Not as good as the other two films.

Rating: 5/10 (9 June 2002)

Die hard is one of the greatest action films of all time,die hard with a vengeance is almost good,but to be honest i was never all that keen on this second one. Having a different director wasn't a good start(renny harin takes over from john mctiernan)but the main quilty party is the script,IT PLODS TO MUCH. In the original, maclane was in endless danger and was never truly safe until the very end of film,in the wrong place at the wrong time. In this one,maclane is more of your typical super sleuth trying to work thing's out in the safety of the dulles air tower while the radio controller's speek boring tecnical jargon. Theres none of the claustrophobic tension of the first film. william sandler isn't as interesting as alan rickman's bad guy,it isn't as if he is a bad actor or anything(watch him as the grim reaper in bill and teds bogus journey,he's a scream)it's just that his character isn't as well written. But the main thing that is offputting about this one is the violence. Don't get me wrong,i am no pussy when it comes to shocking images,and the original was hardly a bed of roses,but this goes to far. the icicle in the eye belongs more at home in a paul verhoeven film.(infact there was a similar scene in total recall which came out in the same summer as die hard 2)but where as verhoeven does everything in an over the top,irony laden fassion,this does it with no hummor at all. Put that and a sickly sentimental ending(and to be honest the first one was quite moving in place's)that is up there with soldier as the most unconvincing happy ending in a action movie and you have another run of the mill follow up cashing in on the succes of the original. The intermitent action interludes are well done,but that is about it.
5/10