is not true, Willis tries to make it seem that he doesn't want all this again ("how can the same **** happen to the same guy") but really he throws himself into the thick of the battle. This takes away from the image of him as an ordinary guy put into a difficult situation.
The action scenes don't help this problem. Yes all the action scenes are good and exciting, but many of them are too big. In the first the action occurred in short standoffs, usually with McClane running away or sneaking around. Here there's too many of one man v's the world style action with Willis running in against a large number of terrorists and winning. Again this takes away from the tension and claustrophobia of the other film and makes it feel like a Arnie blockbuster. That said the action is still good and won't disappoint action fans.
The main failing of the film is that it tries to be like the first film without success. It retains the same set-up (McClane trying to rescue his wife from terrorists), brings back the same Christmas time setting and music, it even wheels back in as many repeat characters as it can (Veljohnson as Sergeant Powell, Atherton as Thornburg) but it loses the most important item - the set parameters of the action. Die Hard was great because it had very tightly set locations for it's action in the office block. Here the action can spread out all over so a lot of the tension and claustrophobia is lost. The decision to make the second film so similar to the first can only lead us to comparing the two and seeing the inferiorities.
The performances are quite good generally. Willis can almost do this type of thing in his sleep while the other repeat characters simply redo their roles. Unfortunately many of the repeat characters don't have much to do and seem out of place. The 'new' characters fill the stereotyped shoes of previous actors. Dennis Franz takes on the mantle of incompetent cop standing in McClane's way by going by the book, Sheila McCarthy takes on the story hungry journalist role etc. The bad guys do have a lot to live up to by replacing Alan Rickman and they don't quite reach that standard. William Sadler is good as Colonel Stuart but doesn't have any style of his own, anyway it's good to see Franco Nero (cult star of western Django) in an American film.
The film has some nice twists towards the end but it just doesn't come close to the atmosphere of the first film. By trying to be similar to the first film, Renny Harlin shows that he's not as capable as McTiernan in creating a mood of tension mixed with the action. The result is a great action movie but one that cowers in the shadow of it's better bigger brother.
An impressive sequel...
paul_haakonsen10 December 2020
Well, for a sequel then the 1990 movie "Die Hard 2" is actually surpassing what you would normally expect from a sequel. And yeah, part 2 definitely had big shoes to fill after the 1988 first "Die Hard" movie.
Writers Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson definitely delivered an interesting script that most certainly delivered most of the excitement and action that was seen in the first movie, and that is just part of what makes "Die Hard 2" a great sequel.
This is an action movie with a big A. There is a heap of action and I mean in a massive abundance, and that definitely helps the movie along greatly too. So strap yourself in for another adrenalin-filled thrill ride with Bruce Willis at the helm as John McClane. And it should be noticed that the action sequences in "Die Hard 2" are nicely choreographed and executed for great enjoyment on the screen.
Something that also was rather impressive about "Die Hard 2" was the impressive cast that they had managed to get together for this sequel. Of course you have Bruce Willis in the lead role, but it was also nice to see the likes of Bonnie Bedelia, William Atherton and Reginald VelJohnson reprise their roles from the first movie. And "Die Hard 2" also have some nice performances and appearances by the likes of William Sadler, John Amos, Dennis Franz, Robert Patrick, John Leguizamo and Mark Boone Junior. So you see, "Die Hard 2" is filled with great and familiar names.
I also like the subtle jabs at being a sequel that there was in the dialogue, delivered both by John McClane and Holly McClane.
"Die Hard 2" is a great follow up to the 1988 classic, and if you haven't already seen the 1990 movie "Die Hard 2", you should do so, as it is well worth the time and effort. My rating of "Die Hard 2" lands on a 7 out of 10 stars.
Writers Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson definitely delivered an interesting script that most certainly delivered most of the excitement and action that was seen in the first movie, and that is just part of what makes "Die Hard 2" a great sequel.
This is an action movie with a big A. There is a heap of action and I mean in a massive abundance, and that definitely helps the movie along greatly too. So strap yourself in for another adrenalin-filled thrill ride with Bruce Willis at the helm as John McClane. And it should be noticed that the action sequences in "Die Hard 2" are nicely choreographed and executed for great enjoyment on the screen.
Something that also was rather impressive about "Die Hard 2" was the impressive cast that they had managed to get together for this sequel. Of course you have Bruce Willis in the lead role, but it was also nice to see the likes of Bonnie Bedelia, William Atherton and Reginald VelJohnson reprise their roles from the first movie. And "Die Hard 2" also have some nice performances and appearances by the likes of William Sadler, John Amos, Dennis Franz, Robert Patrick, John Leguizamo and Mark Boone Junior. So you see, "Die Hard 2" is filled with great and familiar names.
I also like the subtle jabs at being a sequel that there was in the dialogue, delivered both by John McClane and Holly McClane.
"Die Hard 2" is a great follow up to the 1988 classic, and if you haven't already seen the 1990 movie "Die Hard 2", you should do so, as it is well worth the time and effort. My rating of "Die Hard 2" lands on a 7 out of 10 stars.
For me, as good as the first opus
searchanddestroy-115 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I definitely love this second act of the adventures of John McLane. Also produced by Joel Silver, I crave for the bad guys, the way they are presented, especially William Sadler, who gives here his best performance ever, in an evil character absolutely unforgettable. Look at his face when he provokes the crash of the aircraft with hundreds of passengers aboard, including children. I love this film, only for the bad guys, as for any Joel Silver productions of this period, late eighties and nineties, including LETHAL WEAPON. So back to this one, of course it is foreseeable, but some good surprises tough and a fast paced rythm and outstanding directing from Renny Harlin who gives here one of his best work, with CLIFFHANGER. I have rarely seen such a disgusting but fascinating bad guy, a super man - Bill Sadler - but a so nasty one too. The nove which it is inspired from is not bad too. Openly inspired by the General Noriega case, the dictator of Panama who undercover worked for the CIA, fighting against Communist forces in Central America, and who was also heavily involved in massive drug traffic. Some American Special Ops elite troops continued, in DIE HARD 2, to help their former associate because of the involvement in drug traffic and all the billions of dollars that meant for them.
If you liked Die Hard, you'll love this.
rmax3048237 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It's a reworking of "Die Hard" with a bigger budget and clumsier plot. The formula, in only its second appearance, is already entering its decadent stage.
Bruce Willis plays the same character and goes through the same motions and dresses in what appear to be the same clothes. He appears to be positively superhuman. Everybody shoots at him and misses. He can fall three stories to the asphalt with no more than a wince. He wears his blood in different places though. Bonny Bedalia could have been left out.
William Atherton duplicates his role as egomaniacal spoiler, almost word for word. William Sadler is the chief villain, with a face so ugly that if it were a building it would be condemned. Fred Dalton Thompson demonstrates his striking range of expressions. When he's sad, he looks unhappy. When he's happy, he also looks unhappy. He projects deep thought by looking unhappy. Whatever the thespian demands made on him he projects an overwhelming absorption with some deep inner condition, maybe a strangulated hernia.
The setting this time is Dulles, Washington's glamour airport. (Nobody of weight ever uses the other one.) The villains are terrorists again, only this time they are helping some kind of Latin American strong man to escape custody. At least THESE villains don't speak German with a Russian accent! They're the home-bred, good old-fashioned American variety, and some of them are not only heavies but traitorous members of the military elite.
The score substitutes Sibelius for Beethoven behind the climactic action. (Next time, Kenny G?) Some of the action scenes are better choreographed than in the original "Die Hard" and that's saying a lot, because the original had superb staging.
It has come to this. We must now begin to compare action movies to one another by ranking them in terms of how adroit their scenes of slaughter are, because after all, what else do they have to offer? At one point Willis beaten, bloody, and freezing, falls through a hole in the floor and looks around dazed. "Another elevator! Another basement! How many times can the same THING happen to the same GUY?" he wonders.
Well, Bruce, it can happen three times.
Bruce Willis plays the same character and goes through the same motions and dresses in what appear to be the same clothes. He appears to be positively superhuman. Everybody shoots at him and misses. He can fall three stories to the asphalt with no more than a wince. He wears his blood in different places though. Bonny Bedalia could have been left out.
William Atherton duplicates his role as egomaniacal spoiler, almost word for word. William Sadler is the chief villain, with a face so ugly that if it were a building it would be condemned. Fred Dalton Thompson demonstrates his striking range of expressions. When he's sad, he looks unhappy. When he's happy, he also looks unhappy. He projects deep thought by looking unhappy. Whatever the thespian demands made on him he projects an overwhelming absorption with some deep inner condition, maybe a strangulated hernia.
The setting this time is Dulles, Washington's glamour airport. (Nobody of weight ever uses the other one.) The villains are terrorists again, only this time they are helping some kind of Latin American strong man to escape custody. At least THESE villains don't speak German with a Russian accent! They're the home-bred, good old-fashioned American variety, and some of them are not only heavies but traitorous members of the military elite.
The score substitutes Sibelius for Beethoven behind the climactic action. (Next time, Kenny G?) Some of the action scenes are better choreographed than in the original "Die Hard" and that's saying a lot, because the original had superb staging.
It has come to this. We must now begin to compare action movies to one another by ranking them in terms of how adroit their scenes of slaughter are, because after all, what else do they have to offer? At one point Willis beaten, bloody, and freezing, falls through a hole in the floor and looks around dazed. "Another elevator! Another basement! How many times can the same THING happen to the same GUY?" he wonders.
Well, Bruce, it can happen three times.
Die Silly
BrandtSponseller16 May 2005
Series note: It is not necessary to watch Die Hard (1988) before this film. However, that is the better film and it will give you a better introduction to the continuing characters, so it is still recommendable to watch the first film before this one.
Set an unspecified number of years after Die Hard (I'll call it "Die Hard 1"), Die Hard 2 has John McClane (Bruce Willis) just outside of Washington, D.C. on Christmas Eve, where he is waiting for his wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), to arrive at Dulles International Airport from Los Angeles so they can visit her mother for the holidays. Holly calls John from the plane to tell him that they're a half-hour behind schedule. While he's waiting in the crowded airport, he first sees a man he recognizes but can't place (it turns out to be one of the villains), then sees a couple other suspicious men heading into the restricted baggage area. He follows them in, has a confrontation, and eventually learns that one is a special ops military guy whose records say he's been dead for two years. That cues him in to the fact that something big is going to go down (as if he couldn't tell based on the fact that he's in another Die Hard film). Since a bigwig cocaine dealer from Latin America is on his way to Washington for extradition, that's a pretty big clue regarding what is about to go down. Shortly after chaos ensues, as "terrorists" take control of Dulles with dozens of planes in the air and no place to land--they're not able to talk to the tower, use their instruments properly or conduct a visual landing. How will they resolve the situation?
I'm not one to subtract points for a lack of realism, or "real world believability" in films. Because of that, Die Hard 2 poses a very interesting case study for me. Real world believability is very difficult to not think about when watching this film. Why wouldn't the planes just reroute to other nearby airports? There are a bunch less than an hour's flight away, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, the three New York City-area airports, and so on. Why wouldn't they be able to call another close airport, or the Pentagon, or somewhere else nearby to have them contact the planes? They're near Washington, D.C., after all (don't forget that Dulles is 26 miles away from D.C., in Virginia, making it unlikely that planes out of fuel would begin "dropping on the White House lawn"). It seems like maybe this film should have been set somewhere like Salt Lake City, Utah instead. Why wouldn't they be able to show the runways through some other means, like a line of emergency or police vehicles with their sirens on? If the "terrorists" started shooting at the vehicles, or trying to blow them up, at least they'd be given an indication where the fire is coming from/given their location. Just how likely would it be that there's a big storm in the area on the day when General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) is being extradited? How likely is it that he'd be extradited on Christmas Eve? Why the hell is John standing out on the runway in the snow waving a couple of flaming poles--just what does he think that will do? And we can go on and on.
In the above, it becomes clear that maybe the problem isn't real-world believability but internal logic, although to an extent, some of the internal logic is extremely difficult to separate from facts we know about the real world that aren't mentioned in the film. But Die Hard 1 was an extremely taut film that had impeccable internal logic. The film itself gave reasons for the dilemmas that arose, and they were justifications that made the dilemmas inevitable. It doesn't matter that some of the "facts" or situations in Die Hard 1 were contrary to our beliefs about the real world. The film defined things to be the fictional way it defined them, and the logic was consistent and valid (in the formal sense) from within the film.
However, it becomes clear, not too far into Die Hard 2, that perhaps looking at it for things like real-world believability and logical consistency/validity is misconceiving it. My belief is that this film is meant to be a spoof of action films as much as it is meant to be a serious action film. _That's_ why John is standing out on the runway waving around flaming poles like a maniac. That's why baddies can easily shoot and kill 20 or so highly trained, highly armed S.W.A.T. team members wearing bulletproof vests but can't hit John, who is wearing street clothes and rolling around on the floor with a pistol. That's why the planes are stuck over D.C. with no options and the film doesn't even try to justify this. That's why there are scenes of John "riding explosions" like a cowboy (yippee-ki-yay mf'er indeed). That's why there are a number of "wink-wink" cracks about being in another Die Hard film. That's why there are a few scenes that look oddly similar to Airplane! (1980). That's why the film so frequently, joyously embraces silliness.
Director Renny Harlin and his bulletproof vested army of scriptwriters and producers apparently set out to make a cartoonish satire of action films, while still making a serious action film. In 1990, action films were just at the tail end of their domination of the U.S. box office, so it was a ripe time to spoof them. Harlin and company succeed fairly well. It might have been even more artistically successful if they had more firmly committed to one angle (cartoonish satire) or the other (serious actioner), but the performances are pretty good, the fistfights, gunfights, explosions and chases are very good, and the film is frequently funny if you have a taste for the absurd.
Set an unspecified number of years after Die Hard (I'll call it "Die Hard 1"), Die Hard 2 has John McClane (Bruce Willis) just outside of Washington, D.C. on Christmas Eve, where he is waiting for his wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), to arrive at Dulles International Airport from Los Angeles so they can visit her mother for the holidays. Holly calls John from the plane to tell him that they're a half-hour behind schedule. While he's waiting in the crowded airport, he first sees a man he recognizes but can't place (it turns out to be one of the villains), then sees a couple other suspicious men heading into the restricted baggage area. He follows them in, has a confrontation, and eventually learns that one is a special ops military guy whose records say he's been dead for two years. That cues him in to the fact that something big is going to go down (as if he couldn't tell based on the fact that he's in another Die Hard film). Since a bigwig cocaine dealer from Latin America is on his way to Washington for extradition, that's a pretty big clue regarding what is about to go down. Shortly after chaos ensues, as "terrorists" take control of Dulles with dozens of planes in the air and no place to land--they're not able to talk to the tower, use their instruments properly or conduct a visual landing. How will they resolve the situation?
I'm not one to subtract points for a lack of realism, or "real world believability" in films. Because of that, Die Hard 2 poses a very interesting case study for me. Real world believability is very difficult to not think about when watching this film. Why wouldn't the planes just reroute to other nearby airports? There are a bunch less than an hour's flight away, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, the three New York City-area airports, and so on. Why wouldn't they be able to call another close airport, or the Pentagon, or somewhere else nearby to have them contact the planes? They're near Washington, D.C., after all (don't forget that Dulles is 26 miles away from D.C., in Virginia, making it unlikely that planes out of fuel would begin "dropping on the White House lawn"). It seems like maybe this film should have been set somewhere like Salt Lake City, Utah instead. Why wouldn't they be able to show the runways through some other means, like a line of emergency or police vehicles with their sirens on? If the "terrorists" started shooting at the vehicles, or trying to blow them up, at least they'd be given an indication where the fire is coming from/given their location. Just how likely would it be that there's a big storm in the area on the day when General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) is being extradited? How likely is it that he'd be extradited on Christmas Eve? Why the hell is John standing out on the runway in the snow waving a couple of flaming poles--just what does he think that will do? And we can go on and on.
In the above, it becomes clear that maybe the problem isn't real-world believability but internal logic, although to an extent, some of the internal logic is extremely difficult to separate from facts we know about the real world that aren't mentioned in the film. But Die Hard 1 was an extremely taut film that had impeccable internal logic. The film itself gave reasons for the dilemmas that arose, and they were justifications that made the dilemmas inevitable. It doesn't matter that some of the "facts" or situations in Die Hard 1 were contrary to our beliefs about the real world. The film defined things to be the fictional way it defined them, and the logic was consistent and valid (in the formal sense) from within the film.
However, it becomes clear, not too far into Die Hard 2, that perhaps looking at it for things like real-world believability and logical consistency/validity is misconceiving it. My belief is that this film is meant to be a spoof of action films as much as it is meant to be a serious action film. _That's_ why John is standing out on the runway waving around flaming poles like a maniac. That's why baddies can easily shoot and kill 20 or so highly trained, highly armed S.W.A.T. team members wearing bulletproof vests but can't hit John, who is wearing street clothes and rolling around on the floor with a pistol. That's why the planes are stuck over D.C. with no options and the film doesn't even try to justify this. That's why there are scenes of John "riding explosions" like a cowboy (yippee-ki-yay mf'er indeed). That's why there are a number of "wink-wink" cracks about being in another Die Hard film. That's why there are a few scenes that look oddly similar to Airplane! (1980). That's why the film so frequently, joyously embraces silliness.
Director Renny Harlin and his bulletproof vested army of scriptwriters and producers apparently set out to make a cartoonish satire of action films, while still making a serious action film. In 1990, action films were just at the tail end of their domination of the U.S. box office, so it was a ripe time to spoof them. Harlin and company succeed fairly well. It might have been even more artistically successful if they had more firmly committed to one angle (cartoonish satire) or the other (serious actioner), but the performances are pretty good, the fistfights, gunfights, explosions and chases are very good, and the film is frequently funny if you have a taste for the absurd.
Above average sequel in which John McClain has to fight some nasties attempting to free a drug baron from justice
ma-cortes30 September 2013
Thriller with supercharged action and moving pacing by Renny Harlin . Gripping , splendid action movie with the great Bruce Willis desperately trying to find the means avoid his wife to be crashed . This mindless, interesting and ingenious film is packed with thrills , suspense , tension and lots of interminable action . Again John McClane, officer of the NYPD and hero of the Nakatomi Hostage Crisis, attempts to avert disaster as rogue military officials seize control of Dulles International Airport in Washington . Once again he is in the wrong place at the wrong time , as some criminals led by rebel Col. Stuart (William Sadler) wish to free a drug baron (Franco Nero , this role is a reference to the real-life Panamanian general, Manuel Noriega, who was overthrown for brutality and drug trafficking in Panama in the 1980s and being turned over to the US government) . An army of killers want to free a known South American general being extradited to America for trial , but they have only one little problem: John McClane (Bruce Willis).
This second part also contains noisy action , thrills , explosions , plot twists , and lots of fun . Good sequel that follows a similar style , humor and action . From the start to finish the action packed is unstopped and spectacular . Exciting screenplay that dispenses absurd excitement as well as amusement . Excellent thriller full of intrigue and tense, this is a fast-paced, stylized action-suspense film . The tension of this picture keeps snowballing as the clock ticks ever close for a groundbreaking as well as impressive final . As always , Bruce Willis is very fine as hilarious , sarcastic and intrepid cop . Secondary casting is frankly well , such as Franco Nero , William Atherton , Dennis Franz , Fred Dalton Thomson , Reginald VelJohnson , John Amos , Tom Bower , Sheila McCarthy , Don Harvey , a brief acting by John Leguizano and Robert Patick ; furthermore , William Sadler steals the show and takes honors as psychopath who attempts to turn the tables on the protagonist . Adequate and thrilling musical score accompanying the action by Michael Kamen . Inventively photographed by Oliver Wood ; most of the interior airport scenes were filmed in the Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International airport . In addition , some of the shots of the airport were filmed at the old Stapleton Airport in Denver, Colorado.
This big-budgeted motion picture was lavishly produced by Lawrence Binder and Joel Silver , being well directed by Renny Harlin . Renny edited this film and The adventures of Ford Fairlane at the same time because of the relatively short post-production period for both films and were then released one month apart . John McTiernan who directed ¨Die Hard¨ had planned to direct this film, but could not because of his commitment to directing Hunt for Red October . Renny Harlin is an expert on action genre such as ¨ Cliffhunger¨ , ¨Deep blue sea¨ , ¨Driven¨ , ¨Long kiss goodnight¨ , ¨12 rounds¨ and many others . Rating : Better than average thriller movie . The picture will appeal to frenetic action buffs and Bruce Willis fans .
This second part also contains noisy action , thrills , explosions , plot twists , and lots of fun . Good sequel that follows a similar style , humor and action . From the start to finish the action packed is unstopped and spectacular . Exciting screenplay that dispenses absurd excitement as well as amusement . Excellent thriller full of intrigue and tense, this is a fast-paced, stylized action-suspense film . The tension of this picture keeps snowballing as the clock ticks ever close for a groundbreaking as well as impressive final . As always , Bruce Willis is very fine as hilarious , sarcastic and intrepid cop . Secondary casting is frankly well , such as Franco Nero , William Atherton , Dennis Franz , Fred Dalton Thomson , Reginald VelJohnson , John Amos , Tom Bower , Sheila McCarthy , Don Harvey , a brief acting by John Leguizano and Robert Patick ; furthermore , William Sadler steals the show and takes honors as psychopath who attempts to turn the tables on the protagonist . Adequate and thrilling musical score accompanying the action by Michael Kamen . Inventively photographed by Oliver Wood ; most of the interior airport scenes were filmed in the Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International airport . In addition , some of the shots of the airport were filmed at the old Stapleton Airport in Denver, Colorado.
This big-budgeted motion picture was lavishly produced by Lawrence Binder and Joel Silver , being well directed by Renny Harlin . Renny edited this film and The adventures of Ford Fairlane at the same time because of the relatively short post-production period for both films and were then released one month apart . John McTiernan who directed ¨Die Hard¨ had planned to direct this film, but could not because of his commitment to directing Hunt for Red October . Renny Harlin is an expert on action genre such as ¨ Cliffhunger¨ , ¨Deep blue sea¨ , ¨Driven¨ , ¨Long kiss goodnight¨ , ¨12 rounds¨ and many others . Rating : Better than average thriller movie . The picture will appeal to frenetic action buffs and Bruce Willis fans .
What's the problem ? It's a great sequel
Maziun26 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS I don't understand the complains about "Die hard 2 : Die harder" . The first movie was almost a perfect action movie . It was obvious that sequel will be weaker , yet "Die hard 2" is a very satisfying sequel . It follows the formula that worked so well the first time : one hero - one place - many terrorists , wife in danger , nobody listens to him except a black guy and everything happens during Christmas . There is not a bit of new idea here . The only change is the new director – Renny Harlin , who took over John McTiernan (who was busy with "The hunt for Red October") . Harlin is a solid craftsman and he directs the movie professionally. The screenplay was once again written by Steven Souza and with a help from Doug Richardson.
I'm amazed by the complains about the violence and swearing . Look people , this is R rated movie . If you can't stand the heat , stay out of kitchen. Maybe people who are obsessed with political correctness forgot about it , but in REAL LIFE people swear . A lot. And there isn't a single scene of unnecessary violence here . When you're fighting for life you don't exactly have time for subtlety. If you're looking for mindless violence watch one of those stupid "Saw" movies. And for god's sake there is no plot hole with the planes . You want to know why the airplanes didn't tried to land on other airports ? Because they had too little fuel and the weather was too bad. So , they had to stay in the air.
What I liked ? Bruce Willis is back as the wise cracking John McClane . So is Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. Reginald Veljohnson appears in a small episode as Al Powell. There are one dimensional , but fun characters : John Amos as the idiotic chef of airport security Carmine Lorenzo and Tom Bover as Marvin the wacky janitor. Souza has a sense of humor and there is a plenty of moments to laugh . The action scenes directed by Harlin are exciting and fun. The screenplay offers also some nice twists.
What I didn't liked ? I could live without the naked tai chi . There is one scene with the grenades that makes my head hurt. Those have to be the slowest grenades in the movie history. I don't understand why the airport crew cooperated with the terrorists , even after the terrorists lost their equipment and couldn't blackmail the airport anymore. Also , the movie lacks a really good main villain compared to Alan Rickman from "Die hard" or Jeremy Irons from "Die hard 3".
Anyway , it's a good continuation of McClane's story . There is nothing new here , but it's well executed. In the end it's one of those rare satisfying sequels. I give it 8/10.
I'm amazed by the complains about the violence and swearing . Look people , this is R rated movie . If you can't stand the heat , stay out of kitchen. Maybe people who are obsessed with political correctness forgot about it , but in REAL LIFE people swear . A lot. And there isn't a single scene of unnecessary violence here . When you're fighting for life you don't exactly have time for subtlety. If you're looking for mindless violence watch one of those stupid "Saw" movies. And for god's sake there is no plot hole with the planes . You want to know why the airplanes didn't tried to land on other airports ? Because they had too little fuel and the weather was too bad. So , they had to stay in the air.
What I liked ? Bruce Willis is back as the wise cracking John McClane . So is Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. Reginald Veljohnson appears in a small episode as Al Powell. There are one dimensional , but fun characters : John Amos as the idiotic chef of airport security Carmine Lorenzo and Tom Bover as Marvin the wacky janitor. Souza has a sense of humor and there is a plenty of moments to laugh . The action scenes directed by Harlin are exciting and fun. The screenplay offers also some nice twists.
What I didn't liked ? I could live without the naked tai chi . There is one scene with the grenades that makes my head hurt. Those have to be the slowest grenades in the movie history. I don't understand why the airport crew cooperated with the terrorists , even after the terrorists lost their equipment and couldn't blackmail the airport anymore. Also , the movie lacks a really good main villain compared to Alan Rickman from "Die hard" or Jeremy Irons from "Die hard 3".
Anyway , it's a good continuation of McClane's story . There is nothing new here , but it's well executed. In the end it's one of those rare satisfying sequels. I give it 8/10.
One of the best sequels ever.
musat-razvan-constantin1 December 2020
I will never understand the disdain for this movie. It has everything good from the original, only in a different setting, this time an airport. John McClane is as badass and wisecracking as always, the villain is awesome and genuinely terrifying, and the action is as good as ever. Also, this is hands down the best looking movie out of the entire franchise; the camera work outside the airport in the snow is just gorgeous.
And the cherry on top is that this movie has one of the most creative deaths for the villain in cinema history, that just doesn't get talked enough. Over the top in all the right ways.
Trying to dismiss this movie because it's not as "realistic" as the original is stupid; there is nothing realistic about one lone cop being able to foil a terrorist attack. Get over yourselves.
Sequel Bait? More like Sequel Success.
And the cherry on top is that this movie has one of the most creative deaths for the villain in cinema history, that just doesn't get talked enough. Over the top in all the right ways.
Trying to dismiss this movie because it's not as "realistic" as the original is stupid; there is nothing realistic about one lone cop being able to foil a terrorist attack. Get over yourselves.
Sequel Bait? More like Sequel Success.
die..much harder
kairingler27 May 2008
First reason why this is better than the original.. SNOW.. and lot's of it,, the story is set in Christmas time, so you got to have snow,, love the idea of the bad guys taking over a whole entire airport,, now that is neat, i've been to Dulles more times than i care to remember,, though i don't remember the Annex Skywalk.. so this movie just rocks on all levels,, the bad guys,, and there are lot's of em,, are pretty sneaky, and clever in this one,, Bonnie Bedalia returns as Bruce Ex-wife, but as usual don't have to much to do in here, i loved the fact that Dennis Franz was in this movie,, he is such an underrated actor,, he is so funny, and i love every minute that i see him on the big screen. Bruce has lots of funny moments in this one, he has to be sort of like McGyver in this one,, trying to come up with different ways to outwit the street smart terrorists, and o yeah there is a twist in this movie,, but i can't ruin it ,, in good conscience.
Not a Bad, but a Mostly Forgettable, Rehash of the Original
leoocampo21 January 2023
Die Hard was and is more than a great film-it's a classic. It's a piece of culture. It's debatably the greatest action film of all time. So, of course, it was going to get a sequel.
And here it is! And what did we get? An attempt to have a redo... a rehash of the original, that lacks most of what made Die Hard so great.
The diminished returns are evident right from the start. See, Die Hard started out by building up to things. We meet John McClain, his lovable driver, Holly, and we are introduced nicely to the core dramatic threads that hold the story together and make it more than JUST a shootemup action flick. By the time we meet the villains and the hostage part of the plot begins to unfold, we're already thoroughly invested.
Not so with this one. Holly is on a plane and her only involvement is that she's stuck there with the same news reporter she punched in the face at the end of the last film. John is at the airport and getting himself involved in a terrorist plot that somehow they've stumbled into. The villain cast here is not bad at all, but mostly mediocre all the same. The fights and shoot outs, while often bolder in terms of blood and number of rounds expended, are somehow less intense and visceral than the best the prior film had to offer.
It lacks all the charm and crafting of the first film, while hoping that if they give us more of the same kind of action, we won't mind. Except that I did. And the action itself lacks the same heart and commitment that the action from the first had.
This is not a bad film, but easily interchangeable with just about any of the other action films of the era. This is itself a Die Hard ripoff: "Die Hard in an Airport, with Actual Die Hard". But even the cast of the original can't add the magic alone that made that eminently clone-worthy classic so special. You could easily skip this one and just go straight from Die Hard (1) to Die Hard with a Vengeance (3) and you wouldn't miss much, if anything. In fact, your overall enjoyment might be enhanced.
And here it is! And what did we get? An attempt to have a redo... a rehash of the original, that lacks most of what made Die Hard so great.
The diminished returns are evident right from the start. See, Die Hard started out by building up to things. We meet John McClain, his lovable driver, Holly, and we are introduced nicely to the core dramatic threads that hold the story together and make it more than JUST a shootemup action flick. By the time we meet the villains and the hostage part of the plot begins to unfold, we're already thoroughly invested.
Not so with this one. Holly is on a plane and her only involvement is that she's stuck there with the same news reporter she punched in the face at the end of the last film. John is at the airport and getting himself involved in a terrorist plot that somehow they've stumbled into. The villain cast here is not bad at all, but mostly mediocre all the same. The fights and shoot outs, while often bolder in terms of blood and number of rounds expended, are somehow less intense and visceral than the best the prior film had to offer.
It lacks all the charm and crafting of the first film, while hoping that if they give us more of the same kind of action, we won't mind. Except that I did. And the action itself lacks the same heart and commitment that the action from the first had.
This is not a bad film, but easily interchangeable with just about any of the other action films of the era. This is itself a Die Hard ripoff: "Die Hard in an Airport, with Actual Die Hard". But even the cast of the original can't add the magic alone that made that eminently clone-worthy classic so special. You could easily skip this one and just go straight from Die Hard (1) to Die Hard with a Vengeance (3) and you wouldn't miss much, if anything. In fact, your overall enjoyment might be enhanced.
Severely unequal sequel!
hnt_dnl19 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
DIE HARD 2 is a prime example that, in terms of film-making, in general, you can't top the original. Resistance is essentially futile! Hindsight and retrospect is a son of a gun! There have been many cases where I was immediately fooled by a sequel that had more packed in it (longer, bigger, more characters, more effects, more action, etc.) thinking with something other than my common sense! When I first saw DIE HARD 2 back in 1990 (the year it came out), I thought:
"Oh, it's not confined to that building and is instead in a big airport (Dulles), so it's got to be better!
"McClane gets to move around more, doesn't have to walk around barefoot, gets to interact with a lot of people, so it will be less uncomfortable."
"The action can be more spread out and is not restrictive. So it's got to be better."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong!
Again, with hindsight and repeated viewing, DIE HARD 2 continually gets downgraded by me as what is wrong with most Hollywood action movies, especially nowadays.
What I realize is that part of the brilliance of the original DIE HARD was it's claustrophobic nature and that by limiting the action to that one skyscraper, it allows everything to be more personal, centrally located, and focused. You had to have everything happen in that one building, so you couldn't cheat or fool the audience. By design, the filmmakers had to come up with original ideas. In a situation like DIE HARD 2, there is action HERE, THERE, and EVERYWHERE to the point of just a bunch of the same action scenes, each with non-quotable, stupid dialogue and one-liners. The action in DIE HARD 2 is not unique, nor are any of the situations scary or tense, as they were in DIE HARD.
Our hero is once again John McClane (played by the reliable action hero Bruce Willis, but this time in a thankless situation) and as previously stated, he is at Dulles Airport in D.C. waiting his wife Holly's (Bonnie Bedelia again) arriving plane so they can meet her parents for Christmas. A bad snowstorm has caused so that even planes at nearby airports must re-route to Dulles. This time, as opposed to in the original DIE HARD, these terrorists are actual terrorists, a group of U.S. military expatriates who plan to seize control of Dulles and force them to have the plane of a political prisoner routed to a special runway. This group is led by Col. Stuart (played by William Sadler). This is another huge problem with DIE HARD 2. The main villain is not effective. While in DIE HARD, Hans Gruber was truly diabolical, smart, charming, and relentless, Stuart in DIE HARD 2 is pretty much just a stock villain who has an eternal scowl on his face with no distinguishing characteristics. Very monotone character. Also, Stuart strangely doesn't seem to be fazed or surprised about McClane's involvement in trying to stop him, which I find unrealistic.
Another problem is that whereas DIE HARD had a core of memorable supporting characters (Holly, Hans, Karl, Powell, Robinson, Thornburg, etc.) each with some character believability and depth, DIE HARD 2 is populated with virtually all annoying characters (the airport personnel led by Fred Dalton Thompson and Dennis Franz are spectacularly idiotic; at least in DIE HARD, even though Robinson wasn't too bright, he had legitimate reason to believe that McClane might not be on the up and up; these airport guys had no excuse, so why waste the whole 2 hours arguing with him!). Also, I found most of the more minor characters like the flight attendants on Holly's plane, the female news reporter following McClane around like his pet, that creepy drunk guy working in the underground part of the airport, etc. all annoying.
Then you have John Amos (playing an Army major and a former colleague of Col. Stuart's) and his military squad pop in to save the day at the last minute, but again, it is not exciting or tense at all. In fact, with all the action in DIE HARD 2, none of it is thrilling, just by-the-numbers fare: fake-looking fights and machine guns going off all over the place, but without the style, flair, and, dare I say, "realism" of DIE HARD. The action situations in the original were more sparse, believable, and well-staged.
But the biggest offense of DIE HARD 2 is the cringe-inducing dialogue. It is really bad. One of the reasons many of the characters come off so bland, monotone, and annoying. I mean, it is unintentionally laughable. ALL characters are a victim to it. And finally, amazingly, although it came out only 2 years later, this sequel seems way more dated than the original. In fact, the original doesn't seem dated at all to me. DIE HARD 2 is just a mindless action flick.
"Oh, it's not confined to that building and is instead in a big airport (Dulles), so it's got to be better!
"McClane gets to move around more, doesn't have to walk around barefoot, gets to interact with a lot of people, so it will be less uncomfortable."
"The action can be more spread out and is not restrictive. So it's got to be better."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong!
Again, with hindsight and repeated viewing, DIE HARD 2 continually gets downgraded by me as what is wrong with most Hollywood action movies, especially nowadays.
What I realize is that part of the brilliance of the original DIE HARD was it's claustrophobic nature and that by limiting the action to that one skyscraper, it allows everything to be more personal, centrally located, and focused. You had to have everything happen in that one building, so you couldn't cheat or fool the audience. By design, the filmmakers had to come up with original ideas. In a situation like DIE HARD 2, there is action HERE, THERE, and EVERYWHERE to the point of just a bunch of the same action scenes, each with non-quotable, stupid dialogue and one-liners. The action in DIE HARD 2 is not unique, nor are any of the situations scary or tense, as they were in DIE HARD.
Our hero is once again John McClane (played by the reliable action hero Bruce Willis, but this time in a thankless situation) and as previously stated, he is at Dulles Airport in D.C. waiting his wife Holly's (Bonnie Bedelia again) arriving plane so they can meet her parents for Christmas. A bad snowstorm has caused so that even planes at nearby airports must re-route to Dulles. This time, as opposed to in the original DIE HARD, these terrorists are actual terrorists, a group of U.S. military expatriates who plan to seize control of Dulles and force them to have the plane of a political prisoner routed to a special runway. This group is led by Col. Stuart (played by William Sadler). This is another huge problem with DIE HARD 2. The main villain is not effective. While in DIE HARD, Hans Gruber was truly diabolical, smart, charming, and relentless, Stuart in DIE HARD 2 is pretty much just a stock villain who has an eternal scowl on his face with no distinguishing characteristics. Very monotone character. Also, Stuart strangely doesn't seem to be fazed or surprised about McClane's involvement in trying to stop him, which I find unrealistic.
Another problem is that whereas DIE HARD had a core of memorable supporting characters (Holly, Hans, Karl, Powell, Robinson, Thornburg, etc.) each with some character believability and depth, DIE HARD 2 is populated with virtually all annoying characters (the airport personnel led by Fred Dalton Thompson and Dennis Franz are spectacularly idiotic; at least in DIE HARD, even though Robinson wasn't too bright, he had legitimate reason to believe that McClane might not be on the up and up; these airport guys had no excuse, so why waste the whole 2 hours arguing with him!). Also, I found most of the more minor characters like the flight attendants on Holly's plane, the female news reporter following McClane around like his pet, that creepy drunk guy working in the underground part of the airport, etc. all annoying.
Then you have John Amos (playing an Army major and a former colleague of Col. Stuart's) and his military squad pop in to save the day at the last minute, but again, it is not exciting or tense at all. In fact, with all the action in DIE HARD 2, none of it is thrilling, just by-the-numbers fare: fake-looking fights and machine guns going off all over the place, but without the style, flair, and, dare I say, "realism" of DIE HARD. The action situations in the original were more sparse, believable, and well-staged.
But the biggest offense of DIE HARD 2 is the cringe-inducing dialogue. It is really bad. One of the reasons many of the characters come off so bland, monotone, and annoying. I mean, it is unintentionally laughable. ALL characters are a victim to it. And finally, amazingly, although it came out only 2 years later, this sequel seems way more dated than the original. In fact, the original doesn't seem dated at all to me. DIE HARD 2 is just a mindless action flick.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
