Die Hard 2 (Renny Harlin, 1990)

It's Christmas Eve. John McClane is at the airport, awaiting his wife Holly's (Bonnie Bedelia) plane.

What he does not expect is that a group of rogue special forces soldiers led by Colonel Stuart (William Sadler). They hack in and take control of the airport's ground control systems and communications with the aircraft overhead.

In a race against time, McClane must defeat the terrorists before planes start dropping out of the sky...

Released two years after Die Hard, Die Hard 2 was a huge hit that cemented Bruce Willis as an action movie star. For years, it held the distinction of being the weakest instalment in the franchise, sandwiched between John McTiernan's Part One and Three.

Watching it post-two more sequels (only one of which I have seen), Die Hard 2 comes across as a solid action film of its era. It lacks the special magic of the original, but it is a fine piece of entertainment on its own terms.

On this viewing, I did wander whether it would have worked better as a standalone film.  

One of the interesting things about the Die Hard movies is how they are all based on other properties - the original on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever, while Parts 3 and 4 were scripts that were re-jigged into Die Hard movies. This movie was based on the novel 58 Minutes by Walter Wager, with the biggest change being the replacement of the book's German villains with Cold Warrior/mercenaries.

Written by Steven E. DeSouza and Doug Richardson, Die Hard 2 tries to maintain the verisimilitude established by its predecessor, while replicating and expanding upon the elements which made it a success. 

In contrast to the one-man-armies of Stallone and Schwarzenegger, Willis's John McClane was presented as an everyman, with relatable problems and fears (a broken marriage, a fear of heights). In the sequel, the filmmakers try to present him as an accidental celebrity who is recognised and criticised in equal measure. It is a fun idea that I wish the movie did more with. 

If you are a fan of the original film like I am, the constant references to Nakatomi Plaza do start to grate. You cannot help comparing the two films, and I think I would enjoy DH2 more if it was not so enamoured of the first movie. The fact that they find a way to wedge in the reporter Thornburg (William Atherton) is a bridge too far. And then there is John McClane - the biggest reference to the original movie. More on that later.

Despite the references, and repetitions of key moments, Die Hard 2 does not feel like the original. Directed by Renny Harlin, the film’s style is noticeably more aggressive. There are far too many cuts and angles within individual scenes. There are a ton of dutch angles and slow motion to accentuate deaths that feel like flourishes rather than adding to the scenes. 

It is a more hectic movie, and does not have the same sense of mounting tension or sense of geography.

Part of the problem is the size of the airport. Compared with the building in the original, there are so many different environments, and it is harder to piece together where the characters are.

And while there is plenty of action, it does not pack the same sense of stakes. That being said, the SWAT team ambush is exciting (you can catch future T1000 Robert Patrick as one of the bad guys), and the finale on the wing of a 747 is great. 

What I found interesting about the movie is how it feels like a bridge, between the original movie and the excess of the late nineties, in films like Con Air or Michael Bay's whole career. The bit where McClane ejects out of a plane straight toward the camera as it explodes behind him is enjoyably ludicrous. Moments like this would soon become cliche.

The cast are as strong as the original, but the roles are not nearly as well-drawn as the original. William Sadler, John Amos and Frank Nero are good, but their roles feel more generic - while competent, the characters’ motives are vague. The biggest sign of a different director is the minor players, like the eccentric maintenance man (Tom Bower) who assists McClane. There is a cartoonish quality to the minor characters that really sticks out. Die Hard is packed with minor characters who feel fleshed out. Even Al Leong's terrorist (who raids the snack bar) feels more real than the populace of the sequel. 

People talk about the lack of believability of John McClane in the latter sequels. Watching Part 2, I can feel a little of that omniscience coming in here. Bruce Willis is still good, but the character feels like it is on rails. McClane snoops, shoots bad guys, the authorities do not believe him. Rinse and repeat.

Even the moments of peril feel generic - I give kudos to the filmmakers for having the villains down a plane, but when the victims are a planeload of British stereotypes (on 'Windsor Airlines'), it is hard to buy in.

Frankly, Die Hard 2 might have benefited from being its own movie. Moments like the downing of Windsor 114 might play better if they are not in service of a sequel to Die Hard. 

While it cannot reach the heights of the first Die Hard, Die Hard 2 is a fun time. With a Vengeance (Part 3) is closer to the first movie, but just as a ride, Die Hard 2 gets the job done. And it is still a Christmas movie.

As an exercise in (mostly) pre-digital blockbuster filmmaking and sequel-building, it is more interesting.

I am more keen to read 58 Minutes now. Watch this space...

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.