Duro de Matar 2

...but other than that, there's very little going against the second in the series. It helps (but not enough) that the character realizes he's basically in a sequel. There are some minor variations in the formula, but basically the movie relies on the Bruce Willis' charisma and humor, and elaborate action sequences. William Sadler is okay, but no Alan Rickman (or Jeremy Irons in #3). It's still enjoyable, though.

Bruce Willis returns as John McClane who this time faces off against mercenaries who have taken over an airport and are threatening to have all the plane crashes, McClane's wife Holly(Bonnie Bedelia) is on one such plane and so it's McClane back in action as he ponders how the same thing can happen to the same guy twice. Die Hard 2 to tell you the truth was a mixed bag. On one hand it had lots of action and a brutal edge to the action but also lacks the suspense of the first. In either case though Die Hard 2 is not bad as sequels go. Indeed even though it's directed by Renny Harlin, Die Hard 2 works in-spite of itself. The only flaw is that the movie is feels too much like a carbon copy of the first film only with a bigger is better approach to the stunts. That being said this is a minor flaw to behold and one really doesn't understand the mixed reaction to this film, when the movie is overall very entertaining.

* * * out of 4-(Good)

For those who argue that Die Hard 2 is a desperate re-hash of the original... So what? I didn't expect a companion piece like The Godfather Part II. Die Hard was about a really cool guy in a really bad situation, and the result was probably the greatest action movie ever made. Die Hard 2 achieves status on its own just by being about the same thing. When so many movies want to be Die Hard but fail, why not just make another Die Hard? Director Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger)realized that because it's a sequel, there had to be more stunts and explosions. So there is. Die Hard 2 (appropriately called Die Harder) ups the ante a bit and has fun with a flurry of furious action scenarios. The fight on the wing of the plane is a classic in its own right, and Die Hard 2 stands alone as one of the best of the genre.

Like the Lethal Weapon films of the late 80's and early 90's i found the Die Hard films to be very satisfying action entertainment.Much seems to be made of this sequel being inferior to its predecessor but i thought that it matched Die Hard for scale and has some breathtaking moments of action.Bruce Willis is still on top form as our hero and the airport setting during the busy Christmas period gives the film a positive buzz and a certain sense of hyperactivity.Although the film is missing a villain as much fun as Alan Rickmans Hans Gruber,William Sadler is nonetheless bad enough to hate and actually turns out a lot more ruthless than Gruber.In summary director Renny Harlin has succeeded in making a quick paced film that retains the sense of scale felt in the first film whilst making the most of Bruce Willis comic timing and action man charisma. 8/10

Okay, I have one big problem with this sequel to Die Hard. The movie was entertaining at times with McClain taking on more bad-ass terrorists and their ultra-elaborate plan. But unlike the first film in this series, this particular entry was utterly preposterous. Sure, the action of the first was huge and explosive itself, but in the scheme of the movie it always basically made sense. In Die Hard 2 though, there were individual scenes that made no sense, and a plot with holes so big you could fly a 747 through them. I do not mean to be the overly discriminating film reviewer who knit-picks at technical details and writes the movie off as a result. No, if you see one or even a handful of discrepancies, things that violate reality, you dismiss them. But this movie is just a series of them, over and over and over. I mean, how can you shut your brain off that much and just sit back and enjoy the action, when the movie couldn't happen in a million years for reasons that you don't even have to be some kind of expert to be conscious of. For example, at the beginning of the movie, National Airport is shut down because of the snow and you hear airport controllers discussing how they will be taking over its flight load. So my question is, if the terrorists disable Dulles, couldn't the reverse occur? How could the terrorists have counted on National being shut down for a snowstorm when they'd been planning for months? And then of course there is Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), which was never even mentioned of course, that may have come in handy for people trying to land planes circling over DC. Also, how can they expect us to believe that the planes circling overhead are doomed to crash in two hours when they run out of fuel, when a flight from DC to Memphis, Philly, New York, or Atlanta takes less than that. And of course, why couldn't the controllers have transmitted to the planes using radios in planes that were already on the ground? My point is, you just can't sidestep reality in such a plethora of ways and expect an audience to follow you through the whole plot. If you have to do that so much to make your movie work then perhaps it never should have been made. Oh yeah, and having John McClain simply say at one point, 'How can the same thing happen to the same guy twice?', doesn't successfully negate the fact the odds on that are too infinitesimal to even be contemplated. So, bottom line, it had too many holes to be enjoyable, even though it was only trying to entertain with a series of explosions. The first movie was so much more plausible, and that's why people actually buy the first one by itself. I have a feeling the vast majority of Die Hard 2 owners bought it as part of the trilogy set, mostly as a means of seeing the other two.

P.S. I almost forgot about the grenades that took 20+ seconds to explode. Riiiiigghhht.