It's the kind of movie I could go either way on and not sure how to decide on it exactly. It's got really good action scenes for sure, but it feels like such a repeat of the first one, but with big coincidences.
SPOILERS
What are the odds that a terrorist attack would happen to the same couple again, with the same reporter on the same plane as Holly McClane, even though it takes place on the other side of the country?
Also I felt that the new reporter character, was not necessary to the plot at all, unless it's just me? The biggest problem of the plot for me though, is that it seems to have a huge plot hole, as to why didn't all the planes, suspended in the air, just go to other airports? I know it's an action movie, but that is a much bigger plot than usual it seems, and maybe audiences in the 90s could accept such a plot hole, but I don't think one that big would be as accepted in an action movie of today as likely. Not that action movies today are written any better, but usual the plot holes are debunked more by viewers by today's standards it seems.
But what do you think?
SPOILERS
What are the odds that a terrorist attack would happen to the same couple again, with the same reporter on the same plane as Holly McClane, even though it takes place on the other side of the country?
Also I felt that the new reporter character, was not necessary to the plot at all, unless it's just me? The biggest problem of the plot for me though, is that it seems to have a huge plot hole, as to why didn't all the planes, suspended in the air, just go to other airports? I know it's an action movie, but that is a much bigger plot than usual it seems, and maybe audiences in the 90s could accept such a plot hole, but I don't think one that big would be as accepted in an action movie of today as likely. Not that action movies today are written any better, but usual the plot holes are debunked more by viewers by today's standards it seems.
But what do you think?