Michael's Action Lase-O-Rama: Die Hard 2 (1991, CBS/FOX Video)

Source: LDDB.com

---

Internet users are a peculiar sort who will go to war with one another over the dumbest and most obvious things, and fans of the Die Hard franchise are no exception. Heck, even people who aren't fans of the first film, or who don't really care about its existence one way or the other, will be happy to weigh in on whether or not it should be considered a Christmas movie. And don't worry--if your opinion doesn't jibe with theirs, they'll be happy to explain how wrong you are with as many three- and four-letter words as are necessary to make their point. Now, if you're looking to me to settle this debate once and for all, then I'll direct you to my review of the first film from a month ago. It won't answer your question, but it will occupy your time while everybody else who knows the truth continues reading in peace.

---

"How can the same thing happen to the same guy twice?"

Die Hard 2 represents the point where the films became self-aware. The idea that just a few years after thwarting Hans Gruber in Los Angeles, John McClane is waging a one-man war on terrorists in Washington, D.C. is absurd. Nevertheless, the script runs with it and we get a second action flick filled with great shootouts and a surprisingly hard-to-watch plane crash that always takes first-time viewers by surprise. McClane isn't supposed to fail, and yet in this installment there's a point at which his best just isn't good enough and dozens of innocent people die at the hands of William Atherton's Colonel Stuart.

That's right: the guy who walked barefoot over broken glass, bungee-jumped off a skyscraper using nothing but a fire hose, and saved dozens of innocent party-goers from an explosive demise in the first movie can't keep a passenger airliner filled with British people from crash-landing on a runway. It's a somber, sobering moment in the picture which yanks McClane back down to earth...at least for a few minutes. Then it just pisses him off and makes him more willing to fill assholes full of lead. To be fair, it's an early 90's action picture, so there's no use mourning dead people you never knew in the first place, right? At least not when your wife's plane could be the next one grounding into the tarmac. That said, McClane is easily his most human in this installment of the franchise. Still a badass, still a guy with whom you don't want to screw around, still quick with his wit, just dialed down a notch from the business at Nakatomi.

Die Hard 2 does things differently from its predecessor, and in my opinion, that's a good thing. Obviously with a different director and a different story, you're going to get a different final outcome--while Renny Harlin's no John McTiernan, you've still got a Steven de Souza-penned screenplay like the first movie, ensuring things move along. Like the original, this doesn't feel like a two-hour movie.

Watching it today, especially with people who've grown up knowing only a post-9/11 world of airport security, is amusing as hell though: people casually light up cigarettes throughout the terminal and on planes, a passenger brings a taser on board concealed in her handbag, and the idea of calling someone from a telephone while in mid-air is a total novelty as Holly, John's wife, reminds him in one of the film's early scenes. Completely absent are TSA pat-downs, full-body scanners, gun-toting air marshals, and long lines at security check points where people rifle through your luggage and inspect your shoes. Crazy what can change in ten years, isn't it?

---

Like the first film, Die Hard 2 received three separate releases on LaserDisc, all of which are widescreen and encoded to the proper 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Also much like the first movie, if you're a Laser-phile, the one you'll want in your collection is the 1998 pressing, which includes a badass DTS Digital Surround mix that will make you feel like you're in the middle of every pitched gun battle and plane crash. Sadly, while I love the format, I love my wallet more, and since that version goes for upwards of $50 nowadays, I had to make do with the version you see up top.

This is the 1991 edition, released as part of CBS/FOX Video's "Special Wide Screen Edition" collection. You've likely seen the same logo on your LD copies of Star Wars. Due to a running time in excess of two hours, Die Hard 2 gets the two-disc treatment, where sides 1 and 2 of disc 1 are encoded in CLV format for longer running time (roughly 50 minutes per side in this case), while side 3 on disc 2 gets the CAV treatment, allowing for slightly better resolution and freeze frame functionality for the film's climax. As soon as I get the chance, I'll replace this disc with the 1995 pressing, as it has a THX sound mix utilizing that glorious uncompressed AC-3 audio. But I've owned this particular 'disc forever, there's nothing at all wrong with it, and you can score a copy for about three bucks these days so it's an inexpensive way to bulk up your collection of great movies for next to no money.

---

So, between one and two, which is the better movie? Both are great action flicks, showcasing Bruce Willis in his prime, which never let up on the gas once they get going. The original is an absolute classic, and it's arguably the better of the two films: more tension, tighter direction, and Hans Gruber's a far more charismatic bad guy played with verve and panache by Alan Rickman. In addition to this, all of Gruber's henchmen and lackeys have far more personality than Colonel Stuart's men, who are all basically interchangeable. You won't find anybody like Karl or Theo on Stuart's team, just a bunch of crew-cut soldiers who follow orders and don't stand out. In addition, Carmine Lorenzo may be an ineffective head of security trying to keep an airport moving along on one of the busiest travel days of the year, but even his ineptness can't possibly match Deputy Police Chief Dwayne T. "Butt-fucked on national TV" Robinson. Die Hard is clearly the superior film by every measurable category.

Despite this, I actually think I like Die Hard 2 better than Die Hard. Like I said before, McClane's more human in this one. He tastes failure, despite dishing out an impressive body count himself. Not that innocent people aren't killed in Die Hard, but the few who do die are ones John was in a position to do nothing about. Saving Takagi was impossible--not only was McClane out-gunned and out-numbered, but Takagi wasn't able to give Gruber the codes he needed to open the vault, so his death was assured from the moment Gruber put his plan into action. Likewise, the security guards at the front desk were due to get their tickets punched before McClane even knew anything was going on. Ellis's death is no one's fault but his own, since he put himself in that situation willingly. Agents Johnson and Johnson were likewise killed due to no fault of McClane's, and in fact it's only through McClane's interference in getting the hostages off the roof before it exploded that the death toll wasn't higher.

In Die Hard 2 though, people die despite McClane's best efforts. John identifies the Annex Skywalk as an obvious site for an ambush, but the SWAT team escorting Barnes is wiped out by Stuart's men before he can get there. Likewise, when Stuart crashes a plane in response to the airport's attempt to restore communication, McClane takes to the runway with a pair of flaming torches in the hopes of getting the pilot's attention and avert tragedy.

It doesn't work, and the results are not pretty. In fact, they're so not pretty, the producers tried to convince de Souza to re-write the scene so that it was a UPS plane loaded down with packages instead of passengers. The director even filmed a separate crash sequence using a cargo plane with only a pilot and co-pilot on board in case test audiences walked out of the screening or balked at the hundreds of deaths in such a realistic scenario. As it turned out, test audiences didn't worry one way or another so the alternate take was never used, but it's still interesting to see the studio hedging its bets, just in case.

None of these is explicitly McClane's fault, but they are still burdens placed more heavily on his shoulders since it feels like he might have been able to do something, if only...(fill in the blanks here). I will say this, though: there's something incredibly satisfying, not to mention poetic, about McClane ending Stuart the same way Stuart callously snuffed out a plane-load of lives. Gruber's long fall is arguably the worse way to go, but Gruber never tossed anybody off a building either, so...you know, poetry. :)

---

Remember what I said at the start, about people arguing over dumb things? Well, if you can believe it, there's a long-standing battle over what, exactly, this film's title is. Is it "Die Hard 2", "Die Harder: Die Hard 2", or "Die Hard 2: Die Harder"? Depending on which version you buy, the packaging will weigh in on the issue: the 20th Century Fox Five-Star collection DVD release, for example, gives the title as "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" on its spine. Hell, all three LaserDisc releases have the "Die Harder" moniker right there on the cover.

The reality is, the film's name is just Die Hard 2. It's how it appears in the movie's title as well as its ending credits, it's the title de Souza used when he submitted the screenplay, and "Die Harder" didn't enter the equation until the marketing team started pumping out promotional materials. The spine of my LaserDisc lists the movie just as "Die Hard 2". IMDB also identifies the movie as "Die Hard 2", with "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" appearing as an "Also Known As" entry further down the page. If you believe otherwise, then I'm sorry, but the film and its screenwriter both contradict you, and when it comes to film, what appears on screen is canonical. The movie's name is "Die Hard 2". Now that that's settled, go find something more important to argue over. I hear there's a whole rash of Linux distributions all vying to be the best, and they can always use fresh bodies to feed into that wood chipper.