1990's Die Hard 2 feels a little dated but is still a thoroughly enjoyable action thriller. The third best of the brilliant quadrilogy, this has got several pros and cons.
Going against it is Renny Harlin's less realistic take on the subject. It's a bigger but dumbed down version of the first movie. It's also suffering from sequelitus as well...the scripy often has New York Cop, John McClane muttering to himself about how his wife's been 'held hostage' by more terrorists on a different Christmas holiday. Unfortunately it's a contrivance the movie never escapes from.
The pluses outweigh the negatives fortunately. The move to Washinton keeps McClane as an outsider while the airport setting is a work of genius, upping the stakes to an epic level. Harlin directs with considerable style, giving the movie a grimier, gritier quality than before...the snow helping to isolate McClane and his environment further. William Sadler is inspired casting as the brutally professional bad guy, Colonel Stewart. And the set pieces that the airport setting provides get increasingly more grand and exciting as the movie proceeds.
Perhaps because the Bourne movies and Serious Bond thrillers are the order of the day, this overkill of McClane wisecracks seems very 90's. But this is still better than 98% of movies made today.
1 comment:
I love this movie. It's top quality action fare with a great central concept, a great vilain in Colonel Stuart (the awesome Bill Sadler) and of course a legendary hero in cinemas greatest ever vest wearing cop - John McClane.
The story is wonderfully set up with the snowbound airport a genius setting for McClane's own brand of gunplay and mayhem. The hostage drama is original and big scale with the circling planes running low on fuel having replaced christmas party goers in a high rise. And baddie Colonel Stuart is one cold, ruthless and singleminded sonofabitch. His deliberate crashing of passenger aircraft Windsor 114 still gives me chills. "We've got you." Brrr.
All of the action is awesome - the best being the fab Annex Skywalk shootout. And the ending fight on the wing of a 747 and the planes subsequent destruction is top flight (pun intended) entertainment.
However, it is very noticable when watching DH2 that it hasn't aged too well. In fact it looks and feels more like a 1980's actioner than it's superior predecessor. This is mainly due to two things. Firstly the tone. DH plays everything deadly serious and although the action is spectacular and thrilling it feels like a tough gritty character driven thriller. DH2 is a and comll about spectacle and big bangs. It's a comic book with more cheesy dialogue and dafter moments than the first film. Secondly Renny Harlin's directing style is more traditional and 'Hollywood' than John McTiernan's. McTiernan frames his shots and moves his camera in a meticulous and fluid style creating a smoother more artsy feel to his film while relying more on camera work and pacing to make his amazing action scenes. Harlin likes to point and shoot with more static camera work and relies more on the usual faster editing and slow motion shots. And there's nothing wrong with that. It works fine. It just doesn't look or feel anywhere near as sleek and complex as McTiernan's work.
I can still watch Die Hard now and (apart from a few costumes) believe it could be a contemporary film. DH2, despite its upping of the scale, looks and feels like a late 80's/early 90's action film. But, hey, nothin' wrong with that.
Yippee Ki-yay, motherf****r!
Post a Comment