"DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" (1990) Review

 

"DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" (1990) Review

Following the success of the 1988 action thriller, "DIE HARD", I had been surprised to discover that 20th Century Fox had released a sequel to cash in on its success. This decision had surprised me, considering I had always associated sequels to summertime blockbusters from the likes of George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. Despite my surprise, I went ahead and viewed "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" in the theaters. And just recently, I had decided to do a rewatch on this film.

Like its 1988 predecessor, "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" or simply "DIE HARD 2" featured police detective John McClane and his adventures on Christmas Eve. And like "DIE HARD", this movie was based on a novel - namely Walter Wager's 1987 novel, "58 Minutes". "DIE HARD 2" found McClane, now working for the Los Angeles Police Department (L.A.P.D.), in Washington D.C. for a Christmas gathering with his wife's family. The movie began with McClane at the Dulles International Airport, waiting for his wife Holly's plane to land. A group of military terrorists led by a disgraced U.S. Army officer named William Stuart took control of the airport and the air traffic control system in order rescue a corrupt, foreign military leader named General Ramon Esperanza, who was also headed for Dulles under extradition for using U.S. funds to buy drugs. Realizing that Holly's plane and several others circling above Dulles were in danger of running out of fuel and crashing, McClane leaped into action in order to halt Colonel Stuart's plot. Unfortunately, the police detective found himself at odds with the airport police and an Army commander who did not want his assistance.

I was surprised to discover that "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" proved to be an even bigger box office success than the 1988 movie. In fact, it almost made as twice as much as its predecessor. I found this surprising, since it is rare for a direct sequel to succeed even more than the first film. But I could see why it had proven to be such a big success. Like the first film, it was based on a novel about a group of people being held hostage in a confined area for the sake of the villain's goal. In the case of "DIE HARD 2", the main villain - Colonel Stuart - wanted the airport security and any other law enforcement to maintain their distance, while his men plot to rescue ally General Esperanza and prevent the latter from being turned over to Federal law enforcement. Like the 1988 movie, the movie took its time is presenting its characters, the setting and the narrative. For that, I am grateful to both Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson's screenplay, along with Renny Harlin's direction.

Like any solid action-adventure film, "DIE HARD 2" could boast some well-shot action sequences. Mind you, there were a few that struck me as decent, but not exactly mind blowing - like McClane's encounter with a two of Stuart's men inside one of Dulles' baggage sorting areas and the shootout between Stuart's men and another group of Army commandos, led by the villain's former mentor, Major Grant. And if I must be brutally honest, I was not that impressed by the film's final confrontation between McClane and Stuart on the wing of an airplane in which the latter was trying to make his escape. I found it unnecessarily clumsy and anti-climatic. But I was more than impressed by one particular sequence in which McClane rescues Dulles' airport engineer Leslie Barnes from Stuart's men, when the former tried to use an unfinished antenna array to communicate with the stranded circling airplanes. I thought Hardin did an excellent job in filming the shoot-out and fight scene that followed. But if there was one scene that I found memorable - and very tragic - featured Stuart's retaliation against McClane's rescue of Barnes that involved a British airline.

"DIE HARD 2" also featured some very competent performances by the entire cast. But if I must be honest, there were no performances that I found particularly memorable. The entire cast, including leading man Bruce Willis, did their jobs. However, I must admit there were four performances that I found the most grounded - namely Bonnie Bedalia as McClane's wife, Holly Gennero; Art Evans as airport engineer Leslie Barnes; Fred Dalton Thompson as the airport's air traffic flight director Ed Trudeau; and Franco Nero as General Ramon Esperanza. I felt they had given the most grounded or subtle performances in the movie.

As much as I liked "DIE HARD 2", I do not love it. I never have, if I must be honest. There were aspects of this film that prevented it from being a personal favorite of mine. One . . . the plot. In order to rescue General Esperanza from custody and facing a trial in the U.S., Colonel Stuart and his men had taken control of an entire airport, held many planes flying above the airport hostage and demanded a 747 plane as the group's getaway vehicle. Why engage in such a complex plot to rescue Esperanza, when Stuart or a few of his men could have easily rescue the man before he left his own country? Or quickly and quietly rescue Esperanza from F.B.I. custody? These guys were trained military commandos. They could have easily accomplished their task without such a big hullaballoo. This is why I found the plot rather convoluted . . . probably more so than the narratives in other DIE HARD films.

Earlier, I had pointed out that I did not find any of the film's performances memorable. And I stand by that. Although I had no troubles with the performances, I do believe that most of the cast had been stymied by some rather bad dialogue. Yes, I am aware that "DIE HARD 2" was one of those action flicks from the 1980s and 1990s filled with the usual cheesy dialogue. However, I feel the dialogue featured in "DIE HARD 2" had went beyond cheesiness and bordered on bombastic. I found it rather embarrassing to watch an actor or actress set up a particular witicism, only to fall flat due to the terrible quality of the dialogue. Sometimes, the performances within the cast also came off as nearly bombastic . . . to the point I thought I had been watching a stage production within a film. At least John Amos, who had portrayed Barnes' mentor, Major Grant, managed to spout a few good lines. However, one of the worst offenders - as far as bad dialogue goes - came from William Sadler's Colonel Stuart. I thought some of his dialogue was truly bad. I felt sorry for Sadler, a superb actor who has proven capable of conveying a great deal of wit and humor in many of his other roles. Thanks to the film's screenwriters, his Colonel Stuart sometimes came off as a flat character with terrible or no wit.

But if there was one aspect of "DIE HARD 2" that really annoyed me, is that I had come away with the feeling that it tried to repeat many aspects of the 1988 film that made it such a hit. The movie was set during the Christmas holiday . . . check. Large group of people held hostage by terrorists in a public space . . . check. One of the hostages happened to be a loved one of the film's protagonist . . . check. A scene featuring many deaths, due to the villain seeking retaliation against one of McClane's actions . . . check. McClane in conflict with the local law enforcement . . . check. The movie's law enforcement leaders proved to be not-so-bright and almost incompetent . . . check. The movie ended with John and Holly being driven away by a supporting character (in the case of "DIE HARD 2", a custodian named Marv), to the tune of Vaughn Monroe's "Let It Snow" . . . check. The movie even featured the return of two other characters from "DIE HARD" - Reginald VelJohnson as L.A.P.D. officer Al Powell; and William Atherton as William Atherton as news reporter, Richard Thornburg. VelJohnson only made a cameo appearance in the movie. However, Altherton's Richard Thornburg, who was a fellow passenger on the same flight as Holly, repeated his arc from the 1988 film. His nose and pursuit for a story nearly endangered the lives of the passengers and crew aboard his plane and the others circling above Dulles Airport, just as it had endangered Holly in "DIE HARD". Despite the different setting and a different goal for the main villain, watching "DIE HARD 2" almost felt like watching a remake of the 1988 film. Almost. And that was not a good feeling for me.

Ironically, there was one aspect of the 1988 movie that "DIE HARD 2" had failed to recapture - and I wish it had - was McClane forming a connection or an ally to help him during his adventures. "DIE HARD" had Reginald VelJohnson. The other three movies had also allowed McClane to connect with one particular character to serve as an ally. Unfortunately, "DIE HARD 2" had failed in this endeavor. During the movie's 124 minutes running time, McClane managed to form an alliance or connection with a character to help him or for him to help. But those connections had never lasted. Much to my disappointment.

But you know what? Despite my complaints about "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER", I still managed to enjoy the film. In the end, I thought director Renny Harlin and screenwriters Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson managed to create a fun and exciting action flick for moviegoers. And although I cannot recall any outstanding performances in the movie, I cannot deny that the film's cast, led by Bruce Willis, did a solid job in bringing their characters to the screen.

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (1.12) "Whatever the Case May Be"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (1.12) "Whatever the Case May Be"

I had never meant to write an article on (1.12) "Whatever the Case May Be", the Season One episode of ABC’s ”LOST”. Honestly. But after I recently re-watched the episode, I realized that I had to say or write something about it.

”Whatever the Case May Be” happened to be the second episode that featured Kate Austen as a main character. While frolicking in what looked like a spring, Kate and fellow castaway James “Sawyer” Ford came across another chunk of Oceanic Airlines 815’s fuselage section and several dead passengers. Kate also discovered a silver Halliburton case that she asked Sawyer to retrieve for her. The case had belonged to the recently dead U.S. Marshal Edward Mars, who had been escorting Kate back to United States soil in order for her to face criminal charges. Being Kate, she decided to tell Sawyer that he could keep the case . . . before making several attempts to get her hands on it by theft. The case not only contained Marshal Mars’ firearms and some money, but also a sentimental object that meant very much to Kate.

How much did that object mean to Kate? As shown in the episode’s flashbacks, it meant so much to her that she staged a bank robbery (in which she pretended to be a potential loan customer and victim) in New Mexico in order to acquire it from one of the bank’s safety deposit box. It seemed that Marshal Mars had placed it there to entrap Kate. As for the object of Kate’s desire, it turned out to be a toy airplane that once belonged to a former childhood sweetheart named Tom Brennan, whose death she was partially responsible for, as shown in a later episode called (1.22) “Born to Run”. Not only was Kate willing to stage a bank robbery in New Mexico and steal the Marshal’s case on the island for it, she was also willing to manipulate and lie to castaway leader Jack Shephard in order to get her hands on it.

Several “B” plots also abound in this episode. One of them featured on Charlie Pace’s continuing melancholy and guilt over Claire Littleton’s kidnapping at the end of (1.10) “Raised By Another”. In short, Charlie sat around and moped over Claire, while the other castaways moved their belongings to another beach in order to prevent everything and everyone from a rising tide that threatened to wash over their camp. In the end, Rose Nadler helped him snapped out of his gloom with tough words and a prayer. John Locke and Boone Carlyle focused on finding ways to open the hatch they had discovered near the end of (1.11) “Even the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues” and met with failure. And Sayid Jarrah asked Boone’s stepsister, Shannon Rutherford, to help him translate longtime castaway Danielle Rousseau’s maps and notes, which are written in French. His request attracted Boone’s jealous attention.

Did I like ”Whatever the Case May Be”? No, I did not. In my opinion, it was one of the worst episodes from Season One. In other words, I thought it was a piece of crap. One, the entire storyline about Kate’s efforts to get her hands on the toy airplane struck me as an exercise in irrelevancy. The fact that this particular episode was resolved in ”Born to Run”, the next Kate-centric episode, not only convinced me of the uselessness of this storyline, but also the flaky nature of Kate’s personality. Look, I understand that she had felt guilty for inadvertently causing Tom Brennan’s death. But was it really necessary to set in motion a bank robbery in New Mexico or piss off Jack and Sawyer for that damn toy plane? I do not think so.

Kate’s quest for the toy airplane had produced two sequences that really annoyed me. One, her attempts to steal the Halliburton case from Sawyer left me shaking my head in disbelief. At one point, I felt as if I was watching two adolescents behaving like ten-year-olds. Both of them seemed ridiculous and immature in their efforts to steal the case from each other . . . not sexy at all. And why did Kate hand over the case to Sawyer in the first place? She could have maintained the lie that the case belonged to her. Nor did she have to tell Sawyer what was inside the case. At least she would have been spared resorting to childish efforts to get the damn thing. The quest for the toy airplane also produced one of the most ludicrous flashbacks in the series’ history, and one of the dumbest bank robberies in movies or television. The fact that Kate had staged the robbery for the airplane makes me want to upchuck. And if she knew that Marshal Mars had placed the airplane inside the bank, why did she have to enter the bank, unmasked? Why not simply act as one of the masked robbers? And if the whole thing was a trap set up by Marshal Mars, where in the hell was he? Where was the stakeout? And what were Damon Lindelof and Jennifer Johnson thinking when they wrote this episode?

And if the main plot seemed ludicrous beyond belief, the subplots were no better. After discovering the infamous hatch to the Swan Station at the end of the previous episode, (1.11) “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues”, John Locke and Boone Carlyle decided to keep their discovery a secret. Well . . . Locke did. Boone rather idiotically decided to follow his lead. To this day, I am amazed that so many "LOST" fans had continued to regard Locke as the castaways’ wise mentor by this point in Season One, considering his decision to keep the hatch a secret struck me as incredibly stupid. Oh well. Perhaps Lindelhof and Johnson needed this secretive behavior as fodder for future storylines. Another subplot featured Sayid Jarrah and Shannon Rutherford’s efforts to translate the charts and notes that he had stolen from Danielle Rousseau in (1.09) “Solitary”. The storyline regarding the charts and notes amounted to nothing. But it did initiate the romance between the former Iraqi soldier and California dance student. We finally come to the subplot regarding Charlie Pace’s guilt and despair over Claire Littleton’s kidnapping and Rose Nadler’s attempts to help him deal with the latter. One, I found subplot boring. And two, Rose’s attempts to revive him from his despair struck me as a perpetration of the ”Religious Black Woman” cliché. Not only could I have done without this subplot, I could have also done without her dialogue.

Many fans had viewed Jack’s behavior toward Kate in this episode as abusive and controlling. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I found his reaction to Kate’s revelation about her tracking skills in ”All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues” as controlling and abusive. Frankly, I thought he was being a prick. However, I completely understood his behavior with Kate in this episode. Honestly? Kate had manipulated him and lied to him for the sake of case and a toy airplane. Instead of keeping the case in the first damn place and explaining to Jack why she wanted it opened, Kate behaved like an erratic child. And Jack treated her like one, in a fit of disgust and anger. Boone continued his verbal abuse of Shannon’s self-esteem in this episode. I realize that she had behaved abominably to him, back in Australia. I also realize that Shannon could be a bitch. But she had done nothing to earn such constant and persistent abuse.  So . . . Boone behaved like a prick. Sawyer did not treat anyone with such abuse. I found his efforts to open the case rather childish, but that is all. But I thought Kate treated him in an abusive manner in an effort to get her hands on the case. I realize that she did not want him to know about her criminal past. But as I had stated earlier, she could have continued to claim the case as hers and recruited Jack’s help to open the damn thing. Instead, she allowed Sawyer to take the case. The she resorted to stealth and physical abuse to get it back. Kate had behaved like a prick . . . or a female version of one.

"Whatever the Case May Be" had one or two virtues. Actually, it had one. Larry Fong’s photography of the Hawaiian jungles and beaches remained fresh and beautiful as ever. But with so much infantile and stupid behavior by the characters, and incompetent writing by Damon Lindelhof and Jennifer Johnson, is it any wonder that I hold this episode in such deep contempt?

"HEAVEN & HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH, BOOK 3" (1994) Photo Gallery

 

Below are photos from "HEAVEN & HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH, BOOK III", Wolper Production's 1994 adaptation of John Jakes 1987 novel.  Directed by Larry Pierce, the miniseries starred James Read, Lesley-Anne Down and Kyle Chandler:

"HEAVEN & HELL:  NORTH AND SOUTH, BOOK 3" (1994) Photo Gallery

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Review

 

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Review

For some reason, I still find it hard to believe that until recently, very few people were aware that the first adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "Sense and Sensibility", dated as far back as 1971. After all, people have been aware of other Austen adaptations during this same period or earlier. Even the Wikipedia site fails to mention it, except in connection with one of the cast members. What was about this four-part miniseries that eluded so many Austen fans?

In "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", a wealthy landowner named Mr. Dashwood dies, leaving his two daughters and second wife at the mercy of his son by his first marriage, thanks to the rules of inheritance. When the son fails to financially help his sisters and stepmother, the trio are forced to live at a meager cottage, thanks to the generosity of Mrs. Dashwood's cousin. The miniseries follows the love lives of the sisters, while they deal with their new penniless status.

I could have went into greater detail about Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. But what would have been the point? Austen's novel and the other adaptations have made both their story and characters well known to fans. Everyone knows that the Dashwood sisters' penniless state have made them undesirable as potential mates among the English upper-class. And many know that Elinor Dashwood is the older and more sensible sister, who kept her emotions suppressed behind a facade of stoic behavior. They also know that Marianne is the younger sisters, whose romantic enthusiasm led to emotional excesses and irrational behavior. Was there something unique about this adaptation of Austen's novel? Hmmm. Other than it was probably the first version of the 1811 novel and the first of four versions to exclude the character of the youngest Dashwood sister, Margaret.

Overall, I believe that "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" turned out to be an entertaining and well-paced television miniseries. But it was not perfect. One, I felt that screenwriter Denis Constanduros made a few missteps in his adaptation. I wish that Constanduros had included a scene featuring John Dashwood's last conversation with his dying father. I felt that his eventually betrayal of his promise, due to his wife's capriciousness would have possessed more bite. I also felt that Constanduros could have included more scenes featuring Marianne and John Willoughy's courtship. The period between their first meeting and Willoughby's decision to end their romance seemed to go by in a flash. It happened too soon for me to understand Marianne's grief over his rejection of her. Although there were a good deal of exterior shots of the English countryside, I wish there had been more exterior shots of early 19th century London, during the sisters' trip. The London sequences made the miniseries feel more like a filmed play. And why on earth did Constanduros allowed Elinor to pay a visit to Edward Ferrars' London rooms alone? What was he thinking? He should have allowed Elinor to summon Edward to Mrs. Jennings' home in order to deliver Colonel Brandon's news about a new job. I have one last major problem. Why on earth did costume designer had Elinor and Marianne wearing identical traveling outfits? They were not twin sisters. And no siblings from an upper-class family - especially of the female gender - would be caught dead in this manner:

What was costumer designer Charles Knode thinking?

I also had some problems with the casting and performances. I had a real problem with actress Ciaran Madden's performance as Marianne Dashwood. How can I put it? It was over-the-top. I realize that she was at least 25 years old at the time this production was filmed. But did she and director David Giles really thought an exaggerated performance was necessary to portray the emotional 17-year-old Marianne? Was that their idea of portraying an emotional adolescent? And why would actor Michael Alderidge use a strong, regional accent for his portrayal of Sir John Middleton? I realize that his mother-in-law and wife came from a middle-class background. But Sir John and his cousin Mrs. Dashwood, did not. Both actresses who portrayed the Steele sisters - Frances Cuka and Maggie Jones - seemed at least a decade-and-a-half too old for their roles. And Kay Gallie's Fanny Dashwood seemed like such a major disappointment. Her Fanny struck me as too passive-aggressive and nervous in compared to the other actresses who portrayed the role.

But despite some disappointments, I must admit that "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" turned out to be a pretty good production. Hell, I like it a lot more than I do the 1981 television version. Thanks to Constanduros's script and Giles' direction, the four-part miniseries struck me as well paced - aside from Marianne and Willoughby's courtship. Aside from the traveling outfits, I must admit that I found Knode's costume designs both colorful and elegant. And like the 1995 movie, I was happy to see that the screenplay allowed Marianne to become aware of Colonel Brandon before her meeting with Willoughby . . . allowing the pair's eventual romance in the last episode very credible.

There were also some very good performances in "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY". I found myself surprisingly impressed by Richard Owens' performance as Colonel Brandon. At first, I barely paid attention to him. But I must admit that his performance actually grew on me and I thought he did a credible job of slowly revealing Brandon's passion for Marianne. Despite his strong regional accent, I must admit that Michael Aldridge was perfectly cast as Mrs. Dashwood's gregarious cousin, Sir John Middleton. And despite her age, Frances Cuka did a very good of conveying Lucy Steele's manipulations regarding Edward, Elinor and the Ferrars family . . . even if I found it a bit obvious. I was very impressed by Milton Johns' performance as Elinor and Marianne's spineless older half-brother John Dashwood. In fact, I feel that he gave one of the better performances in the miniseries. Robin Ellis gave a solid, yet charming performance as Edward Ferrars. However, I must admit that I was not that impressed by his screen chemistry with Joanna David's Elinor. In an ARTICLE I had written about Jane Austen's rogues, I had originally stated that I found Clive Francis' portrayal of the caddish John Willoughby unmemorable. I take it back. On a second viewing, I found myself surprisingly impressed by his performance. I think I may have been distracted by the so-called Regency wig he was wearing . . . or the speed of the Marianne-Willoughby courtship. But I thought Francis, who went on to co-star with Ellis in the "POLDARK" series a few years later, gave a very complex and satisfying performance.

But there were two performances in "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" that I found outstanding. One of them belonged to Joanna David, who was perfect - well . . . almost - as Elinor Dashwood. She was one of the few performers who managed to restrain from "playing to the second balcony" as many other stage-trained actors tend to do. Mind you, there were moments when she seemed incapable of projecting Elinor's passionate nature behind the sensible facade. But more than any other person in the cast, she did a superb job in carrying the miniseries on her shoulders. The other outstanding performance turned out to be Patricia Rutledge's portrayal of the vivacious Mrs. Jennings, Sir John's mother-in-law. She was in her early 40s at the time and technically, too young for the role. But I cannot deny that Rutledge seemed like the very personification of the verbose and interfering, yet warm-hearted widow. Of the four Mrs. Jennings I have seen, only Elizabeth Spriggs from the 1995 movie seemed her equal.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" is not the best adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, despite being the first. And it possessed certain aspects in both the script and casting that I found questionable. But thanks to David Giles' direction, Denis Constanduros' screenplay, and superb performances especially from Joanna David and Patricia Rutledge; I feel that it turned out to be a pretty damn good adaptation in the end. I would highly recommend it.

"TOWARDS ZERO" (2025) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "TOWARDS ZERO", the BBC's 2025 adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1944 novel. Adapted by Rachel Bennette and directed by Sam Yates, the three-part miniseries starred Matthew Rhys:

"TOWARDS ZERO" (2025) Photo Gallery