A reasonable sequel

Rating: Null/10 (8 January 2006)

There's nothing new or fresh in Die Hard 2, indeed it's a shameless rehash, but that doesn't stop it from being rather enjoyable (although, unlike the first one, not always for the right reasons).
One of the nicest surprises as regards Die Hard 2 (if nice is the correct way to put it) is just how violent it is. I mean, perhaps I've seen the edited television version too many times, but I'd forgot just how nasty some of it is. For example, there's a bit where John McClane stabs someone in the eye with an icicle. It's extremely gruesome. And the moment is made rather funny when Renny Harlin on the commentary says that he tried to do the stabbing tastefully. There's nothing tasteful about it! You see it in extreme detail. But that's why I like it. I'm fed up with PG-13 action films that skimp on blood and guts. Therefore it's nice to see some good old-fashioned gratuitous violence. (But I think the filmmakers missed a trick by not having McClane say, "Ice to meet you" when he pierced the bad guy's eyeball.)
Then there's the bit where one of the soldiers gets his throat slit. You get blood, a gaping wound and plenty of deathly gasping. Oh how I miss OTT action film deaths.
And let's not forget the bit where the bad guy crashes a jet plane. This isn't one or two people getting killed; this is a couple of hundred. And although I'm sure some people probably harp on about it being disturbing in light of September 11th, it's not really. In fact, it's rather funny, especially when it's a plane full of clichéd English characters  the pilot says, "Where the devil have you been?" (because, according to American screenwriters, the English don't swear), one of the stewardesses looks like Princess Diana and makes references to British Rail, and a distraught passenger looks like the dear old Queen Mum. So to me it's highly amusing when a screaming plane-full of fellow limeys goes up in flames (the Queen Mother, in complete contrast to the Dunkirk spirit, is the loudest screamer). And the scene's good because it ups the ante to ridiculous heights. You really want McClane to kick ass.
Oh sweet Jesus. Asses. I've just remembered one of the film's opening images  William Sadler's sweaty arse. Why the hell does his character train in the buff? It doesn't make any sense. You don't fight in the nude. Well, you might 'fight' naked (with your sword), but you don't fight in the naked with your fists. Wait. No, scratch that But I guess this man-nakedness is meant to show that Saddler's body is a lethal weapon. He's taunt, he's tight and he's, er, stiff.
McClane on the other hand is surprisingly masculine for an 80s action hero (the film may have come out in 1990 but it's undeniably an 80s action film). He even flirts with women! Get that; an action hero that would actually rather be around women than men who train in the nude. Arnie wouldn't approve.
But compared to the first Die Hard there isn't much chemistry between McClane and the bad guy. Indeed, while completely mental, Saddler's bad guy is rather bland. But he does get points for employing a henchman who looks like Nigel Mansell (a man who gets his head crushed Indiana Jones-style).
One of the stupidest things in Die Hard 2 (and there are many) is the way that Dick Thornburg (William Atherton aka Walter Peck) is on the same plane as McClane's wife. What a coincidence! But still, as badly contrived as the whole thing is, it still makes me laugh, especially when Thornburg delivers a narcissistic report on the crapper and then gets zapped by the mad old biddy on board (the speech is actually rather fantastic in how unbelievable it is: "But at least the truth is NOT among the hostages because I, Richard Thornburg, just happen to be here, to put his life and TALENT on the line for humanity and country, and if this should be my final broadcast")
Also guiltily amusing is the stupid Chief. Really, there isn't a film Chief that is as stupid and shouty as Dennis Franz's Lorenzo. He's entirely incompetent. And then there's the female news reporter. She always talks like she's delivering a report, even during normal conversation. And at the end, there's a hilarious moment when she finally exercises some journalistic restraint  she covers the lens when McClane and wife hug and kiss. It should be said that she has no qualms about shoving a camera into the face of bloody carnage; your gruesome death is public property. But something heart-warming, something upbeat and positive; oh that's private. No one wants to see that. (Another funny thing is that when the cameraman sees McClane and wife hugging and kissing, he says, "God that's beautiful." Yeah, big 80s hair meets sweaty, bloody, balding rozzer; beautiful!)
But actually, I agree with the female news reporter. Who wants to see kissing when you have panicked crowds crashing through glass doors? Not me. In fact, panicked crowds crashing through glass doors may be among the funniest things in the world. I love it.
But the film, though, I don't love. Sure I enjoy it, but it's really for the wrong reasons. It's for the incompetent SWAT team, the casual swearing, the macho posturing, the obvious dummy that gets squashed by scaffolding instead of the supposed flesh and blood victim, the bit with the ejector seat and the way a man gets sucked into a jet engine. It's a silly, silly film, but that's not always a bad thing.