What can I say about “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” that hasn’t already been said? Of course, they tried to up the ante and they didn’t try to be as wacky as later sequels. But, hey wacky is fun, and a serious John McClane is kind of just a stupid Bruce Willis movie that I could care less about.
Once again, the story takes place on Christmas Eve with McClane stopping terrorist and saving his estranged wife in the process. Now, why the original worked and the sequel didn’t:
- Location, location, location. The original “Die Hard” works on a more systematic and entertaining level due to the fact that the entire plot and action take place in one large building. The sequel gives us the typical boiler room crap that we deserve, but falls flat with the plane being the ultimate vehicle driving this film.
- Not enough one-liners. Yeah, they’re corny as hell (“Yippie-kai-yay…”), but they are what make the over-the-top action film memorable. Besides the explosions, of course.
- The explosions are sub-par. Yeah, no one was expecting Michael Bay or John Woo-style eccentrics, but the film lacks sufficient action. The action just doesn’t compare to the original and that’s just not “hard” enough.
- The bad guy. Yeah, it’s pretty badass how well Colonel Stuart can organize a terrorist group. But, are amazing organization and directorial skills really that menacing? Also, William Sadler as Stuart just plays as a sour mimicry of Alan Rickman’s villain in the original.
- Too much good cop. I never really felt in this film like I did in the first film that McClane was working on his own and not playing by the book. Of course he knocks his knee hard into some terrorist faces at times, but I just feel this is all McClane’s weakest.
Now, the only thing “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” did well was give Reginald VelJohnso (aka Carl Winslow from “Family Matters”) a brief cameo, as he was such an integral part to the original.
