Why Die Hard 2 rocks!


Die Hard 2 is one of the best examples of the genre and fully deserves its place in the series.

Let's be clear, Harlin is a workmanlike director - he doesn't bring the style and sophistication of McTiernan. McT understands and commands the artform as well as the finest filmmakers out there. Like Speilberg, he FEELS the medium and understands its musical, temporal quality while also having an eye for realism and a knack for eliciting precise performances from actors (as well as knowing how to blow shït up good). Give him a pulpy but well-crafted screenplay and you get masterworks like Die Hard and, to a slightly lesser extent, With A Vengeance.

Joel Silver is a smart and successful producer. He knew that without McTiernan he could still cook up a good sequel by surrounding a competent storyteller who understands TENSION with talent. The original screenwriters returned to create a script founded on a good page-turner, as with the first film. Much of the supporting cast returned. Master composer Michael Kamen returned. Master editor Stuart Baird was brought in, as well as an additional supporting cast composed of strong players like Dennis Franz, Fred Dalton Thompson and John Amos.

With all that in place, and guided by Silver's shrewd eye, Harlin just had to put it all together. Not only did he achieve that, he peppers the film with some of his own masterful touches. One of his biggest contributions was having the villains crash a full passenger plane (the studio wanted a cargo plane to go down), this change by Harlin brings the film firmly into disaster movie territory and makes act 2 of the story a MAJOR game changer. The film spends enough time showing McClane and others' emotional reactions to the tragedy to honour such a horrific event, and it propels the story into act 3 with charged momentum.

Harlin's other contribution is his excellent handling of tension-filled action. Nifty set-pieces like climbing out of the runway vent in the nick of time before being squished by a landing plane, the gun on the conveyor belt, the cunning ejector-seat escape. These last-second escapes from certain death while being trapped are a specialty of Harlin's and he turns them to high-points of the entire genre. They didn't have the filmmaking technology to quite pull off the ambitious ejector-escape shot convincingly, but the idea itself is inspired (and was copied in Goldeneye).

Inventive deaths which exploit the environment also pepper the film. Icicle-in-the-eye, minced in a jet engine, crushed in a baggage conveyor - the film fully explores the possibilities of its confined location. Harlin, from Finland, relishes the snow-filled black night which becomes a memorable visual texture of the film. He also relishes brutal bloody violence, and ensures that bullet wounds explode with blood and slit throats bleed profusely, as they should - none of the sanitised, safe, bland, restrained, DHINO-style distorted-for-kids take on violence here.

The story's pacing is excellent. The pieces are all set up in an unhurried, assured way, making sure that the playing field and the characters are clear and detailed so that when the shït hits the fan the impact is that much more affecting. Act 2's plane crash works because of this. The confinement works as it did in Die Hard - engrossing us as each new phase of the combat takes us deeper into the night. Die Hard 2 also features arguably the series' best finalé - a spectacular blow up all of the bad guys in one move with a cigarette lighter. It's inspired.

Criticisms of the film's ridiculous similarities to it's predecessor are moot - this is pulp material done well, but still pulp. I wanna see Indiana Jones go on a globe-trotting adventure in pursuit of an ancient artefact every few years. I wanna see James Bond suavely save the world from some twisted villain every few years. And I wanna see blue collar cop John McClane take on terrorists (or robbers if you must) every few years. As long as it's done well, the concept is so strong that it DESERVES multiple interpretations.

As a Die Hard film, Die Harder is a more straightforward and serious thriller, lacking the richness and sophistication of its predecessor, but full of memorable flourishes and genre highlights. Crucially, it retains the spirit of the series, is built on strong foundations, and respects the character of McClane - none of which can be said for the juvenile sellout mess that is DHINO (Die Hard In Name Only aka Die Hard 4)

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1573-die-hard-2/discuss/58b22a099251415b21016692?language=it-IT

reply

Harlin's other contribution is his excellent handling of tension-filled action. Nifty set-pieces like climbing out of the runway vent in the nick of time before being squished by a landing plane, the gun on the conveyor belt, the cunning ejector-seat escape. These last-second escapes from certain death while being trapped are a specialty of Harlin's and he turns them to high-points of the entire genre.


100% right, the action is amazing in this film.

He also relishes brutal bloody violence, and ensures that bullet wounds explode with blood and slit throats bleed profusely, as they should - none of the sanitised, safe, bland, restrained, DHINO-style distorted-for-kids take on violence here..


That's not a good thing. The action movies of that era (early 90s) were always marred by gratutious violence and profanity. It didn't do anything to improve it.

reply

Of course it did, it was both realistic and highly entertaining. Neutered PG-13 violence is fake and dull, and blue collar characters in deadly situations should curse like sailors. The only reason they don’t in PG-13 fare is to make more money - pure studio greed.

reply

There can be a balance between a wuss PG-13 and the more extreme gratuitous stuff. I'd say Terminator 1 & 2 are good examples of giving you violence without reveling in it, same with the profanity.

reply

I wouldn’t change a frame or line of dialogue in the Die Hard Trilogy, nor any other great 80’s and 90’s action movie. They are the gold standard and nearly everything since has been shit.

reply

Yeah, nothing like the action movies of that era.

reply

The problem with Die Hard 2 is that Renny Harlin is a mediocre director. The bad guys fire dozens of bullets at John Mcclane and miss every shot, despite being at practically point blank range.

Contrast this to the first Die Hard where Mcclane actually outsmarted the bad guys and didn’t rely on plot armour to survive, he lived off his wits.

reply

Pay better attention next time when you watch. The bad guys were firing blanks at the church and so was the army that was called in to help

reply

I’m talking about when they’re shooting at Mcclane on his snowmobile and they have worse aim than stormtroopers. Also grenades having 30 second fuses.

Why don’t you pay attention more next time, little bitch

reply

They shot up the snowmobile or did you not realize this. Also it was snowing outside so there was little visibility. I suggest re watching this before asking dumb questions. They used grenades with 30 second fuses so they had time to move away from the explosion. Does everything have to be spoon fed to you?

reply

What are you, stupid? You’re telling me trained soldiers can’t kill an unarmed guy on a snowmobile from 10 feet away? Are snowmobiles magically bullet proof? It wasn’t even snowing that heavily during that scene.

Why would they use grenades with 30 second fuses that give him ample time to escape or throw them back? That’s like the least effective weapon ever. Do you even know anything about grenades?

At what point does rewatching the scene somehow make it any better or less idiotic? Goddamn you’re fucking stupid

reply

Everything was answered in the movie. You need to re watch the movie again.

reply

I got a better idea, why don’t you go fek yerself

reply

I would tell you to go fek yourself but I’m pretty sure you’d be disappointed. Now go re watch the movie again and maybe you will understand it better this time around

reply

I’m too busy verbally feking you right now

Why don’t you go rewatch the movie and finally realize how feking stupid it is, and stop acting like a little biatch cuz you lost the argument, nimrod

reply

I don't have to re watch the movie. I already understand it all and have zero questions.

reply

You mean zero brain cells

reply

It also has a clever plot twist when its revealed that the army called in is working for the bad guys. It was one of the greatest plot twists up until a few years ago when Rey was revealed to be a Palpatine, and then for her to call herself a Skywalker

reply

You copied someone else’s post exactly, it’s on to first page of this comment section titled ‘incredible sequel’ wrote 5 years ago by a poster called Drooch and you pass off as your own?

Why you do this?

reply

I didn’t. I linked to where I originally read this at the bottom of my post.

reply

Why repost it, it’s in the first page, not like it’s back at the end

reply

I read the essay on another website, the website I linked to, I didn’t know it also appeared here in Moviechat.

reply

He fooled me , i thought "Hmm usually Melton is just abusing people , calling them homos and sucking Trump dick , and here he is writing this articulate movie critique , I didnt think he had it in him"

reply