MovieChat Forums > Die Hard 2 (1990) Discussion > What is so bad about it?

What is so bad about it?

posted 11 years ago by Web_Head91
16 replies | jump to latest

I'm new to the Die Hard series (better late than never), and I've only seen the first one a few days ago. I'm going to watch this as soon as I can, but I see that many people don't seem to like it much. I'd like to get general thoughts and avoid spoilers, but I realize getting spoiled is the risk I take when making a post like this. But what is so bad about this film? It'll take a few days for me to get to watch it, so I want to hear from others before I do.

------------
I find it a little odd that your scripture stick has dried blood on it.

[–] MovieMaster95 11 years ago

It's not bad at all, it just has a few problems. The original Die Hard is often praised as the best action movie ever because of it's sophisticated filmmaking, intelligent script, memorable characters and exciting action and suspense. Die Hard 2 was basically the studio giving the fans more of what they loved from the original but also trying to make everything bigger and better. It's darker, more violent, more action packed, more foul mouthed and more tongue in cheek. It's a real blast and as long as you don't take it 100% seriously, you'll probably enjoy it.

Still it has it's issues. Like I said above, the movie is trying to give us more of what we got from the original and Die Hard 2 is very self aware. There are numerous references to the original and McClane even points out how ridiculous the situation is. The tension from the original isn't quite here. It's still an exciting flick but it's more about big exciting set pieces rather than, 'Will McClane survive?'. The characters while memorable, aren't as well written as the original and there's a few plot inconsistencies that you may notice. Still, these are only minor problems. If you really loved Die Hard, there's a good chance you'll enjoy the first sequel. And even if you don't, check out Die Hard with a Vengeance, the third film which many Die Hard fans consider the best sequel. Do yourself a favour and don't bother with 4 and 5

WINGED FREAK...Terrorizes?....Wait till they get a load of me...

[–] directorscut 11 years ago

A terribly lazy script and awful dialogue.

Proud member of the Pro-film Anti-digital Society (PFADS).

[–] MrE26 11 years ago

I've never understood the hate this film gets. It's a fairly standard action sequel, bigger, louder, more ridiculous than the original but not as good. Still an entertaining enough couple of hours.

[–] Jack_Krauser 11 years ago

It's the best of the sequels and only "bad" when compared to the original.

Thought I was havin' trouble with my adding... It's all right now

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ultimatenexus 11 years ago

It's a bit more over-the-top and ridiculous but I think it's one of those movies that polarized fans... many regard it as the best of the sequels (I sure do) and others dislike it a little more.
It's definitely worth a watch, though.

__________
Welcome to the middle of nowhere--the center of everywhere.

[–] sargon19552003 10 years ago

Godawful, ridiculous plot holes that make the whole thing not worth paying attention to.

[–] Captain_Bob 10 years ago

...and, The Sweater. I had that same awful sweater back then. It just screams "1990". The equivalent of an early 80s Members Only jacket. Dated fashion fail :-(

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 10 years ago

What is so bad about it?

It's a dumb film--that's what's bad about it. The first Die Hard had moments of unrealism, but they safely fit within the constraints of a mindless action flick. DH2 is dumb even by action film standards. The best example of this is when McClane ejects from the airplane and safely lands on the ground. It's common knowledge that for a parachute to successfully deploy and open up, you have to be at a high enough altitude. In the scene, McClane is shot into the air maybe 100 feet from the ground, yet his chute opens up in time and with no problem.

There were a lot of little scenes like that, like the one of the panicked airline passengers stampeding out of the airport like a herd of dumb buffalo and crashing through plate glass windows. I mean, come...on! It was something out of the movie, Airplane.

DH2 also seems to go on and on and on and on with endless action sequences. After the plane crash, every sequence just seems tacked on to keep the film going as long as possible, like the snow mobiles scene.

Lastly, there's no tension in this movie. An example is that scene where McClane is coming out of a grate on the runway as the general's plane is landing. We're supposed to be in suspense because, oh noes, he is stuck and only has this much time before getting run over the by the plane's landing gear! But honestly--where was the tension in that? Was there any suspense regarding whether he'd roll away in time? Of course not.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] driffter1 10 years ago

The thing that will bother me about this film until my dying day is the plane crash scene. So a plane crashes, hundreds are killed and ten minutes later it's all forgotten, with no evidence it happened at all. Why would they continue to route McClain's wifes plane there after a disaster like that? It would sensational world news, with the FAA on the site, emergency crews cleaning up debris, body parts and everything associated with it. By the end of the film it basically never happened though. The whole film is an exercise in ludicrousness and suspension of disbelief, but this sequence takes the cake.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leyenda61 7 years ago

I didn't like this when i first saw this cuz it stretched my ability to suspend disbelief too far. However, if you just take it as an over-the-top action flick, it's a fun watch.

-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®

[–] The LA Baker (808) 7 years ago

"it stretched my ability to suspend disbelief too far"

What parts?