It's a sequel and that's it.
memento_mori - wrote on 08/12/13
Die Hard 2: Die Harder. More like Die Hard 2: Because every successful action movie needs a sequel.
Die Hard 2 went bigger, but it didn't go better. That just proves to show that some things can't be improved by making them larger.
This time terrorist magnet John McClane is battling terrorists in an airport, which allows him a lot of advantages, and it could have gone a lot of places.
I think the main problem of the film was the weak villain and some of the plot points in general.
We have our typical early nineties action movie formula at hand here, with many things happening on screen to help the audience appreciate and understand the plot more, not for the characters to invest their actions in.
It's not a bad action movie, it has all the good things about a fun thrill ride, and it does that well. It has various themes interwoven into the story to create tension and put our favorite main character into a tough position.
This movie is directed by Renny Harlin, and I don't think he understood the tone of Die Hard. He made this an enjoyable action flick, but it was lacking a moral core. While John McClane did get emotional, and Bruce Willis did a phenomenal job again, we didn't have the direction and plot to back up what we were seeing.
The villain as I mentioned before, was completely forgettable. The guy falls into the same category as the general from The Rock. He has a short, bare-to-bones flashed out story about why he is doing this, and we get into the action. Cliché.
Die Hard 2 was what I expected: Cliché action movie sequel. It wasn't bad, it was well-made for what it was setting out to be, but it lacked all the more maturity when it had such great potential.