"Die Hard 2"- When it is able to do its own thing, it's great. But it falls prey to just repeating what came before a few too many times to be anything more than "decent."

Rating: 7/10 (8 January 2017)

"Die Hard 2" is one of those sequels that is unfortunately just a little too in love with what came before to really stand on its own. You know what I'm talking about... movies like "Ghostbusters 2" or "Rush Hour 2" that simply coast by on repeating what worked in the original while doing little else to differentiate itself, other than changing the setting or upping the stakes a bit. Yes, after the neo- classic that was the original "Die Hard", it seems like the production team and director Renny Harlin were perhaps a bit frightened of the prospect of a follow-up, so they played it safe. And I can definitely understand that reasoning, and I don't necessarily even blame them for it. But still, it has to be said... the best moments of "Die Hard 2" are those few fleeting glimpses of originality that are occasionally injected into key sequences. The rest of it? Just a slightly inferior retread of what came before. Is it bad? No, not by any stretch. But it is a bit of a step backwards.
A few years after saving the day at Nakatomi Paza, New York cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) is on his way to pick up his wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) at Washington Dulles International Airport on Christmas Eve. However, there's a game afoot, as a group of evil former Special Forces operatives headed by the vile Colonel Stuart (William Sadler) seize control of the airport in an attempt to free General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero)- a drug lord and dictator from the nation of Val Verde who is being transported to the US to be tried for his crimes. With the planes in the air held hostage, McClane must now battle his way through the airport in order to stop this deadly scheme and save the day- and his wife- once again.
To give credit where it is due, the cast is uniformly excellent. Willis is as charming and charismatic as ever, and it's fun seeing him back in the role that helped define his super-stardom. Especially now with the added bonus of him being somewhat self-aware of just how ridiculous it is to be in this situation once again, which generates some good humor and informs the character. Bedalia is a ton of fun in her returning role as Holly, and it's a shame that she didn't continue to play the part in future installments. She helped ground John and make him feel like a real person. William Sadler is adequately menacing as our lead villain, and though he's no Hans Gruber, you'll definitely love to hate Colonel Stuart. There's also some really nice supporting roles, including a blink-and-you'll-miss-it pre-T2 Robert Patrick as one of Stuart's thugs and a really fun cameo from Reginald VelJohnson as his iconic character Al Powell.
Finnish director Renny Harlin takes the seat helm this entry in the series, and I think he does a really great job visually and aesthetically, especially given this was his first massive film. He's got a good sense of composition and flow that works well for the material, and he knows how to paint thrilling and stylish sequences of bloody action and harrowing stakes with ease. Even with his background mainly in the world of horror, he proves himself quite capable. It's almost a shame in retrospect, especially seeing where his career has gone in recent years with a string of critical and commercial failures. The man knows how to make a fun flick... and I hope he recovers and is able to deliver on his promise once again.
Written by original co-writer Steven E. de Souza and series newcomer Doug Richardson, the script is the source of both the film's most rampant strengths and also its most tragic failures. Penning a sequel is always a hard thing to do, especially with high stakes and even higher expectations. And I do think that de Souza and Richardson for the most part capture the spirit of the original. And at its best, there are some really great sequences. I particularly admired some later scenes where McClane is actually about to leave the airport, as it not only broadened the story but also showed us something new and exciting. And its these moments of originality where the film most shines. However, as I mentioned above, the problem is that there seems to be an inherent fear to try too much new with the film. And thus, it often boils down to just simply re-using tired and true ideas from the first film. Lots of McClane crawling through vents while complaining. Lots of shoot- outs in small spaces. Lots of people talking over the radio. And even some secondary characters like William Atherton's smarmy reporter Richard Thornburg are brought back in wholly superfluous supporting roles, for no other reason than the film to highlight them in an attempt to win the audience over with nostalgia. It feels too "safe" for a "Die Hard" movie, and the inability to take any real risks brings it down a lot.
Thankfully, it's not a deal breaker. The excellent performances, likable characters and sharp visual direction are able to overcome many of the fundamental issues in the storytelling. In the end, "Die Hard 2" never reaches the great heights of the original. And outside of a certain fifth film that I like to pretend doesn't exist because it's unwatchable, it's probably the weakest of the series. But it's still most certainly a "Die Hard" film at its core, and it's still a ton of fun. It just can't quite elevate itself beyond the level of "pretty good" due to it just repeating what came before but with somewhat less flair.
I give "Die Hard 2" a decent 7 out of 10. Fans of the original should check it out, but don't go in expecting another classic.