Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) - Review

Director: Jan de Bont

Cast: Sandra Bullock, Jason Patric, Willem Dafoe, Tim Conway

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 125 min

Speed 2: Cruise Control is a part of a selective club of movies whose ideas came from their director whilst in their sleep. For example, Michael Bay famously claimed that the idea for Pearl Harbor came from a dream in which he envisioned the shot of a bomb falling from a plane down towards a battleship. Speed 2's origin is much the same, as director Jan de Bont claimed he came up with the idea for the sequel in a dream in which he envisioned a cruise ship crashing into an island. Although people should follow theirs dreams, I think that de Bont took that advice too literally for the sequel, as Speed 2 is nothing more than a big waterlogged studio picture without an iota of tension or creativity to its blockbuster proceedings. 

Speed 2 is a fascinating sequel that almost actively works against the successes of its predecessor. First off, the film oddly transports its plot from the tense streets of Los Angeles to the non-threatening and tranquil Caribbean Sea. Second, the unstoppable vehicle from Speed, that of a bus, is replaced by a cruise ship, something far less exciting. And third, Speed's key ingredient and leading star, Keanu Reeves, is replaced by the worst leading man of all time, Jason Patric. It's almost as if de Bont threw all care or reason to the wind in order to craft the most frustrating sequel of all time that would actively work against everything that made the original so fantastic. In all honesty, if it weren't for Sandra Bullock's return or the threat of an unstoppable cruise ship, Speed 2 would barely classify as a sequel at all. While I partially enjoy Speed 2 for its accidental hilarity and representation of how messy a studio picture can become (neither a compliment), its mostly a dull and over long affair in which one can watch money burn on screen within a film set on water.

Hey, you're not Keanu.

Speed 2 is a desperate sequel that is actually more of a Die Hard rip-off than its Die Hard-esque predecessor. Alex Shaw (Jason Patric) is a member of the Los Angeles Police Department. When he stops a truck full of stolen goods, his girlfriend, Annie Porter (Sandra Bullock), stumbles upon the scene and realizes that her boyfriend is a daredevil cop and not the tranquil beach cop that he claimed to be. In order to make up for his lie and save his relationship, Alex takes Annie on a Caribbean cruise. Unfortunately, the two choose the wrong ship, as a former computer designer, John Geiger (Willem Dafoe), plots to take over the ship's computer controls in order to steal all of the diamonds on board. In true Die Hard fashion, Alex and Annie end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. The two, along with the ship's various guests and ship mates, work together to stop the now uncontrollable boat. It's the same plot as Speed, but on water. How terribly unexciting.

Although one might have expected a massive rewrite for a sequel to Speed once Keanu Reeves dropped out of the project, it turns out that the screenplay was barely tweaked at all. In order to explain the absence of Reeves' character, Jack Traven, only the first scene was rewritten in order to explain his replacement by Jason Patric's character, Alex Shaw. According to the first scene of the film, which is abysmal, Annie explains that she had enough of her adrenaline junkie boyfriend from the first film, and decided to call it quits when he gave her pepper spray as a present and she accidentally sprayed herself with it. Therefore, she is now with another guy, who also happens to be a cop. This reasoning for Traven's absence is flat out lazy and a complete insult to all fans of the original. Not only that, but the entire relationship sub-plot of the film, concerning Alex's hesitance to ask Annie to marry him, is made all the weaker because the viewer has no reason to care for a character they have just met, as opposed to Jack Traven, who we all knew and loved from the first film and would have rooted for. No doubt about it, Speed 2 is dead in the water from moment one, and that's purely due to its lead characters' interactions with one another.

I agree with the domineering opinion that Keanu Reeves is not a great actor, but at least his intensity and dedication to his craft makes him likable. However, I think everyone can agree that Jason Patric is simply horrendous and a wet blanket in comparison. It's not that I think Patric himself is a lousy actor, as he does fine work in Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys, it's just that he is simply miscast for a big budget action film of this nature; the poor direction by de Bont and the horrid script probably didn't help matters either. Anyways, Patric plays ostensibly the exact same character as Jack Traven from the first film. Both Alex and Jack are hard working and dedicated cops who risk their lives in order to protect others when they easily could leave well alone. They also both happen to fall in love with Bullock's Annie Porter. However, if one takes into account that only the first scene of the sequel was rewritten due to Reeve's departure, than one quickly realizes that Jack Traven's name was simply replaced by Alex Shaw, who is none other than the exact same character. Therefore, Patric is not only engaging in an uphill struggle as he tries to earn the viewer's admiration over Reeves', but he's also playing the exact same character, something that Reeves did far better in Speed.

"I'll get you, Spider-Man!"

Not only does Patric come off dull and uninterested throughout the film, but he clearly has no chemistry with co-star Sandra Bullock. It's clear that neither actor wanted to work with one another, as all of their romance and dialog scenes come off especially wooden. In fact, Patric's character shows more interest in a young deaf girl on the cruise ship, something that was probably supposed to be charming and cute, but is instead creepy and distracting. After all, isn't this story supposed to be about Alex and Annie's struggle to commit to one another? Why is so much time given to Alex's friendship and interactions with this young teenager who he clearly should not be flirting with in the first place? It is elements like these that make Speed 2: Cruise Control such a baffling, but bizarrely watchable, sequel.

The rest of the supporting cast doesn't fare well either. Speed 2 is packed with minor characters who fail to make an impression and feel like desperate retreads of the memorable supporting characters from Speed. Temuera Morrison (The Marine 2) plays the acting captain of the ship who more or less acts as the film's replacement for Joe Morton's character from the first film. By the way, Morton does reprise his role as Lieutenant McMahon in a cameo at the beginning of the film, but he quickly vanishes afterwards and plays no part in the film's central plot. Although Morrison is a fine and dedicated actor, it's clear that his character was meant to fill the void left by Morton. Glenn Plummer also returns as the unnamed Jaguar owner from the first film, but this time he's on a boat with his girlfriend when Alex takes over his boat in order to rescue Annie. Man, that guy can't catch a break. Bo Svenson (Walking Tall Part 2, Inglorious Bastards) also pops up in a very small role as the ship's initial captain who falls overboard. There are also numerous supporting guests on the ship meant to emulate the passengers of the bus, but none of them leave a mark quite like Ortiz from the first film.

However, nobody holds a candle to Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, John Wick) as the film's main villain, Geiger. Let me tell you, Dafoe is flat out hilarious to watch, as the actor fully commits and goes as over the top as possible. While Hopper's villain from the first film was also ridiculous, Hopper has always found a way to make his insane characters (i.e. Waterworld, Blue Velvet, The Super Mario Bros. Movie) subdued in a sense that makes them watchable and almost clever. Dafoe, on the other hand, borders on accidental hilarity. Almost every one of his lines is plain awful, but at least they make for a good laugh in a film that is otherwise boring to watch.

This is why we are all here folks.

Another major issue with the sequel is its sense of humor, which borders on groan worthy at almost every turn. Whereas Speed had small snippets of natural humor that felt welcomed after a tense or exciting sequence, Speed 2 is top to bottom a comedy, with loads of humorous characters, humorous situations, and humorous gags abounding from beginning to end. Heck, the movie opens and closes on the exact same gag concerning Annie's terrible driving, which doesn't make much sense by the way because she drove the bus from the first movie quite well. Even famed comedian Tim Conway appears in a cameo as the terrified driving instructor. De Bont makes the grave error of trading out natural comedy for over written jokes that aren't funny in the first place.

However, I think what truly makes Speed 2 a lousy sequel is its lack of humane characters. One of the pleasures of watching Speed was enjoying the little victories peppered throughout the adventure. Whenever the passengers cheered or hugged one another after surviving a life or death situation, the viewer themselves felt over joyed and wants to either smile or join in on the celebration. Unfortunately, Speed 2 has none of that. Whenever any one accomplishes a task, no one reacts in a believable or natural way. They simply speed on to the next plot point as if nothing happened. Not only are all of the supporting characters forgettable, but none of them act like human beings either. When neither the lead or the supporting characters act human, how else is a human being to connect with an action picture? Let alone one ripping off its predecessor for box office dollars? I rest my case.

Therefore, with no characters to cling too and no story to engage the viewer, Speed 2 only has its action to offer. While I wouldn't say that the action sequences are terrible, they pale in comparison to all of Speed's non-stop thrills. It's apparent that a lot of money was spent on this film, a whopping $110 million worth! Speed 2 is the definition of a messy studio picture, one in which loads of money was spent in order to produce loads of action, but with weak storytelling. Released in the same year as Titanic, both films have similar romantic/action plots about endangered cruise ships and the crews that inhabit them. How ironic that Titanic would win the Oscar for Best Picture and Speed 2 would win the Razzie for Worst Sequel in the exact same year?

Speed 2 tries to ape on Speed's action every step of the way, but it simply can't stack up. For example, a sequence where people get stuck on a falling boat is an exact repeat of the tense elevator scene that opens Speed. Later on in the film, a scene where Annie describes a booby trapped bomb to Alex is a direct repeat of the scene in Speed in which Jack describes a bomb to Harry in order for them to defuse it. And most obvious, the entire plot is a retread of Speed, albeit set upon water and far less exciting. Although de Bont does a fair job extracting as much action as possible out of a damaged runaway boat, he can't seem to drum up much tension to engage the viewer that same way Speed did. In all honesty, the only reason I would recommend Speed 2 to any one is simply to witness the epic finale based on de Bont's dream in which the ship crashes into an island that the studio spent a quarter of the budget on building just for the film. It may be ridiculous and filled with loads of weak gags and also accidental ones, but it's secretively awesome at the same time. Whether or not you brave the waters to watch Speed 2, make sure that you witness its finale.

Never have I wanted to see a couple divorce so badly.

While I would declare Speed a right of passage for all cinematic thrill seekers, I would recommend Speed 2 as the ultimate guilty pleasure for all fans of "so bad, it's good" cinema. The plot makes little to no sense, several actors ham it up beyond belief, shots of bad 90s CGI hamper the picture, and its lead couple has absolutely zero chemistry. Although some of the action sequences are entertaining, none of them ever qualify as exciting or thrilling. All in all, Speed 2 is one of the worst sequels of all time, but not exactly one of the worst films ever released. In comparison to Speed, it's a huge let down and one of the biggest failures of all time. But on its own, it's not horrendously bad. Just bad. If Speed was the film that made de Bont's career, than Speed 2: Cruise Control is the film that ended it.

Rating: 4/10 - Although dull, boring, and devoid of any personality, Speed 2 makes for a great "so bad, it's good" film with some decent action in parts and an impressive but ridiculous finale for the ages.

Franchise:
Speed (Jan de Bont, 1994)
Speed 2: Cruise Control (Jan de Bont, 1997)

Die-Hard-a-Thon, Part 5 - A Good Day to Die Hard: Theatrical Cut (2013)

Director: John Moore

Cast: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch, Yuliya Snigir, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 97 minutes

A Good Day to Die Hard sounds like a good idea on paper. The film would take place in Russia, return the franchise to its gritty R rated roots, and introduce John's son as a gun toting side kick. All of those things sound like good ideas to me! Even the badly photoshopped poster hints at a dark and violent entry in the series. Maybe A Good Day to Die Hard might save the franchise after the hokey and popcorn-y Live Free or Die Hard...

Nope. Not at all. A Good Day to Die Hard is a lousy piece of trash. It might be the most disappointing and confounding action film I have ever seen since I started reviewing action films for this blog. Don't let the star power or production quality fool you! This film's plot, dialog, and performances are as bad as what you would find in a crappy direct to video action film! Read on to feel my pain for a franchise that was once so great...

Like father, like son.

This movie makes Die Hard 2: Die Harder seem like an action masterpiece! And that is saying something for a film as dumb and silly as that.

The film opens with John receiving word that his son Jack (Jai Courtney) is currently in Russia. So he packs up and flies off to Moscow in order to find him. His son is currently working for the CIA and is trying to get a hold of a political prisoner named Yuri (Sebastian Koch) who has a file with evidence against corrupt politician Viktor Chagrain (Sergei Kolesnikov). John simply finds his son in the middle of a car chase and is immediately wrapped up into the action packed plot. Jack and John must now protect Yuri and get ahold of the file to take down Viktor. They must also avoid Viktor's gun men led by Alik (Radivoje Bukvic).

Don't get used to that basic plot though. There are two completely ridiculous twists in this film that make the entire plot make absolutely no sense! After having watched the entire film, I still cannot make sense of anything. Is it really that hard to come up with a basic plot for a Die Hard film?

The guy on the left looks like Dolph Lundgren in Red Scorpion.

Bruce Willis is at his absolute worst in this film. He barely attempts to be funny or react in a realistic manner to the situations surround him. I don't know what happened to John McClane but he doesn't care about people anymore. During the epic car chase at the beginning of the film, John witnesses numerous car crashes. Instead of being concerned or scared for the hurt people he just laughs it off. "Excuse me! Sorry! Out of my way," he says. He even drives his car over other people's cars at one point and does not give a second thought about if he is hurting them at all or not.

What happened to the John McClane I used to know and love? John used to be all about the people and protecting the innocent at all costs. In Die Hard, John freaks out when he lets a hostage get shot in the face. He tells himself, "Why didn't you do something John?! Why did you let them shoot him? Cause if you stopped them you'd be dead too!" John feels horrible about his decision but knows he'd be dead if he took on so many terrorists at once. In Die Hard 2, John tries to stop a plane from landing so low to the ground by waving firey sticks to alert them. Unfortunately, the plane crash lands and explodes killing everyone on the plane. John drops to the ground and cries his eyes out. All John wanted to do was to protect those poor people and he failed. In Die Hard With a Vengeance, John jumps on top of a subway train in order to find the bomb on it. When he throws the bomb out of the back of the train, it detonates and bounces the cart he is in off of the tracks. He could have died getting rid of that bomb but did it anyway in order to protect the people of New York City. 

In this film, John just drives over people's cars crushing them, punches people in the face to steal their car, and treats death like it is nothing. All John cares about in this film is getting his son back and stopping the big plot at hand. What happened to the guy who used to be so relatable and funny? John McClane has been reduced to a machine gun wielding robot. It is also worth mentioning that McClane doesn't receive a scratch on him until he jumps out of a building in the middle of the film. It's another sign that the once relatable under dog is now a nearly invincible killing machine.

Video game screen shot? Nope, it's Die Hard 5.

I don't understand why but John continually screams, "I'm on vacation!" throughout the film. Why does John keep saying this? The opening scene of the film establishes that John is looking for his son. Therefore, he goes to Moscow to look for his son. The movie establishes that John is not in Moscow for a vacation! He is there to find his son and than go home. So why does John continually scream, "I'm on vacation!" Somebody please help me because I don't understand this at all.

If any one actor brought their game to this film it would probably be Jai Courtney as Jack McClane (a.k.a. Die Hard Junior). He seems to the be the only actor who is really trying to make something out of the filth he has to work with. For the first time in the Die Hard series, John's side kick actually gets in on the killing game with him. I would have much preferred an action film where Jai Courtney fights terrorists in Russia and works for the CIA. Just leave out the whole Die Hard connection. Courtney is a promising up and coming action star who wowed me with his villainous performance in Jack Reacher and is filling some big shoes as the new John Connor in Terminator: Genesis. I think Courtney looks the part of an action star very well and I hope for the best with his career. He was a shining star in this dull dull film.

It pains me to say this but this film contains the worst villains of the entire series and maybe the worst of any action film I have ever seen. It's hard to explain but there are like four villains in this movie! The film keeps switching who is the primary villain and it makes for a nauseating experience. Just pick a villain and go with that! Don't provide twists that change up the status quo. These twists make everything that came before non-sensical and confusing. Alik is the worst villain of the bunch. He dances around in some scenes and chews on a carrot as he desperately tries to make his character memorable and fun. The other two or three villains also suck. You have to be a total idiot not to see that one of the "good guys" in the film is "surprisingly" a villain! 

Holy crap!

A Good Day to Die Hard was made for one reason: its action scenes. Director John Moore is alot like Len Wiseman in that he only knows how to create action scenes and nothing else. Even though I hate this film, the gritty action scenes are a huge step up from the PG-13 and CG heavy set pieces of Live Free or Die Hard.

There is an insane car chase at the beginning of the film that must go on for nearly 10 minutes! It also helps that there is not a lick of CG in the entire scene. All of the vehicular mayhem is done with real cars and practical stunts. I loved this car chase. There are some really impressive vehicular stunts in this scene. The most impressive of the bunch is when John rams his car into the side of Alik's armored vehicle and sends the vehicle flying off of the freeway. The armored vehicle flies diagonally through the air and crashes into a chunk of concrete on the back of an 18 wheeler! I'm sorry, but all of these stunts just blew my mind.

There are also two short but sweet shootouts after this chase scene. Jack and John even jump out of two buildings in two separate scenes and fall hundreds of feet and completely survive. John is like Rambo for goodness sakes. He places himself in ridiculous situations and miraculously survives even though he is the "normal everyday kind of guy."

I also enjoyed the throwback to the 1980's when Russians were the villains (Rambo III, Red Scorpion). The villains even pilot a massive Russian helicopter and shoot at John and Jack in two of the film's action scenes. I'm trying to find some sort of merit in this horrible film. 

John Rambo? Oh, I'm sorry it's just John McClane.

I enjoyed that the film tried to expand the series' mythology by introducing John's son and including Lucy McClane from the previous film. However, the father and son subplot does not work at all. None of their conversations or dialog feel natural at all. It makes for a very painful viewing experience. The only thing the two seem to bond over is being good at killing other people.

I have continually stated that the original three Die Hard films can be shown to any one who does not like action movies. The films contain tense situations and a very likeable Bruce Willis that non-action fans will eat up and enjoy. However, A Good Day to Die Hard has no value to it besides its action sequences. Therefore, the only people who will find something remotely salvageable are people like me, die hard action fans.

It also makes me real sad to see the Moscow setting completely put to waste. James Mangold's The Wolverine was an excellent big budget blockbuster also released in 2013. The film benefits from placing its protagonist in a completely foreign environment. In doing so, all of the film's action scenes, aesthetics, and themes pull from that specific setting. It makes for a refreshing franchise installment because we have never seen the protagonist in such a foreign environment before surrounded by so many foreign things. A Good Day to Die Hard does nothing to make John's trip to Moscow even remotely unique. Wouldn't it be more interesting to see John running around asking for help and not being able to speak to the people because he doesn't speak Russian? It just felt like John was in a city that looked different but operated like everywhere else he has been.

My final gripe about this film is that it is only 97 minutes long. Every Die Hard film is always just over 2 hours long. These films are long because they have a lot of tense scenes and lots of double and triple crosses to present over the plot. Therefore, you really feel like you went an adrenaline packed ride that took your breath away. Two hours of action, comedy, and suspense make for a fantastic experience. However, 97 minutes of just action is a forgettable experience. At the least the viewing experience flies by instead of dragging on and boring you out of your mind for more than 2 hours like another 2013 blockbuster, Man of Steel. It's also worth noting that Man of Steel and A Good Day to Die Hard depict characters who used to save innocent people for a living no longer directly saving innocent people. These classic characters are taking steps backwards as time goes on. How does that make sense?

The most interesting aspect of this film is that the guy on the right looks like Orson Welles.

A Good Day to Die Hard is a truly dreadful experience. I am a huge action fan and even I hated this film. I can't imagine the pain that top critics who write for Time magazine and the Chicago Tribune had to endure while watching this film. The funny thing is that I considered selling my copy of this film after watching it. However, I am going to keep it just so I can have the excellent action scenes in glorious Blu Ray HD. I did the same thing with another John Moore film I own, Max Payne. Huh, I think that says something about Moore's filmography.

A sixth and final Die Hard has been planned. I hope for the best because the last two entries are pretty awful. Unlike the consistently excellent Rambo series, the Die Hard series is all over the place in terms of its entertainment value. I don't know how many action franchises reach both the absolute highest of highs (Die Hard, 1988) and the lowest of lows (A Good Day to Die Hard, 2013). This fifth entry is just bad. The only, and I mean only redeemable thing in the entire film are its action scenes and Jai Courtney. Skip this movie please.

Rating: 4/10 - Dreadful filth that does not deserve to be called a Die Hard film. Good action scenes can't even save this turd.

Franchise: Die Hard 

Die Hard (dir. John McTiernan, 1988)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (dir. Renny Harlin, 1990)

Die Hard With a Vengeance (dir. John McTiernan, 1995)

Live Free or Die Hard (dir. Len Wiseman, 2007)

A Good Day to Die Hard (dir. John Moore, 2013)

Die-Hard-a-Thon, Part 4 - Live Free or Die Hard: Unrated (2007)

Director: Len Wiseman

Cast: Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Kevin Smith, Maggie Q, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Country: United States

Rating: Unrated (originally PG-13)

Run Time: 129 minutes

Live Free or Die Hard came a whopping 12 years after Die Hard With a Vengeance. In the last decade, it seems to have become a new filmmaking trend to revive classic franchises for a new contemporary audience. Star Wars, Rambo, and even Tron all came back after 20 plus year breaks. And while it's obvious that these revivals are done purely to make more money off of the franchise name, there is always an opportunity to craft some good art and entertainment too.

Unfortunately, Live Free or Die Hard is a perfect example of solely cashing in on the franchise name. Not only does the film barely resemble a Die Hard film, but everything else is completely geared towards the contemporary audience of 2007. Gone is the bloody violence, gone is the foul language, gone is the memorable villains, gone is the hilarious Bruce Willis, and gone is the gritty fight sequences. Make way for a high tech plot, lots of CGI, and PG-13 violence. Don't get me wrong, Live Free or Die Hard is fun and generic blockbuster entertainment. It's just that this is not a TRUE Die Hard film. What could have been a memorable and exciting revival of the action franchise that has come to define action movies turned out to be no more than an average action film that had the word "Die Hard" slapped on to it.

12 years later means no more hair and no more talent.

Summer of 2007 was a time that I remember quite well. I was in high school and I was just starting to go see movies with my friends more often and not as much with my dad or grandpa. However, I did see Live Free or Die Hard in the theater with my dad and I remember thinking that it was pretty awesome. This was all before I had even seen Die Hard 1, cared about the difference between PG-13 and R, and thought movies like Disturbia and Transformers were the best movies of the year. I remember watching the theatrical cut on DVD at a friend's house a few months later and having a lot of fun revisiting it. This film really does play perfectly to the mindset of a young high schooler. You think the action scenes are all awesome, the jokes are hilarious, and that the image of a car flying into a helicopter is the coolest thing ever.

But than you grow up, graduate from high school, watch a thousand more action movies, and realize that Live Free or Die Hard is just an average piece of studio blockbuster filmmaking. There was a lot of hype for this movie. Much like the original Stars Wars films, the original three Die Hard films held a special place in action fans' hearts. But than much like the Star Wars prequels, Live Free or Die Hard came out and disappointed a lot of the Die Hard fans. Where's the blood? Where's the cursing? Where's the John McClane I know and love? It turns out that this was around the time when the PG-13 rating was coming in to assert its dominance over the box office and take its place atop the money making throne. Sure, studios could make an R rated action film and make money. But the studios could also make a PG-13 action film and make even more money!

For my viewing of the film, I chose to watch the Unrated cut that many people have recommended. The Unrated cut of the film digitally restores all blood and adds all of the cursing back in as well. It's clear that Len Wiseman shot the film with both ratings in mind. So we can at least thank Len for that. And while I think that the added blood and language helps boost the film from a 5/10 to a 6/10, it can't make up for the other flaws of this film. The film still feels like a generic studio blockbuster even with the R rating. I don't want to write an entire article on just the rating of the film so we have to move on at some point. For those who want to hear more about the PG-13 rating, check out Vern's discussion of Live Free or Die Hard on his site. He goes ballistic!

This image is the reason Len Wiseman made Die Hard 4.

Live Free or Die Hard finds John McClane once again in the wrong place at the wrong time (one of the only elements of the film that really makes it a Die Hard film). A group of cyber terrorists enlist hackers to create a software for them to take over all of the electronic communications on the East Coast. In order to eliminate loose ends, the terrorists send explosive viruses to the hackers' computers and kill all of them but one. That one, Matthew Farrell (Justin Long), is about to delete the virus thereby activating the explosive. However, Farrell is interrupted when John McClane shows up at his door. McClane's commanding officer ordered him to check on Farrell because he may be a suspect in the recent hacking of the FBI.

Due to this delay, the cyber terrorists send in their gunmen and immediately attack John and Matthew. John is immediately wrapped up into the thick of things as he has to defend Matthew and stop the cyber terrorists from shutting down all of the electronics across the East Coast.

One of my biggest issues with this film is that John McClane is completely in service of the villain's plot. Almost every scene in the film relates to the villain's plot in one way or another. In the first three Die Hard films, we really get to know John McClane and get a lot of scenes that allow us to check up on John's life. This film has only one of those scenes (John beats up his daughter's boyfriend at the beginning of the film). And after that it's straight to the plot. What I mean is that we get no time to get reacquainted with "John the human". All we get is "John the unstoppable action hero". This film is all about the cyber terrorists and their evil plot and hardly about John having to deal with yet another bad day in his life.

Timothy Olyphant is no Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber.

John McClane simply doesn't feel human any more in this film. McClane went the way of Paul Kersey from the Death Wish films. He started off as a vulnerable and relatable action hero who somehow became an unstoppable action hero. McClane has come a long way from killing his first terrorist in Die Hard to literally taking on a jet with a semi-truck in Live Free or Die Hard. McClane is also pretty humorless. None of his attempts at humor felt natural at all. It's a shame that McClane's trademark humor is so absent in this film because it makes his character less special from other unique action heroes.

Another one of my issues with this film is that I am not a fan of any of these new characters. John feels like an alien to me, I've already covered that. So how about his sidekick? Well, the filmmakers must have never seen a Die Hard film because John hardly ever makes an attempt at being funny. All of the comedic relief has been given to his sidekick, Justin Long. He plays his awkward self and stammers and acts nerdy. But that is just about where all of the comedy comes from. Remember how awesome Sergeant Al Powell was in Die Hard and how memorable Zeus was in Die Hard With a Vengeance? Farrell is like a fart in the wind compared to those guys. I think Long was put into the film because he was all the rage in the mid 2000s with his Mac commercials and the comedies Accepted and Waiting.

I did enjoy Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane though, John's daughter. Her presence helped build the mythology of the series just a tiny bit. It was also nice to see one of John's family members in peril again (only in the final 30 minutes though). The first two films were all about family peril so at least Len Wiseman remembered that aspect of the Die Hard series. I still would have liked some clarity as to what tore John and his wife apart in between Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard With a Vengeance, but I shouldn't hope for that in this Die Hard.

"Okay, I'll say it! I'm a mac!"

The villains in this film are pretty forgetful. Timothy Olyphant is the lead villain and his right hand woman is played by Maggie Q. I won't bother to give you their character names because if I can't remember them after watching the film than their names aren't worth mentioning. Hans Gruber and Simon Gruber? Villain names I'll remember forever. These? Psh, who cares? Kevin Smith also pops up as himself and adds nothing to the movie. I'm moving on to something else because I'm becoming exhausted talking about the characters in this movie.

It's now time to talk about the creme de la creme of this blog. The machismo, the explosions, the shootouts, the fist fights...the action.

Live Free or Die Hard relies too much on creating visually interesting set pieces instead of truly tense and exciting action scenes. For example, Die Hard With a Vengeance builds up a lot of suspense when John has to deactivate a bomb while on a subway train. If his friend Zeus doesn't pick up a telephone too, the main villain will blow up the train. However, a cop has his gun aimed at Zeus and is preventing him from picking up the phone. Even though we know an action packed explosion of some sort is coming, the wait up to it is unbearable.

Live Free or Die Hard just doesn't know how to create scenes like that. All it knows how to do is create action scenes that look impressive but fail to engage the audience the way that the previous Die Hard films did. I want to remind the reader that I normally wouldn't attack any action scene in any movie like this. However, the Die Hard series is an excellent example of exciting action films with suspenseful scenes that even Alfred Hitchcock would be proud of. They aren't just trying to entertain the action crowd. They want to be a great action packed experience that you will never forget. To see this once great series turn into generic mindless blockbuster fare is just sad and disappointing.

You thought this was a video game screenshot? No, it's Die Hard 4.

I have to say, there are some truly terrible CGI scenes in this film. The CG on the collapsing freeway at the end of the film is laughably bad. The film also fails to capture true to life physics when it comes to its CG effects. During the lights out in the tunnel sequence, John and Matt run towards a pillar. As they leap behind it, a CG truck slides towards them and nails the pillar in the most awkward and unrealistic way possible. It's hard to describe this but check it out for yourself.

I did like some of the action in this film though. Thanks to the improvements with the unrated cut, all of the blood has been reinserted. I loved the first action scene in Matt Farrell's apartment. It's an old fashioned shoot 'em up bolstered by good sound design and lots of apartment destruction. I also enjoyed the parkour presence of Cyril Raffaelli (District B13, The Transporter, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Kiss of the Dragon) as one of Timothy Olyphant's main henchmen. He performs a lot of impressive stunts by jumping and sliding over fences and air ducts. Parkour was all the rage at the time (also seen in 2006's Casino Royale opening action scene).

My favorite action scene in the whole movie is the most basic and simple of them all. John and Matt are walking up a staircase in a large building and are trying to avoid various henchmen. When John turns around to talk to Matt, a henchman comes through the door in front of them. John and the henchman raise their handguns and cross their arms firing past one another's heads. They continue to duke it out until John gets the upper hand, blasts the man's foot, and than riddles his chest with bullets. It's the most old fashioned action scene of the film and it didn't require any CG at all. It just goes to show that sometimes a simple fist fight is more thrilling than a CG harriet jet firing at a CG truck as CG concrete falls all over the place.

Len Wiseman just doesn't know how to craft a good gritty action film. He is mostly known for directing Kate Beckinsale, being married to Kate Beckinsale, and making effects-heavy PG-13 actioners like Underworld, Underworld: Evolution, and Total Recall. He's the last person I want handling the gritty Die Hard franchise because he's more about plot and special effects than characters and suspense.

For those who were curious, this is that scene. Best shot in the film.

Live Free or Die Hard is one hell of a weak follow up to Die Hard With a Vengeance (one of the best action films I have ever seen). McClane doesn't feel the same, the villains are blander than ever, the humor is serviceable at best, and the action lacks the original's kick. To summarize my opinion in short: Die Hard 4 works as a fun blockbuster but not as a Die Hard film. You may think I hate this film because I spent about 90% of the review complaining about it. But alas, you don't know bad until you have seen the fifth film in the series...A Good Day to Die Hard In Russia With No Discernable Plot or Effort!

Rating: 6/10 - I am going to recommend the unrated cut of this film only to die hard action fans. I normally would give a film like this a 4 or a 5. However, the unrated cut helps salvage some of the damage. People who crave action scenes will get a kick out of some of things in this film. Unlike the first three films, non-actions won't find much to like here.

Franchise: Die Hard 

Die Hard (dir. John McTiernan, 1988)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (dir. Renny Harlin, 1990)

Die Hard With a Vengeance (dir. John McTiernan, 1995)

Live Free or Die Hard (dir. Len Wiseman, 2007)

A Good Day to Die Hard (dir. John Moore, 2013)

Die-Hard-a-Thon, Part 3 - Die Hard With a Vengeance (1995)

Director: John McTiernan

Cast: Bruce Willis, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L. Jackson, Graham Green, Colleen Camp, Sam Philips

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 131 minutes

Die Hard 2: Die Harder gave me quite the scare. How could the Die Hard franchise go downhill after just one film? After watching Die Hard With a Vengeance, all of my fears drifted away. Not only is this film an excellent sequel, but it is also one of the best action films I have ever watched. John McTiernan returns with a vengeance (see what I did there) and delivers an excellent and gritty action blockbuster that all contemporary sequels should strive to be like. Read on to see how much ass John McClane kicks in this bloody as heck actioner.

He may be divorced but he still wears that wedding ring.

It seems that John McTiernan is the savior and auteur of the Die Hard franchise. Both of his entries are absolutely excellent action films packed with R rated violence and lots of funny natural humor. They are both consistently entertaining and surprising in almost every scene. How much did I love With a Vengeance do you ask? Well, I ended up buying an original theatrical poster for the film on eBay. That's how much.

Die Hard With a Vengeance finds John McClane in a much darker place than where we left him back in 1990. When we last saw John, he was riding off into the snowy night with his lovely wife and kissing her passionately. From the look of things, Holly and John McClane looked like a happy couple. However, something happened in between Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With a Vengeance because Holly and John are no longer together. The film doesn't really give any reason why except that the two probably fought over something or whatever. Since John is clearly struggling with alcohol at the beginning of the film, I believe that his alcoholism must have drove her away.

The film starts with a literal bang as a bomb goes off in the streets of New York City. The police immediately receive a call from a man referring to himself as Simon (Jeremy Irons). Simon says that he plans on setting off another bomb unless John McClane will play a game with him. The force drags McClane out of police suspension and give him back his badge and gun. After completing his first task (McClane must wear a sign that says "I Hate N*****" in Harlem), McClane is saved from near death  by Zeus (Samuel L. Jackson). Since Zeus saved McClane during his first task, Simon demands that Zeus tag along with McClane for the rest of the day. It's an intense game of cat and mouse for the rest of the film as McClane and Zeus have to stop Simon from setting off more bombs in New York and ultimately catch the bastard.

The two have an "Unbreakable" friendship.

Die Hard With a Vengeance is an important entry because it takes the series in a whole new direction. Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are essentially the same film: John must stop some terrorists from taking over a limited location or else his wife will die. However, John is no longer with his wife in this film. In fact, she isn't even in the film. Instead, Die Hard With a Vengeance plops an alcoholic John right into his job and makes him race all over New York City in order to stop a terrorist. The plot of the film covers all of New York City instead of just a single building or an airport. This choice to broaden the events of the film to a massive scale seems to be the new franchise tradition. The next two sequels, Live Free or Die Hard and A Good Day to Die Hard, deal with terrorist plots that cover all of Washington, D.C. and Moscow. John McClane has come a long way since having to deal with just a simple building.

I love that we finally got to see John, a member of the N.Y.P.D., actually be a cop in New York City. The locations and settings seen throughout the film are absolutely incredible. The film provides an incredible sense of what it is like to simply be in New York City. It's kind of like John Mcclane is taking us on a nice tour of New York: he drives a taxi cab through central park, he climbs on top of a subway train, he drives a truck through a flooded water tunnel, he kills some terrorists inside of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and swings off of a bridge. The end of the car chase through Central Park blows my mind. John jumps a rock and lands right into busy New York traffic. The scene is made more impressive because there is no green screen or CGI. A stuntman is actually jumping a car out of Central Park and right into traffic!

John McTiernan's return to the franchise brings Die Hard back to its gritty and familiar roots. The first thing back is John's classic wife beater tank top. There's just something about John and that tank top that screams Die Hard. The second returning element is that the film is essentially a big adrenaline ride from start to finish with little to no down time at any point. The film has you in its grips from the moment it starts and never lets up. The film is also similar to Die Hard in that it has a serious plot devoid of forced humor. All the humor in the film is completely natural and develops from the situations and characters. The film also partners John back up with a black man that he becomes good friends with over the course of the film.

"Be pre-pareeeeeeeeeeeed!"

Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have incredible chemistry in this film. The two of them curse their way through this entire film and made me laugh the whole way through. These two guys were born to cuss! I really loved watching John get partnered up with a smart guy like Zeus. Whenever the two have to solve a riddle that Simon presents to them, only Zeus knows how to handle them. Without Zeus, John would not have likely made it through the day.

Another thing I loved about Die Hard With a Vengeance was the film's fantastic sense of community and teamwork. Everybody on the good guy side all work together. It's so nice to see people on John McClane's side for once after seeing the L.A.P.D., the FBI, and airport security be against him in Die Hard and Die Hard 2. Literally everybody helps out John throughout the film: police men, the bomb squad, and even truck drivers. It felt nice to see every citizen of New York City band together in order to stop a terrorist's plot.

And how about that terrorist? I think that Simon is a pretty solid villain. Jeremy Irons is a welcome addition to the franchise. It seems that Oscar caliber actors make for the best Die Hard villains. It's a bit of a spoiler, but I loved that Simon ended up being Hans Gruber's brother. The film really twisted this on its head when Simon reveals that he didn't even care for his brother at all. Simon had no intentions of simply targeting John. He used John as a scapegoat to distract everyone from his real goal: to steal a bunch of gold! All Simon cared about was just a nice score of cash and gold. Just like his brother. I also couldn't stop thinking about The Lion King (1994) and Scar whenever I heard Irons' voice over the many radio conversations in the film.

Holy crap!

Die Hard With a Vengeance has some incredible stunt work and action scenes to boot. I love all of the action in Die Hard 2, I really do. But the action scenes in this installment are so dang bloody and so freakin' exciting, Die Hard and Die Hard 2 just can't stack up to them.

One of the action scenes in the film is easily my favorite scene of the entire franchise. After some of Simon's men take over the Federal Reserve, John walks in covered in blood and asks if he could use the elevator. Four disguised terrorists happily oblige John and walk onto the elevator with him. As the elevator starts to go down, John looks over and sees that one of the terrorists has the badge number of one of his fellow cops. His co-worker would always play his badge number for the lotto and one of the terrorists killed the co-worker early on in the film and took his badge.

Instead of flipping out, John stares ahead at the elevator door and goes, "Did anyone play the lottery?" John goes off on a tangent about how his wife always gets him lottery tickets when he doesn't need them and it makes for a really funny scene. He concludes by saying, "You got your ticket? Here I got mine right here," and than puts his hand inside of his jacket. He fires his gun through his jacket into two of the terrorists and than shoves his gun into the neck of another terrorist. The fourth terrorist shoots at John but misses him and blasts the third terrorist. John flips the fourth terrorist over and shoots him in the head point blank. The film than cuts to a close up of John's face as blood splatters all over him! 

This is THE best scene in the whole series because it shows how hilarious and awesome John McClane is all in one scene. The scene is also wonderfully shot, edited, and set up so that the pay off is much more memorable. Bruce Willis is simply at his most lovable in this film and I couldn't get enough of him.

"English mother! Do you speak it?!"

There is also a great car chase where John is shot at by some of Simon's henchmen on a highway. John asks Zeus to rip out the car's brake wires underneath the steering wheel. John than pulls the emergency brake and whips the car around 180 degrees. As his car slides past the enemy car, Bruce fires his trusty hand gun and blasts the henchies to death. I love it!

Believe it or not, there is a reason why I cannot award this film a perfect 10 out of 10 rating. Die Hard lands a 10 out of 10 rating because it ends everything with a perfectly satisfying conclusion. Die Hard With a Vengeance's finale left me feeling quite disappointed. I don't want to spoil things, but the film seemed to end the main plot even though there was 15 minutes left to go. I know an alternate ending was filmed and I think that ending is also flawed. It seems like the filmmakers just couldn't figure out a good ending because both endings don't work for me. It makes one wonder, does the villain have to be defeated and killed at the end of every movie or can he escape every once in awhile?

It also seems to be the franchise tradition from Die Hard 2 - 4 to say, "Yippie Ki Yae Mother F*****" right before or after John kills the main villain. Just noticed it and thought it was worth mentioning. I also noticed John almost always has a partner in all of the films (except for Die Hard 2). For my money, Zeus is the funniest and most memorable of all of John McClane's partners and I would take him over Justin Long any day.

Guy just can't catch a break.

Watching Die Hard With a Vengeance was a bittersweet experience. I had never experienced this film before and had a real blast watching it. However, this is where the Die Hard franchise splits in two. The first three films represent Bruce Willis and R rated action at the top of their game. They are highly recommended (even Die Hard 2) to all action fans. The fourth and fifth installments however represent today's mediocre filmmaking with their weak characters, shaky camera work, lousy CGI, and forgettable attempts at humor. It pains me to know that I have to trudge through two more Die Hard films that will never be as good as the original three. Oh well.

To keep it short, Die Hard With a Vengeance kicks butt and blows your mind at the same time. It's an incredible thrill ride that had me laughing and gasping the whole way through. John McTiernan's return to the franchise helped out in a major way and I hope he returns again another day. I highly recommend this film to all action fans and consider it to be one of the best action films ever made. Tune in next time for the...PG-13 Live Free or Die Hard...PG-13? Is that a joke?

Rating: 9/10 - Watch it! A superb 90's blockbuster packed with blood, car chases, and explosions. Great character work all around as well.

Franchise: Die Hard 

Die Hard (dir. John McTiernan, 1988)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (dir. Renny Harlin, 1990)

Die Hard With a Vengeance (dir. John McTiernan, 1995)

Live Free or Die Hard (dir. Len Wiseman, 2007)

A Good Day to Die Hard (dir. John Moore, 2013)

Die-Hard-a-Thon, Part 2 - Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990)

Director: Renny Harlin

Cast: Bruce Willis, Bonnie Bedelia, William Atherton, Franco Nero, William Sadler, Art Evans 

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 124 minutes

One of my fellow critics, Brennan Klein of Popcorn Culture, recently reviewed A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master and loved it. I'm stoked for Brennan that the film's director was able to jump into the middle of a franchise and deliver an excellent and solid entry. That director's name was Renny Harlin and his Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master was released the same year that John McTiernan's Die Hard premiered. Who would have guessed that Renny Harlin would find himself in the director's chair of the Die Hard franchise a mere two years later. I wish that Renny had brought his mid-franchise charm to the Die Hard franchise the way that he graced the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. I'm sorry to say it people but I did not love his take on a Die Hard movie all that much.

"Get me out of this movie!"

I have heard several opinions about Die Hard 2: Die Harder over the years. One of my friends, Chris Gutierrez, has always told me that it is the worst film in the franchise. However, the guys over at AOBG.com rank it as one of the top 100 action films of all time and Vern of Aintitcoolnews.com thinks it's a solid sequel. Even the late Roger Ebert considers the film to be superior to Die Hard 1! I think that my opinion falls somewhere in the middle of all these other opinions. I agree with my friend Chris that the film suffers from forced humor, annoying characters, and an all around lack of excitement. However, I also agree with Vern and AOBG that the film contains spot on action, entertaining villains, and a fun but ridiculous plot. I guess I have a sweet spot for the action blockbusters of the 1990's, sue me.

And come on guys, "Die Harder"? I just can't get behind that subtitle. Am I an audience of one on this?

Die Hard 2 is Die Hard all over again but bigger, louder, and dumber. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is waiting at the airport for his wife (Bonnie Bedelia) to arrive from her flight. Unfortunately for the McClanes, a group of terrorists have chosen to take over the airport that very night. Fronted by the insane Colonel Stuart (William Sadler), the men shut down all of the lights on the runway and take over the communications board of the watch tower. The terrorist group demand for the safe landing of General Esperanza (Franco Nero), a man who will be tried for drug trafficking once he lands on U.S. soil. McClane is roped into the situation because his wife is up in the sky in a plane that will eventually crash once it runs out of fuel. In the words of McClane, "How can the same s*** happen to the same guy twice!"

Paul Blart: Airport Cop

Die Hard 2 is a decent sequel. It retains many things from the original film: bloody action, a limited location, the Christmas theme, evil terrorists, John's wife in danger, and characters from the previous installment return too. Much like The Matrix Reloaded, Rambo: First Blood Part 2, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and The Road Warrior, Die Hard 2 is a bigger sequel on a larger playing field in contrast to its small scale predecessor.

However, bigger is not always better. Unlike the first Die Hard, Die Hard 2 is not as exciting or as suspenseful. While I was literally on the edge of my seat during McTiernan's Die Hard, I was laid back and relaxed during Harlin's Die Hard 2. The film lacks the sense of realism and excitement that the original has. I guess this is where the line of the lovers and haters of this film is drawn. If you are okay with Die Hard turning into a more typical action blockbuster, than Die Hard 2 is for you. However, if you want a truly exciting and suspenseful film along the lines of the first film, skip this movie and check out Die Hard With a Vengeance.

It also doesn't help that Renny Harlin does to the Die Hard series what Richard Lester did to Superman II and Superman III. He adds a ton of forced humor, annoying characters, and lousy jokes that literally begin in the first frame of the film and continue into the final frame. I kid you not, the film opens on a joke and ends on a joke. There is no natural humor here at all. Everything is a one liner from an annoying character or a set up joke that "pays off" later. It's a shame the film is like this because the humor in the first film is so natural and believable in contrast to the forced laughs found here. Harlin and Lester would get along great with their terrible senses of humor and ability to crap all over a sequel.

Low on fuel, huh?

There are a ton of flaws that I could write about. However, I want to keep this short. My least favorite thing about the entire film is that it moves too quickly. We the audience and John himself meet the main villain in the first five minutes! There is absolutely no build up or subtlety in this film. It feels like as soon as we meet John that he is already in a shootout with some bad guys! I'm all for an action scene in the first ten minutes of a movie. But Die Hard is too smart to be that lazy.

The supporting characters in this film are your worst nightmare. Not only is almost every character against McClane or not on his side, but they all get loads of screen time! I think every character besides John McClane literally get the same amount of screen time. Therefore, the film felt like a constant bombardment of annoying characters telling John what he can and cannot do. 

The film is also pretty darn boring. After the terrorists reveal their plot to the airport security and John, the film really slows down. There is too much time in between action sequences and simply too much talk amongst characters. The film also suffers from some HUGE logical plot errors. For example, the terrorists apparently have plastic glocks that cannot be detected in a metal detector, the terrorists throw numerous grenades into a cockpit that don't explode for a whopping thirty-forty seconds, the airport watch tower never thinks about sending the airplanes in the sky to other airports, and a fuel-less plane explodes as if it were full of fuel. The CinemaSins YouTube channel need to count the sins in this movie because they would have quite a heyday.

Robert "T-1000" Patrick

However, I don't despise this film. I'm too much of a positive person to rip even a film like Die Hard 2 to shreds. When the film was released in 1990, it made a whopping $240 million worldwide off of a $70 million budget. Audiences clearly enjoyed this film and were desperate for some more John McClane. Even with all of its flaws, Die Hard 2 has the benefits of a 90's blockbuster with all of its explosions, shootouts, and ridiculous villains.

I am a huge fan of Christmas themed action films. It's quite probably the greatest sub-genre of action cinema in existence (The Long Kiss Goodnight, First Blood, Die Hard, etc). Die Hard 2 is filled with Christmas decorations, Christmas music, and snow. I'm a Christian and respect Christmas as the time that Jesus Christ was born into this world. However, I also love the heck out of a movie taking all of the love and charm out of a Christmas themed movie and filling it with bloody gun fire, exploding planes, and insane villains. I'd love to see somebody write a book or analyze all of the Christmas themed action films. There is just something about an action packed Christmas themed film that energizes me.

I also loved how entertaining the villains were in this film. While the terrorists are nowhere near as awesome as Hans and his group of German baddies (plus Al Leong), they are led by two great actors. Colonel Stuart (Hard to Kill's William Sadler) is as over the top as an action movie villain can get. He is introduced to us as he practices karate in his hotel room completely naked. He grabs his remote control and whips around to turn the television off as if he were going to shoot it. What the heck? I love this guy!

"My name is Django."

Franco Nero also graces us with his amazing presence as the General that the terrorists are trying to save at the airport. Nero is most well known for his many Euro Westerns (Django, Companeros, Texas Adios). We even get blessed with a small scene between Willis and Nero, two of the greatest action icons in cinema history. I like Nero as a villain and hope that he continues to play antagonizing roles (his cruel cameo in Django Unchained is also great). Robert Patrick even has a small role as one of Stuart's henchmen.

These villains are even more hard core than Hans was in Die Hard. When the men realize that McClane has interfered with their plans, they misdirect one of the planes in the sky down to the ground and cause it to explode into smithereens. Poor McClane tries to warn the plane while on the ground but he just can't. I love how McClane cries when the plane explodes. It shows that McClane really cares about people and that he will do anything to save innocent civilians from crazed mad men. This is a great character trait and I loved that Harlin carried this over from the first film.

The final thing that I have to talk about is the film's excellent action scenes. AOBG.com point out that Die Hard 2 "Dies Harder" because there is so much more action and violent dispatches seen throughout the film. There is no denying it, all of the action scenes in this film are pretty awesome. There is an excellent shootout around minute forty inside of an under construction airport terminal. John has to combat three terrorists as he rolls around and fires his gun numerous times. McClane even gets to take out a terrorist with an icicle to the face! I guess Die Hard 2 really does "Die Harder."

McClane ducks and rolls in an excellent gun fight.

So Die Hard 2. I want to like this movie but I just can't bring myself too. The film has some excellent gun fights, huge explosions, and truly feels like dumb popcorn entertainment. However, the film suffers from a horrible sense of humor, lousy characters, and just a load of unnecessary sub plots (I didn't even bother to mention that Fred Thompson returns as the annoying anchorman Trudeau and ends up on the same flight as Mrs. McClane. I'd rather forget that "humorous" subplot isn't even in the film). But alas, Die Hard 2 made money and a lot of action fans and critics out there loved it. You may read my review and completely disagree with me. Die Hard 2 doesn't have the same sequel hate that Ghostbusters 2 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom have. Therefore, I am going to recommend Die Hard 2 ONLY to "die hard" action fans who just have to see Bruce Willis gun down some terrorists and blow up some planes. Tune in next time for the return of John McTiernan and the white tank top in...Die Hard With a Vengeance!

Rating: 6/10 - Forced humor, logical errors, and annoying characters make the action packed Die Hard 2 plane come crashing down in a firey explosion. Get it? Like what I did there...

Franchise: Die Hard

Die Hard (dir. John McTiernan, 1988)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (dir. Renny Harlin, 1990)

Die Hard With a Vengeance (dir. John McTiernan, 1995)

Live Free or Die Hard (dir. Len Wiseman, 2007)

A Good Day to Die Hard (dir. John Moore, 2013)