Bigger doesn't always mean better.

Rating: 7/10 (8 December 2012)

The explosions and body count in Die Hard 2 are both bigger, but that doesn't mean a better film, especially when it doesn't have enough action in-between scenes to balance it out! I was surprised when there wasn't as much action in Die Hard 2 as Die Hard. Die Hard's tongue in cheek attitude with mindblowing and intelligent action sequences is the prime formula for an action film done right. So, then I decided that I had to see Die Harder: Die Hard 2, which sounded great. So, I rented it and I was a little disappointed. For one, it was completely different that I thought it would be. When I heard that terrorists took over an airport, I expected that terrorists would TAKE OVER the AIRPORT, rather than the control tower and shut off the landing lights, leaving the people inside the terminals (and in the planes, too for some reason) completely oblivious to what's happening. This kind of disappointed me, because there were a lot of good action sequence opportunities lost. Also, even though the first film was tongue in cheek, this one was REALLY tongue in cheek. I mean, they really turned up the heat on satire here!
Now onto the real criticisms. Die Hard 2 is actually about McClane in Washington D.C for some reason, who's waiting at Dulles airport on *Christmas eve* for his wife, Holly. But he discovers some punks armed with the woefully fictional Glock 7 pistols who seem to be heavily funded. He tells airport security, but they tell him, who is, might I add, a hero for fighting terrorists, to shove it and wouldn't you know it, terrorists take over the control tower and demand the release of a drug kingpin (that was for some reason flying into Dulles on Christmas eve) or else they will cause all the planes to crash. Now it's up to John to stop the baddies before the planes run out of fuel and crash. There are very few fight scenes in this movie, because most of the suspense comes from a 'race against the clock' feel to the story rather than a life or death situation with guns. Not that this is a bad thing, but it doesn't seem like McClane is the hero until the last 20 minutes. Otherwise he is just running around the runways. In fact, most of this film doesn't even take place in the actual airport!
Let's get to the villain. In the first Die Hard, Alan Rickman played a rather suave yet somehow also sociopathic villain Hans Gruber, a German terrorist after money and willing to kill for it. His performance blew me away and he remains one of the greatest villains of all time. The villain in this movie is Colonel Stuart, a man who is supposedly a martial arts expert for some reason, but this is never actually used except for when he is practicing *naked* in a hotel room. Colonel Stuart is a good idea for a villain, but he does not stand out like Rickman's groundbreaking performance. This one is barely even in the movie, and the only really disturbing scene he has is when he pulls a gun on one of his accomplices. I like his character, how he believes in what he is doing and all, but he didn't receive near enough development to be a good villain. Simon from Die Hard with a Vengeance was superior until the film's woozy third act.
Even so, there are some pretty serious glaring plot holes that kind of muddle the film's pace. Just to name a few, why wouldn't the planes fly to a different airport, like Reagan? They never explained that! And why could a band of heavily armed mercenaries that could dispatch a SWAT team not kill a guy rolling around with a pistol? It's not that this film isn't believable, it just has problems with logic, which sucks because Die Hard had inevitable problems that were explained in a clear manner.
Directed by Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger, Deep Blue Sea), Die Hard 2 delivers the goods, but it doesn't live up to it's predecessor in terms of action scenes, script or character development. It does have fantastic pace, but it isn't even a very similar movie to Die Hard, but I suppose that's why these movies are so great, they are all original in some way. But this film is just too long and too empty to be a worthy sequel to Die Hard. (How could it?) I never checked my watch ONCE in Die Hard, but here, especially during the last half, I checked it a couple times. But at least it tried to be something a little different and more intelligent, which I can appreciate.
Here's how these movies are: Die Hard: Best action film ever made. Die Hard 2: Good follow-up and better than 3, but not better than 4 in terms of quality.
(ALSO: the Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson) cameo made my day! Loved it, but wish he could have had a bigger role!)
A solid 7/10.