Series note: It is not necessary to watch Die Hard (1988) before this film. However, that is the better film and it will give you a better introduction to the continuing characters, so it is still recommendable to watch the first film before this one.
Set an unspecified number of years after Die Hard (I'll call it "Die Hard 1"), Die Hard 2 has John McClane (Bruce Willis) just outside of Washington, D.C. on Christmas Eve, where he is waiting for his wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), to arrive at Dulles International Airport from Los Angeles so they can visit her mother for the holidays. Holly calls John from the plane to tell him that they're a half-hour behind schedule. While he's waiting in the crowded airport, he first sees a man he recognizes but can't place (it turns out to be one of the villains), then sees a couple other suspicious men heading into the restricted baggage area. He follows them in, has a confrontation, and eventually learns that one is a special ops military guy whose records say he's been dead for two years. That cues him in to the fact that something big is going to go down (as if he couldn't tell based on the fact that he's in another Die Hard film). Since a bigwig cocaine dealer from Latin America is on his way to Washington for extradition, that's a pretty big clue regarding what is about to go down. Shortly after chaos ensues, as "terrorists" take control of Dulles with dozens of planes in the air and no place to land--they're not able to talk to the tower, use their instruments properly or conduct a visual landing. How will they resolve the situation?
I'm not one to subtract points for a lack of realism, or "real world believability" in films. Because of that, Die Hard 2 poses a very interesting case study for me. Real world believability is very difficult to not think about when watching this film. Why wouldn't the planes just reroute to other nearby airports? There are a bunch less than an hour's flight away, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, the three New York City-area airports, and so on. Why wouldn't they be able to call another close airport, or the Pentagon, or somewhere else nearby to have them contact the planes? They're near Washington, D.C., after all (don't forget that Dulles is 26 miles away from D.C., in Virginia, making it unlikely that planes out of fuel would begin "dropping on the White House lawn"). It seems like maybe this film should have been set somewhere like Salt Lake City, Utah instead. Why wouldn't they be able to show the runways through some other means, like a line of emergency or police vehicles with their sirens on? If the "terrorists" started shooting at the vehicles, or trying to blow them up, at least they'd be given an indication where the fire is coming from/given their location. Just how likely would it be that there's a big storm in the area on the day when General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) is being extradited? How likely is it that he'd be extradited on Christmas Eve? Why the hell is John standing out on the runway in the snow waving a couple of flaming poles--just what does he think that will do? And we can go on and on.
In the above, it becomes clear that maybe the problem isn't real-world believability but internal logic, although to an extent, some of the internal logic is extremely difficult to separate from facts we know about the real world that aren't mentioned in the film. But Die Hard 1 was an extremely taut film that had impeccable internal logic. The film itself gave reasons for the dilemmas that arose, and they were justifications that made the dilemmas inevitable. It doesn't matter that some of the "facts" or situations in Die Hard 1 were contrary to our beliefs about the real world. The film defined things to be the fictional way it defined them, and the logic was consistent and valid (in the formal sense) from within the film.
However, it becomes clear, not too far into Die Hard 2, that perhaps looking at it for things like real-world believability and logical consistency/validity is misconceiving it. My belief is that this film is meant to be a spoof of action films as much as it is meant to be a serious action film. _That's_ why John is standing out on the runway waving around flaming poles like a maniac. That's why baddies can easily shoot and kill 20 or so highly trained, highly armed S.W.A.T. team members wearing bulletproof vests but can't hit John, who is wearing street clothes and rolling around on the floor with a pistol. That's why the planes are stuck over D.C. with no options and the film doesn't even try to justify this. That's why there are scenes of John "riding explosions" like a cowboy (yippee-ki-yay mf'er indeed). That's why there are a number of "wink-wink" cracks about being in another Die Hard film. That's why there are a few scenes that look oddly similar to Airplane! (1980). That's why the film so frequently, joyously embraces silliness.
Director Renny Harlin and his bulletproof vested army of scriptwriters and producers apparently set out to make a cartoonish satire of action films, while still making a serious action film. In 1990, action films were just at the tail end of their domination of the U.S. box office, so it was a ripe time to spoof them. Harlin and company succeed fairly well. It might have been even more artistically successful if they had more firmly committed to one angle (cartoonish satire) or the other (serious actioner), but the performances are pretty good, the fistfights, gunfights, explosions and chases are very good, and the film is frequently funny if you have a taste for the absurd.
Set an unspecified number of years after Die Hard (I'll call it "Die Hard 1"), Die Hard 2 has John McClane (Bruce Willis) just outside of Washington, D.C. on Christmas Eve, where he is waiting for his wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), to arrive at Dulles International Airport from Los Angeles so they can visit her mother for the holidays. Holly calls John from the plane to tell him that they're a half-hour behind schedule. While he's waiting in the crowded airport, he first sees a man he recognizes but can't place (it turns out to be one of the villains), then sees a couple other suspicious men heading into the restricted baggage area. He follows them in, has a confrontation, and eventually learns that one is a special ops military guy whose records say he's been dead for two years. That cues him in to the fact that something big is going to go down (as if he couldn't tell based on the fact that he's in another Die Hard film). Since a bigwig cocaine dealer from Latin America is on his way to Washington for extradition, that's a pretty big clue regarding what is about to go down. Shortly after chaos ensues, as "terrorists" take control of Dulles with dozens of planes in the air and no place to land--they're not able to talk to the tower, use their instruments properly or conduct a visual landing. How will they resolve the situation?
I'm not one to subtract points for a lack of realism, or "real world believability" in films. Because of that, Die Hard 2 poses a very interesting case study for me. Real world believability is very difficult to not think about when watching this film. Why wouldn't the planes just reroute to other nearby airports? There are a bunch less than an hour's flight away, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, the three New York City-area airports, and so on. Why wouldn't they be able to call another close airport, or the Pentagon, or somewhere else nearby to have them contact the planes? They're near Washington, D.C., after all (don't forget that Dulles is 26 miles away from D.C., in Virginia, making it unlikely that planes out of fuel would begin "dropping on the White House lawn"). It seems like maybe this film should have been set somewhere like Salt Lake City, Utah instead. Why wouldn't they be able to show the runways through some other means, like a line of emergency or police vehicles with their sirens on? If the "terrorists" started shooting at the vehicles, or trying to blow them up, at least they'd be given an indication where the fire is coming from/given their location. Just how likely would it be that there's a big storm in the area on the day when General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) is being extradited? How likely is it that he'd be extradited on Christmas Eve? Why the hell is John standing out on the runway in the snow waving a couple of flaming poles--just what does he think that will do? And we can go on and on.
In the above, it becomes clear that maybe the problem isn't real-world believability but internal logic, although to an extent, some of the internal logic is extremely difficult to separate from facts we know about the real world that aren't mentioned in the film. But Die Hard 1 was an extremely taut film that had impeccable internal logic. The film itself gave reasons for the dilemmas that arose, and they were justifications that made the dilemmas inevitable. It doesn't matter that some of the "facts" or situations in Die Hard 1 were contrary to our beliefs about the real world. The film defined things to be the fictional way it defined them, and the logic was consistent and valid (in the formal sense) from within the film.
However, it becomes clear, not too far into Die Hard 2, that perhaps looking at it for things like real-world believability and logical consistency/validity is misconceiving it. My belief is that this film is meant to be a spoof of action films as much as it is meant to be a serious action film. _That's_ why John is standing out on the runway waving around flaming poles like a maniac. That's why baddies can easily shoot and kill 20 or so highly trained, highly armed S.W.A.T. team members wearing bulletproof vests but can't hit John, who is wearing street clothes and rolling around on the floor with a pistol. That's why the planes are stuck over D.C. with no options and the film doesn't even try to justify this. That's why there are scenes of John "riding explosions" like a cowboy (yippee-ki-yay mf'er indeed). That's why there are a number of "wink-wink" cracks about being in another Die Hard film. That's why there are a few scenes that look oddly similar to Airplane! (1980). That's why the film so frequently, joyously embraces silliness.
Director Renny Harlin and his bulletproof vested army of scriptwriters and producers apparently set out to make a cartoonish satire of action films, while still making a serious action film. In 1990, action films were just at the tail end of their domination of the U.S. box office, so it was a ripe time to spoof them. Harlin and company succeed fairly well. It might have been even more artistically successful if they had more firmly committed to one angle (cartoonish satire) or the other (serious actioner), but the performances are pretty good, the fistfights, gunfights, explosions and chases are very good, and the film is frequently funny if you have a taste for the absurd.