MovieChat Forums > Die Hard 2 (1990) Discussion > Why doesn't Die Hard 2 (1990) seem to ge...

Why doesn't Die Hard 2 (1990) seem to get the credit it deserves?

posted 3 years ago by TMC-4 (19392)
9 replies | jump to latest

It seems like Die Hard 2 is usually the least preferred of the trilogy. It also seems like DH2 is often only ranked above Die Hard 5, which is universally known to be the worst.

Perhaps DH2 is too similar to DH1, even down to using the same Christmas song at the very end, but there are enough differences to be valued.

Was/is DH2 viewed as too dark and bleak? Admittedly, it’s the darkest and bleakest of the three films. The villains are the most evil and brutal of the series, and that is shown through the people they kill.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/km2apy/this_past_weekend_i_watched_die_hard_2_and_3_for/

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Probably because #1 was so awesome!

😎

[–] Devilman (442) 3 years ago

Exactly...and part 2 was just a "What IF" Die Hard happened in an Airport !

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

And sequels are almost never as good as the original. The one exception I can think of is Godfather Part 2.
Both parts 1 and 2 won Best Picture Oscars. I don't think that has ever been done before or since.

😎

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 3 years ago

I thought DH2 was the funniest movie of the '90s franchise.

[–] Ismailov (139) 3 years ago

IMO it's a pretty good sequel, but it's good in a "more of the same" sort of way. It doesn't really stand out.

I think one factor is that a lot of characters are "weaker" compared to those in the first film. John's banter with Marvin and Barnes doesn't hold a candle to the banter between him and Al Powell in the original. Colonel Stuart is not as interesting an antagonist as Hans Gruber, and when it comes to henchmen there's no comparison between the likes of Theo, Eddie, Karl, etc. on one hand and Stuart's basically silent and nondescript grunts on the other. Thornburg's existence in the second film is also pretty much pointless.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7395) 3 years ago

Personally while I like the first 3 movies, I think 1 and 3 are superior to 2. 2 has some awesome moments but as has been said the villains just aren't as good as in the other 2.

[–] Destinata (2590) a year ago

It's got a dumb plot and dialogue so stupid no one can finish a sentence without dropping at least one F-bomb in it. The acting by the "bad guy" who used to be in sitcoms was so awful I don't see how anyone can sit through it -- especially when you add in the dumb plot and stupid dialogue.

Other than that, it's got a cool and completely unbelievable ending.

I like to forget about this movie and think of Die Hard with a Vengeance as the second Die Hard. And I like to forget they ever made that awful last one. One thing I can say that's positive about this movie -- it's not as bad as "A Good Day to Die Hard."

[–] Wombat (26) a year ago

I liked it, but not as much as the first film

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

if you are real action film fanatics then you always rate die hard 2 as best die hard sequel! it is no brainers. die harder is tremendous anti-wuss action. it is cure for being wuss!

die hard 2 have best casts, best actions, best dialogs, and best characters of all the die hard sequel. die hard 3 is boring typicals mid 90s movie. die hard 2 was wrote and filmed in 80s, and is 80s film in style and qualitys. 80s always destroy 90s!!

where else in action film historys can you find exploding jumbo jets and snowcars having medieval jousts?! this is some of best action you find ever!!

this film dont need more respect if you are true action fan you know how good this film is and you appeciafy its bad assness.