Hey if you think about it, this is the only Die Hard that didn't have him trying to make up with a family member. I give it points for that. Bruce Willis is also a bad ass as usual. Despite a different director than the first. Renny Harlin does a fine job bringing a similar tone as the first film. This is like the Home Alone 2 of Die Hard sequels.

Even though it's not nearly as good as the first Die Hard, this is still an entertaining movie. The basics for a good action movie are there, even a somewhat unexpected twist at the end and another iconic 'Yipi-ka-yee motherfucker'-scene. Some of the 'ordinary guy in extraordinary situation'-flair of the first movie seems to be missing however, which gives this just an entertaining status as opposed to the classic status of the first

“How can the same sh** happen to the same guy twice?” Right?! Die Hard 2 suffers (as so many films do) from the sequel syndrome: more of the same, and bigger. John McClane finds himself facing off with terrorists once again when a rogue military group takes control of the Dulles International Airport and holds the planes hostage, including the plane his wife is on. Unfortunately the film just tries too hard and comes up short; unable to meet the high bar set by the original. And as a result, it’s overstuffed with McClane tossing out jokes and quips left and right like a one-man comedy show, and three main villains involved in an overly complex terrorist plot. However, director Renny Harlin brings the action with some spectacular sequences. While Die Hard 2 has its problem, it’s still an exciting, action-packed adventure that’s extremely entertaining.

This just feels like a Michael Bayified version of the first film. The set-up and arcs are pretty much identical to _Die Hard_, however its personality is dumber and without charm, especially whenever Willis isn't on the screen. The acting's pretty bad throughout but I'm pretty sure even a bunch of great performers couldn't sell much of the dialogue. For example, _Die Hard_ is infamous for being incredibly effective at exposition, whereas _Die Hard_ 2 starts with a bunch of clunky expository news reports. On top of that the villain's unmemorable, Bonnie Bedelia's given a completely useless subplot and the story doesn't quite seem to know how to capitalize on the new airport location, so instead it often presents the safest, most predictable ideas we've already seen in _Die Hard_. It doesn't need to be the be-all and end-all if this film knew how to deliver on creative spectacle, but unfortunately the filmmaking feels just as flat and artless. There are some editing, lighting and scoring choices I found pretty bizarre, however none it feels like its in service of a cohesive aesthetic. What are these warm, colourful filters during the scenes taking place at the outside of the church? Why do the airport control tower and airplane sets look like a sauna? Why is so much of the spectacle filmed and edited in an unmemorable way? Going into this rewatch I only remembered the shot of McClane in the ejector seat, which makes sense because there's not much else here. The snowmobile chase at the end of the second act feels like it should be a major highlight, but Renny Harlin just doesn't know how to film a memorable action sequence. His direction reminds me a lot of the Bond movies before the Daniel Craig era: there's a lot of spectacle which makes the film easy to digest, however it's simultaneously way too workmanlike and disposable. Call me crazy, but I think that a sequel to the greatest action film ever made should aim much higher than reheated leftovers with empty calories. 3.5/10

I couldn’t resist watching this one after the first Did Hard as I mean I guess they both take place Christmas time although I don’t think this or the first movie are full on Christmas films but come on how can’t i resist putting this on as everyone needs a bit of some sweet full on John McClane action this time of year, right. I know Die Hard 2 gets a fair bit of hate by some people but I’ve always liked this film and it’s not even that bad honestly, I mean it’s definitely not as good as the first movie that’s for sure plus it’s simply just not as iconic but I still think it’s still a pretty awesome sequel and a shit ton of fun. I think the first movie has like some over the top moments but this ones something else honestly like how the hell did John survive those freaking grenades as they took forever to go off and also the way he just blasted off, sitting on the Planes emergency seat was ridiculous but it was pretty hilarious though. I know it isn’t everybody’s cup of tea when a film’s extremely over the top but I don’t mind it too much as long as it is pretty fun and that definitely was. The movies villain was pretty decent but he’s no Hans Gruber but come on how can anyone beat him as he is the absolute best villain in Die Hard but William Sadler still played a pretty good and intimidating bad guy. The action scenes in this were beast and I really enjoyed them a lot, especially the ending scene when John blows up Williams Plane, that was so freaking badass man, very very over the top but badass. I get why some people might not like this movie but I think it’s actually a lot of fun regardless if it is very over the top, I’m giving Die Hard 2 a very high 8.5 out of 10. It’s an awesome sequel. 8.5/10