The right sequel : "Die Hard 2", in the right place : an airport, at the right time : Christmas ...

Rating: 9/10 (2 November 2011)

"You're the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time", to which John McClane replies "Story of my life" and he's damn right!
"Die Hard 2" is the continuation of McTiernam's 1988's groundbreaking action masterpiece with quite an ambitious premise: being even more spectacular, suspenseful, violent and thrilling than the first. Well, since it couldn't have been as fresh as the irreplaceable "Die Hard", it better had to succeed on the other departments. And it sure did ...
Let's make a little calculation: how many innocent people died in "Die Hard"? Well, there is the first Security Guard behind the desk who, let's face it, was doomed from the beginning, the second Security Guard, Nakatomi's General Manager Mr. Takagi, a shocking death but necessary plot-wise to convince us about Gruber's evilness and determination, and last but not least, there was Ellis who, like the two FBI Johnsons, had it coming. And after that, we could have a break  4 innocent people when it could have been ten times more, not the most disastrous body count on the 'good guys' side.
Now, let's consider the second opus of the "Die Hard" trilogy, Renny Harlin's "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" (and $10,000.00 to whoever remembers the name of director). Now, there's about two hundred people dying in a plane crash, where you could hear some agonizing screams before a giant explosion. This was one hell of a gut-wrenching scene that immediately put the notion of 'mission succeeded' into perspective. But I guess, when the lives of thousands and thousands people are hanging by a thread, right there, in the air, one can consider it as a good score. Well, it's still for me hard to imagine that one director had the guts to kill off so many innocent people just like that. Yes, there were the first troop of cops, and that was quite disturbing, but it was part of their job. The 'Windsor' crash will remain one of the most disturbingly evil acts from an action film and the word is an understatement. But without it, "Die Hard 2" would only have been a sort of "Die Hard in an airport", while the crash makes you totally forget about the first opus, and John McClane's heart-breaking reaction makes the moment even more powerful.
Sorry to occupy so many lines for what I consider the emotional highlight of the film, but this is the part that I always fear whenever I watch the film and I'll never forget how it haunted me the first time I saw it. After that, I couldn't get the evilness of the antagonist Colonel Sadler off my mind, he's probably one of the most underrated villains, especially because his actions were not even inspired by greed, Sadler was the quintessential terrorist, in his exploitation of fear and sheer terror for political reasons. I don't even think I'm reading too much, because "Die Hard 2" has a great capability to inspire the most basic reactions toward the characters, especially the antagonists, who belong to a more one-dimensional kind of villains. They can kill everyone in the most cold-blooded way, and this evilness makes the most gruesome deaths, from their side, kind of satisfying. While the first "Die Hard" was based on the interaction between McClane and Gruber, this one relies on the level of action to accomplish the mission, and the suspense guided by the urgency of the situation: planes stuck in the air on the Christmas Eve with no lighting to guide them to the airport.
McClane is in the wrong place at the wrong moment, again, it's Chritsmas, again, his wife is in danger, again, and he's got to go through basements and elevators... again. But these similarities are only the plot elements that contribute to recreate a nice feeling of déjà vu, necessary to enjoy a movie series especially thanks to Bruce Willis' portrayal of John McClane, as charming and charismatic as ever, with everybody against him forced to act by himself. Apart from that, he movie is totally different from "Die Hard" in terms of violence and body count. It even raised the level of violence to epic proportions, if there was ever an epic-action film, it would be "Die Hard 2: Die Harder", featuring so many thrilling sequences, especially one involving an ejection seat, that any attempt to question some plot details is useless. Yes, there are many moments where you wonder how this or that solution couldn't have been used but like its glorious predecessor, the movie captivates your body and mind in such a way, you don't have time for purist technicality
Why are they all cheering and laughing their asses off after the resolution, while so many people died? Why is McClane so reluctant to get into an ambulance? Why should he care about his parking ticket? It's not a movie to judge rationally, it's a good old popcorn film that respect its promise of pure entertainment, but not without a certain amount of shock and gore. The film is much more violent than the first one, and some part can traumatize sensitive eyes, but for the rest, it works as a solid follow-up, respecting the spirit of whatever made the first "Die Hard" so memorable, at least more than the third opus.
I've always enjoyed "Die Hard 2" and never got the criticism... but I'm sure that among those who visited the threads of IMDb or read the harsh reviews before watching the film, a vast majority would be surprised by the quality of the sequel, probably one of the best movie sequels in an action series. And Yippie-ki-Yay, IMDb users!