MovieChat Forums > Die Hard 2 (1990) Discussion > Is this movie actually NECESSARY?

Is this movie actually NECESSARY?

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
5 replies | jump to latest

The way I see it, the Die Hard movies are States-trotting, where in #1, McClane is in LA, in #2, he is in an AIRPORT in DC, #3, he is in NYC, and in #4, he is in DC proper. #5 doesn't count because he is in Soviet-Land, Russia.

DH2 always seemed to be a straight copy of DH1, with almost the same characters, and the villains are even worse (in terms of quality) than DH1. The airport setting in the depths of winter is boring, as you don't see much of DC except in newsrooms, and the main "tragic centerpiece" of the Windsor flight is nonsensical at best. The same wife-in-peril is there, the same annoying reporter, and cameos from the first movie appear, too.

In my ideal collection, I would have #1, #3 and #4 (cos I love Justin Long).

So why was this movie made?

[–] howgamer (3988) 4 years ago

The premise attempts to copy the original and they even make fun of it by John saying how can the same thing happen to the same guy at the same time of year. I agree the villains are worse and there are many similarities to the first, but Die Harder also doesn't have some of the stronger parts of its predecessor. This one sorely misses the dialogue and exchanges between McClane and Powell, and McClane and Hans. There isn't that contact on the outside like in the first and McClane and Stuart barely have any interaction in contrast to McClane and Hans.

Does the movie need to be made? Sure, the first one was a hit, brought in loads of cash and this is still a good action flick, just not as nearly well done as the first. Plus it spawned Die Hard with a Vengeance which I think is great.

Why was it made? Die Hard made lots of money.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7984) 4 years ago

Frankly I think With a Vengeance is on par with the first. But I would rank this above 4.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 4 years ago

No movie is actually "necessary".

[–] TandyMan (11349) 3 years ago

As a lover of schlock excess movies of the 80s and 90s and pointless cash grab sequels, this movie is absolutely necessary and one of the best examples of the genre. These new franchise "big story" movies we make are fun, but sometimes you just want a big dumb noisy retread. Something you can just get drunk and enjoy and not think about.

[–] MovieKnut (184) 3 years ago

Die Hard made over $140 million on a $28 million budget.