Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
The most remarkable thing about sequels is that they are highly regarded as nothing more than cheap cash-ins to superior first films. "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" is no exception. But I'm probably one of the few who prefers it to the admittedly overrated "Die Hard: With a Vengeance," though the first entry remains my favorite in the franchise. Perhaps the reason I feel "Die Harder" is such a strong sequel, but much less intelligent than the first, is because it is atypical summer blockbuster fare, which I am very much a fan of. Although the original "Die Hard" is considered by some to be a popcorn flick, it is nonetheless an INTELLIGENT popcorn flick. "Die Hard 2" follows the original film's formula, only with half the smarts. As a result, we are ensured that this sequel will be a more sonically entertaining experience, but to be enjoyed on a more basic level.

You can't get mad at that, though. "Die Harder" is a by-the-books summer blockbuster that probably would have been better received if it had been a standalone action flick and not a sequel to the now-classic original. The film manages to work, though, because it takes a different approach to the then-flourishing "Die Hard" formula. The first picture had an intelligent edge that most action pictures of the time lacked. It sold tickets. "Die Hard 2" sees the John McClane character - as well as Bruce Willis - truly become an action hero and star. The film is loaded with spectacular set pieces, bloody shootouts and numerous explosions, as well as a pace that is as frenetic as frenetic can be.

John McTiernan, director of the original, was replaced by newcomer Renny Harlin for this second outing. It’s debatable whether or not Harlin was a better fit than McTiernan (for the concept of the film… probably). Harlin obviously wanted a slightly different picture than the type of smart action/adventure McTiernan delivered with the first. Willis’ McClane, though still not quite the invincible action hero he would become in “Live Free or Die Hard,” is the obvious focus of the film. The character evades incredulous amounts of gun fire by rolling, ducking, driving, and ejecting. Harlin shrouds the film in shadows, slow-motion, and more squibs than you can shake a stick at. While the first “Die Hard” was violent, there is more than enough violence and bloodshed here for two films.

The only thing truly disappointing about “Die Harder” is that the performances aren’t as strong as those in the first film. Sure, Willis is great as always and what little we see of Reginald Veljohnson (Sgt. Al Powell) is terrific, but many of the new faces were underwhelming. The film’s main antagonist, Col. Stewart (William Sadler), just can’t compete with the likes of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) from the first film, nor any of his more charismatic henchmen. An Argyle-ish character would have been nice, as would a much welcomed return of the infamous limo driver, but he is absent. John Amos is decent, as is Dennis Franz, but many of the side characters are hurt by weak actors and poor scripting. Even Willis’ one-liners this time out didn’t seem as amusing.

Though some may consider it a cheap imitation of a better film, “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” ratchets up the violence, the explosions, the FX, and the action via a much higher budget. This picture, in a nutshell, is the first “Die Hard” set in an airport with a different director and a "bigger is better" mentality. While the movie could have used better casting and a more intelligent script, "Die Harder" is entertaining in a dumb action flick sort of way. As far as sequels go, this is still one of the best. It may only expound on an already-established formula by making everything “bigger,” but isn’t that what a sequel is supposed to do?

9/10
Avatar
Added by Loyal-T
16 years ago on 25 February 2008 23:18