Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

bitomurder Two years after the immensely successful Die Hard, John McTiernan, Bruce Willis, and Twentieth Century Fox teamed up to unleash another John McClane adventure onto the world. Many people do not realize this, but twenty years ago sequels were not usually the bigger and better masterpieces that they always seem to be today. Back in the day, a sequel was often times thrown together to make a quick buck and only the biggest movies ever got the budget to live up to the quality that the first one produced. Die Hard 2: Die Harder was given this royal treatment, but despite everything working in its favor, this one fell short of its predescessor. I guess what disappoints me in this one is the guys' unwillingness to do anything different. A good sequel should be bigger and better than the original and add something more to the overall series, something fresh and interesting if you will. Die Hard 2 falls short in this category. This one seems like a simple rehashing of the same story. John McClane gets unwitting caught up in a terrorist attack and he comes through to save the day despite overwhelming odds against him. This one again takes place on Christmas in Washington D.C. instead of L.A. The story really does not give us anything new, nor do we see anything but the same John McClane. Unlike the other three movies in the series, John plays exactly the same person who has not grown at all since the last time we seen him. With that being said, Bruce Willis stills gives creedence to the character that he made famous. Returning from the first movie, Bonnie Bedlia as his wife, Holly, and William Atherton as the arrorgant TV reporter, Richard Thornburg give us a bird's eye view of the terrorist attack from the skies, but that sub plot seemed to drag down the movie a little for me. Good performances were given by Art Evans playing Leslie Barnes and by Republican presidential nominee Fred Thompson as Trudeau, the man running Dulles Airport. However, William Sadler gave a weak performance as the movie's protagonist, and he kind of makes you wish that John McClane had not killed Hans Gruber in the first one. So, Die Hard 2: Die Harder did little to recapture the power that the first in the series seemed to sweat out of ever pour. It was basically the same movie with a slight twist in situation to make it feel fresh. Still, this is a Die Hard movie, and it gives us enough humor and action packed adventure to leave us satisfied after the whole experience is over. Unlike so many sequels that, back in the eighties and early nineties, seemed tired and useless except to bring the overall feel of the first movie down, Die Hard 2: Die Harder is worth the 124 minutes to catch up with an old friend.

morganstephens512 While this sequel was nowhere near as good as the first one, it was still pretty decent for action film sakes. I did not really care too much for the characters at all, but the acting was still great and the actions was still top notch even this time around as well. Despite the fact that I do not really remember any of the scenes at all in the movie, I think that the film could actually be better than the first one on terms of just pure action scenes.

hdavis-29 It's true, stuff blows up real good here. And lots of guys get shot. And most everyone curses a lot. A real lot. If those are your criteria for a good movie, then look no further.But, my god, the movie is dumb. Nowhere is this more obvious than what passes for dialogue. If in doubt, curse. There's rarely a line of dialogue or an exchange that rings remotely true. I'm not looking for the Oxford debating society here; but this stuff is really embarrassing. What am I comparing it to? Since Fred Dalton is in DH2, let's compare it to Law & Order. A bad episode on L&O has more intelligent, human-sounding speech than this whole juvenile mess. And how about Dennis Franz. His role on NYPD Blue reminds us how compelling and intelligent a script can be. His lines here, indeed his entire role, are an embarrassment to his career. What have you done to my hero Andy Sipowicz? I understand that acting jobs like this pay the rent and this was probably a good gig for Franz. His role on the TV cop show is 3-dimensional and character driven. This is a cartoon. A 14-year old boy's fantasy of how a man sounds: loud, crude, bossy.It's sad that this film made money. It's an indictment of the sophistication of movie audiences, and worse yet - it encourages the idiots who crank out this trash.

ZD Review (1~5)#Content: Script 4 | Acting 3 | Cinematography 3 | Film Editing 3#Visual: Costume Design 3 | Makeup & Hairstyling 3 | Scenic Design 3 | Lighting 4 | Visual Effects 4#Sound: Score & Soundtracks 4 | Sound Editing & Mixing 4#Overall (1~10): 7