Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

bitomurder Two years after the immensely successful Die Hard, John McTiernan, Bruce Willis, and Twentieth Century Fox teamed up to unleash another John McClane adventure onto the world. Many people do not realize this, but twenty years ago sequels were not usually the bigger and better masterpieces that they always seem to be today. Back in the day, a sequel was often times thrown together to make a quick buck and only the biggest movies ever got the budget to live up to the quality that the first one produced. Die Hard 2: Die Harder was given this royal treatment, but despite everything working in its favor, this one fell short of its predescessor. I guess what disappoints me in this one is the guys' unwillingness to do anything different. A good sequel should be bigger and better than the original and add something more to the overall series, something fresh and interesting if you will. Die Hard 2 falls short in this category. This one seems like a simple rehashing of the same story. John McClane gets unwitting caught up in a terrorist attack and he comes through to save the day despite overwhelming odds against him. This one again takes place on Christmas in Washington D.C. instead of L.A. The story really does not give us anything new, nor do we see anything but the same John McClane. Unlike the other three movies in the series, John plays exactly the same person who has not grown at all since the last time we seen him. With that being said, Bruce Willis stills gives creedence to the character that he made famous. Returning from the first movie, Bonnie Bedlia as his wife, Holly, and William Atherton as the arrorgant TV reporter, Richard Thornburg give us a bird's eye view of the terrorist attack from the skies, but that sub plot seemed to drag down the movie a little for me. Good performances were given by Art Evans playing Leslie Barnes and by Republican presidential nominee Fred Thompson as Trudeau, the man running Dulles Airport. However, William Sadler gave a weak performance as the movie's protagonist, and he kind of makes you wish that John McClane had not killed Hans Gruber in the first one. So, Die Hard 2: Die Harder did little to recapture the power that the first in the series seemed to sweat out of ever pour. It was basically the same movie with a slight twist in situation to make it feel fresh. Still, this is a Die Hard movie, and it gives us enough humor and action packed adventure to leave us satisfied after the whole experience is over. Unlike so many sequels that, back in the eighties and early nineties, seemed tired and useless except to bring the overall feel of the first movie down, Die Hard 2: Die Harder is worth the 124 minutes to catch up with an old friend.

Owen Ogletree While it doesn't quite live up to the action masterpiece that is the first "Die Hard," this was still an excellent sequel. It has plenty of action and one-liners to come around.Bruce Willis once again nails the role of John McClain. Like the last time, he is both human and tough as nails. It just makes you appreciate him that much more when you think about how he degenerated into a Superman figure in the 4th and 5th films in the series.Renny Harlin does a good job directing this movie, properly building suspense. The story may be another terrorist plot, but they managed to really make it work. There was a plot twist that was extremely well done which I won't spoil. The airport was a nice setting for the conflict to take place in, and I also liked the snowy atmosphere.The action scenes are an absolute blast. The action taking place at the airport was great, and the last 30 minutes of the film kept me on the edge of my seat.The reasons it isn't quite as good as the first one is because it isn't quite as briskly paced and the villains, while still good, aren't nearly as memorable as Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber.However, I was still very pleased with this sequel overall. I consider this movie to be very underrated and a great action movie in its own right. Check this one out.RATING: A-

MaximumMadness "Die Hard 2" is one of those sequels that is unfortunately just a little too in love with what came before to really stand on its own. You know what I'm talking about... movies like "Ghostbusters 2" or "Rush Hour 2" that simply coast by on repeating what worked in the original while doing little else to differentiate itself, other than changing the setting or upping the stakes a bit. Yes, after the neo- classic that was the original "Die Hard", it seems like the production team and director Renny Harlin were perhaps a bit frightened of the prospect of a follow-up, so they played it safe. And I can definitely understand that reasoning, and I don't necessarily even blame them for it. But still, it has to be said... the best moments of "Die Hard 2" are those few fleeting glimpses of originality that are occasionally injected into key sequences. The rest of it? Just a slightly inferior retread of what came before. Is it bad? No, not by any stretch. But it is a bit of a step backwards.A few years after saving the day at Nakatomi Paza, New York cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) is on his way to pick up his wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) at Washington Dulles International Airport on Christmas Eve. However, there's a game afoot, as a group of evil former Special Forces operatives headed by the vile Colonel Stuart (William Sadler) seize control of the airport in an attempt to free General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero)- a drug lord and dictator from the nation of Val Verde who is being transported to the US to be tried for his crimes. With the planes in the air held hostage, McClane must now battle his way through the airport in order to stop this deadly scheme and save the day- and his wife- once again.To give credit where it is due, the cast is uniformly excellent. Willis is as charming and charismatic as ever, and it's fun seeing him back in the role that helped define his super-stardom. Especially now with the added bonus of him being somewhat self-aware of just how ridiculous it is to be in this situation once again, which generates some good humor and informs the character. Bedalia is a ton of fun in her returning role as Holly, and it's a shame that she didn't continue to play the part in future installments. She helped ground John and make him feel like a real person. William Sadler is adequately menacing as our lead villain, and though he's no Hans Gruber, you'll definitely love to hate Colonel Stuart. There's also some really nice supporting roles, including a blink-and-you'll-miss-it pre-T2 Robert Patrick as one of Stuart's thugs and a really fun cameo from Reginald VelJohnson as his iconic character Al Powell.Finnish director Renny Harlin takes the seat helm this entry in the series, and I think he does a really great job visually and aesthetically, especially given this was his first massive film. He's got a good sense of composition and flow that works well for the material, and he knows how to paint thrilling and stylish sequences of bloody action and harrowing stakes with ease. Even with his background mainly in the world of horror, he proves himself quite capable. It's almost a shame in retrospect, especially seeing where his career has gone in recent years with a string of critical and commercial failures. The man knows how to make a fun flick... and I hope he recovers and is able to deliver on his promise once again.Written by original co-writer Steven E. de Souza and series newcomer Doug Richardson, the script is the source of both the film's most rampant strengths and also its most tragic failures. Penning a sequel is always a hard thing to do, especially with high stakes and even higher expectations. And I do think that de Souza and Richardson for the most part capture the spirit of the original. And at its best, there are some really great sequences. I particularly admired some later scenes where McClane is actually about to leave the airport, as it not only broadened the story but also showed us something new and exciting. And its these moments of originality where the film most shines. However, as I mentioned above, the problem is that there seems to be an inherent fear to try too much new with the film. And thus, it often boils down to just simply re-using tired and true ideas from the first film. Lots of McClane crawling through vents while complaining. Lots of shoot- outs in small spaces. Lots of people talking over the radio. And even some secondary characters like William Atherton's smarmy reporter Richard Thornburg are brought back in wholly superfluous supporting roles, for no other reason than the film to highlight them in an attempt to win the audience over with nostalgia. It feels too "safe" for a "Die Hard" movie, and the inability to take any real risks brings it down a lot.Thankfully, it's not a deal breaker. The excellent performances, likable characters and sharp visual direction are able to overcome many of the fundamental issues in the storytelling. In the end, "Die Hard 2" never reaches the great heights of the original. And outside of a certain fifth film that I like to pretend doesn't exist because it's unwatchable, it's probably the weakest of the series. But it's still most certainly a "Die Hard" film at its core, and it's still a ton of fun. It just can't quite elevate itself beyond the level of "pretty good" due to it just repeating what came before but with somewhat less flair.I give "Die Hard 2" a decent 7 out of 10. Fans of the original should check it out, but don't go in expecting another classic.

Filipe Neto This is the second film in "Die Hard" series, which runs around the character of Detective John McClane. In this film, he will face a terrorist group that takes control of an airport near Washington DC. Directed by Renny Harlin, the film has a screenplay by Doug Richardson and Steven E. de Souza. Bruce Willis takes the lead role.This is a sequel, and it's difficult for them to maintain the original movie's level. This was no exception, despite continuing to be a watchable film, that will appeal to the majority of the public looking for this genre of movie. It does not escape much to what are the action films of this time or change the formula used in the first film, with the exception of changing the setting for an airport in rush hour. This, ultimately, makes the film more boring than the first, because it doesn't bring anything new or different.Bruce Willis managed to remain at the level of expectations, with a very consistent and competent performance. The rest of the cast does not stand out, but also does not make blunders. The special, visual and sound effects were well done, the scenery is good and realistic. The script is the worst part of the film: with a very low quality, it has obvious plot holes and creates so fantastic situations that eventually become implausible.