Brilliant, splicing out the original Die Hard 2 edits from Siskel and Ebert's show and putting in the most violent and most profane scenes of Die Hard 2, lol Made me laugh. Finishing up with Siskel saying "Quiet moments and a solid sense of humor" LOL!
Not as good as the first film, but still good for a sequel, especially one that obviously had to have similarities to the first film from general to very specific. It's fun, but the original was a genuinely exceptional film of its kind.
In the original version of the review there's a piece of dialog like this : "This film however for my money is way superior to the original Die Hard..." "Oh, I liked that too, but this is really something special!" "Now there's a certain number of holes in this movie. Like for example: you wouldn't have the planes flying around in circles for several hours..."
Or an airplane that was almost completely out of fuel but somehow goes up in a GIGANTIC F'ing fireball when it crashes. That was a major reason that some of Lynyrd Skynyrd's band members survived their crash; their plane was out of fuel.
@@LukeLovesRose I have to agree with Siskel on that one: Die Hard 3. in terms was merely a shockshow. And it kind of cut off a couple off things I enjoyed in the first two. It just wasn't human enough.
@@Angyali I thought Die Hard With A Vengeance was more human. I love how McClane starts eating his scabs just out of nowhere. McTiernan was a great action director
@@LukeLovesRose Being a good "action director" is one thing. Being an intelligent storyteller is another. McTiernan did a good job with the first Die Hard, although I heavly disliked the idiotic portrayal of the local police department there. In my eyes, Die Hard 2. is by far the best, and that one had neither McTiernan, nor the Grubers.
I love all Die Hard movies equally (minus number 5). But there was one aspect they did not touch base on. Die Hard 2 features my favourite action cliche (if you can even call it a cliche): bad guys fire hundreds of rounds of ammo and miss; good guys fire hundreds of rounds too and they miss! (well there's a few scenes that break this rule) It keeps the viewer intrigued to see who will come out on top.
Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made. That's seriously hard to live up to. Look at T2 and all of its sequels. Die Harder is a very good follow up. But I think Die Hard with A Vengeance is the best of the Die Hard sequels
In the original version of the review there's a piece of dialog like this: "This film however for my money is way superior to the original Die Hard..." "Oh, I liked that too, but this is really something special! I really..." "Now there's a certain number of holes in this movie. Like for example you wouldn't have the plains flying around in circles for several hours..."
Love this movie, but it does have one of the fake-est "getting blown off your feet by an explosion" moments of any action movie I've seen (see 1:35). They really should have worked more on that one. LOL Also, I assume Mr. Goodman added the movie clips himself since he seems to have chosen every "F-You" and gore moment from the movie, stuff Siskel & Ebert NEVER would have shown on regular television back in the day. No biggie, just kind of amusing.
What??? I am so surprised that they liked this Die Hard and not the first one. By the way, this has got to be a joke. This the first Siskel and Ebert review I have ever seen that has uncensored cursing and violence. This was actually pretty funny!!! Hahahaha. If you did this, great editing job. :))))
scottjulie27 por lo que escuche siskel y ebert le gustaron la 2 y la 3, aunque si me acuerdo bien tambien le gustaron la primera. Saludos desde argentina 👍
First of all, whoa! I wonder what channel this was on; when/where I saw S&E back in the day it could have never been uncensored. Interesting... Related to this: I want to watch this Christmas movie with my very young nephews this year and I wish there was an easy way to get a tastefully censored version; always seems I have to make my own. Anyway, I digress; I was wondering why the differences in this video. It appears that the scenes shown are mostly different from the broadcast of S&E I know of: siskelandebert.org/video/NA962UO4NMM6/Die-Hard-2--Ghost-Dad--Days-of-Thunder-1990 (I recommend anyone check it out for Eberts review too) So, it looks like there were broadcasts on some channels that had uncensored movie segments (and apparently extended as well) on the show; that is amazing. How I wish I had seen more than a few episodes what I was younger...
I don't understand these guys. They liked Die Hard 2 which was essentially a rehashed plot of the first movie but then they hate on Ghostbusters II because it's too similar to the first.
Uh...yeah, except Siskel and Ebert were on network television, you know, where they couldn't ever have aired the word fuck. This was idiot. I wanted the review, not a bunch of clips of Die Hard 2 edited over Siskel and Ebert talking.
I'm afraid so, the uploader had to do it so it can present the way it's meant to be: R-Rated films they are reviewing uncut and uncensored so little kids don't have to watch it.
DH2 was a cheap imitation of the original and I can't understand why S&E liked it more than 1. It lacked Alan Rickman and the plot twist you never saw coming. This one was filmed with too much foul language and violence and looks like any other action film. Willis is just loud and obnoxious and he doesn't generate the sympathy we had for his character in the first. This review is edited and we never see Ebert here, but I remember when they did the review and Ebert really liked it too. But at the end they both say "Great bad guys!" without ever giving us a reason. I thought Dennis Franz was really good though.
howie9751 yo soy de argentina ¿ die hard 2 que tan recordada es en tu pais o solamente es recordada por algunos ? A mi se me hizo una secuela mas que decente pero muy inferior a la original, a mi de villano me hubiera gustado a kevin costner o a jeremy irons osea villanos con apariencia de hombres debiles y no un villano que parece indestructible jaja
@@howie9751 i asked you if in your country die hard 2 is remembered or is remembered by some and that a more than decent one was made to me but much inferior to the first. I am from argentina
This was poorly edited together. It makes it hard to enjoy the commentary, and appears more to be a trailer than a serious review. If you wanted to show us both the movie and the commentary maybe try a little harder to control the sound and clips.
If they were reviewing the censored-for-TV version, they would have hailed it as the comedy of 1990.
Yippie Ki_-Yay Mr.Falcon.
potsyband Joke Off
@@OnTheRunSinceBirth you beat me to it😃
Brilliant, splicing out the original Die Hard 2 edits from Siskel and Ebert's show and putting in the most violent and most profane scenes of Die Hard 2, lol Made me laugh. Finishing up with Siskel saying "Quiet moments and a solid sense of humor" LOL!
Yeah I agree lol
Not as good as the first film, but still good for a sequel, especially one that obviously had to have similarities to the first film from general to very specific. It's fun, but the original was a genuinely exceptional film of its kind.
They got to review Die Hard 2 and Days of thunder, in the same week. What a job!
I love every die hard movies except for 5
Live Free or Die Hard sucked too. They should never make a PG-13 Die Hard
Aside from the spoilers, I'm sure the original review didn't include the swearing.
What no spoiler alert siskel and Ebert?
"A snowmobile chase follows . . . but we're not showing that."
In the original version of the review there's a piece of dialog like this
:
"This film however for my money is way superior to the original Die Hard..."
"Oh, I liked that too, but this is really something special!"
"Now there's a certain number of holes in this movie. Like for example: you wouldn't have the planes flying around in circles for several hours..."
Angelus That's "planes" vampire boy(or maybe you're Catholic).
Canada and USA Rock Sorry, miswrote it.
Or an airplane that was almost completely out of fuel but somehow goes up in a GIGANTIC F'ing fireball when it crashes. That was a major reason that some of Lynyrd Skynyrd's band members survived their crash; their plane was out of fuel.
@@coltseavers6298 Hmm.... short circuited electric fire maybe?
Die Hard 1 & 2 should’ve been released for the Christmas season. I watch em during the holiday season as Christmas movies.
I still don't know why John McClane thinks shit would set off a metal detector...
WHERE IS THE SECOND HALF OF THIS REVIEW!?!
D1: 7/10 D2: 9/10 D3: 6/10 D4: 4/10 D5: 1/10
Die Hard with A Vengeance only get 6/10??
@@LukeLovesRose I have to agree with Siskel on that one: Die Hard 3. in terms was merely a shockshow. And it kind of cut off a couple off things I enjoyed in the first two. It just wasn't human enough.
@@Angyali I thought Die Hard With A Vengeance was more human. I love how McClane starts eating his scabs just out of nowhere. McTiernan was a great action director
@@LukeLovesRose Being a good "action director" is one thing. Being an intelligent storyteller is another. McTiernan did a good job with the first Die Hard, although I heavly disliked the idiotic portrayal of the local police department there.
In my eyes, Die Hard 2. is by far the best, and that one had neither McTiernan, nor the Grubers.
@@Angyali LMAO. You've been listening to Eberts review far too often
Uh, this can't be clips from the show because they have cursing here.
Ya and extreme violence
Right??? AND it's a Disney show!
Good review, but I think you re-edited the review.
Wonder how they felt about that shot when Grant cuts the guy's throat?
John Amos and Dennis Franz are two of my favourites in this. Great actors. GREAT movie.
I love all Die Hard movies equally (minus number 5). But there was one aspect they did not touch base on. Die Hard 2 features my favourite action cliche (if you can even call it a cliche): bad guys fire hundreds of rounds of ammo and miss; good guys fire hundreds of rounds too and they miss! (well there's a few scenes that break this rule) It keeps the viewer intrigued to see who will come out on top.
You loved the recent one? You nuts?
@@sha11235 The latest was 0/10. I keep forgetting it exists.
5. Die hard 5
4. Die hard 2
3. Die hard 3
2. Die hard 4
1. Die hard
I can appreciate how genius this is. I lol'd the whole way through it.
Die hard 1- 4 awesome
Die hard 5 - doesn’t exist
Wow, they didn't edit Dennis Franz or anyone else :)
The Dennis Franz character is unforgivable.
The film clips they used in this video have a lot of F words so that me got wondering… was it allowed on TV back in the 80s?
Why did they not bleep out the cursing when do the review for this movie?
how awesome would this show have been if they showed unedited clips like this
Great insight from Ebert here.
This was not edited well in the sense that it should not have been edited at all.
I remember watching this review, the neck cut was most memorable
Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made. That's seriously hard to live up to. Look at T2 and all of its sequels. Die Harder is a very good follow up. But I think Die Hard with A Vengeance is the best of the Die Hard sequels
good question, I hadn't noticed. Maybe the affiliate this was taped from (Wichita, if I recall) had a prankster get to it
Nice editing work 👍
It's remarkable the sheer number of spoilers in this review.
3:54 How did they get away with showing that on TV in 1990?
They didn't show it on TV. Whoever were uploaded this video put in uncensored footage
I really want to see Rogers review. Can someone post it? He hated Die Hard 1. :)
Go to his website and read it.
Ebert loved Die Hard 2
In the original version of the review there's a piece of dialog like this:
"This film however for my money is way superior to the original Die Hard..."
"Oh, I liked that too, but this is really something special! I really..."
"Now there's a certain number of holes in this movie. Like for example you wouldn't have the plains flying around in circles for several hours..."
This isn't the footage they showed. Too violent and curses.
Christian Hafer No shit, this also revealed all the spoilers
***** Right. Siskel and Ebert wouldn't have done that.
Christian Hafer its just for fun.
Jesus Saves It was well done.
there is no proof it was edited
I was surprised at the amount of profanity in the movie clips. This was a nationally syndicated show. How did they get away with so many f bombs?
How they curse on their show wasn't on basic cable
These aren't the original clips.
This was edited. Notice how when Siskel explains the certain scene about the snow mobile chase and it's not even the scene playing lol
I wonder what Ebert thought of it ?
He liked it just as much, although I can't understand why.
Love this movie, but it does have one of the fake-est "getting blown off your feet by an explosion" moments of any action movie I've seen (see 1:35). They really should have worked more on that one. LOL Also, I assume Mr. Goodman added the movie clips himself since he seems to have chosen every "F-You" and gore moment from the movie, stuff Siskel & Ebert NEVER would have shown on regular television back in the day. No biggie, just kind of amusing.
What??? I am so surprised that they liked this Die Hard and not the first one. By the way, this has got to be a joke. This the first Siskel and Ebert review I have ever seen that has uncensored cursing and violence. This was actually pretty funny!!! Hahahaha. If you did this, great editing job. :))))
scottjulie27 por lo que escuche siskel y ebert le gustaron la 2 y la 3, aunque si me acuerdo bien tambien le gustaron la primera.
Saludos desde argentina 👍
this was way better than the the second lethal weapon
Totally I disgree
Bull.
was it about the real review being available on the siskelandebert website? i ask because it is! but remember, it's .org not .com!
Great editing here... lmao
I agree with Citygirl. Just leave the review as is! No need for the cursing and stuff.
First of all, whoa! I wonder what channel this was on; when/where I saw S&E back in the day it could have never been uncensored. Interesting... Related to this: I want to watch this Christmas movie with my very young nephews this year and I wish there was an easy way to get a tastefully censored version; always seems I have to make my own. Anyway, I digress; I was wondering why the differences in this video. It appears that the scenes shown are mostly different from the broadcast of S&E I know of: siskelandebert.org/video/NA962UO4NMM6/Die-Hard-2--Ghost-Dad--Days-of-Thunder-1990 (I recommend anyone check it out for Eberts review too)
So, it looks like there were broadcasts on some channels that had uncensored movie segments (and apparently extended as well) on the show; that is amazing. How I wish I had seen more than a few episodes what I was younger...
Seriously, nice re-edits (whomever did so). Thanks for the post.
havent seen this in like 20 yrs. but love the first one
I like the first Die Hard better, mainly because I thought Alan Rickman was a suave, intelligent appealing villain.
I agree with Siskel wholeheartedly. It does have some great quiet moments
The airport in the movie Looked like nothing like the real Dulles airport. People in DC rolled their eyes in the movie portrail of IAD.
what about rogers comments?
Guess Ebert was absent that day lol
This was a pretty good sequel.
I always liked the Titel Die Harder better ;)
yea u can also tell cause they showed the twist of the film
Can't believe they had the icicle scene in this review haha
The scenes shown are not from the original review.
Kevin MacLean Oh right, makes sense
the language was the first tip that the film footage was not from the original review. that, and ebert didn't say a thing.
Yippie Ki-yay Mr. Falcon
Did they review this on fuckin' cable?!
I don't understand these guys. They liked Die Hard 2 which was essentially a rehashed plot of the first movie but then they hate on Ghostbusters II because it's too similar to the first.
how was part 2 a rehash? lol Bruce was not inside a tall building thro the whole movie lol..
DH2 is crackling and deft. GB2 is flat and uninspired.
@@jameswilliams-of3mv Same scenario with half the intensity.
Was a really good movie but original was a lot better
No, I watched the original version also, and there these or almost these lines there too. I swear it.
I have to disagree with Roger, no way is this better than the first one.
Uh...yeah, except Siskel and Ebert were on network television, you know, where they couldn't ever have aired the word fuck. This was idiot. I wanted the review, not a bunch of clips of Die Hard 2 edited over Siskel and Ebert talking.
Diehard 2 is a lame hunk of sh*t. But this re-edit of the review was great!
The re-edits have fucking ruined this post
..awesome sequel.. rip roger
It was a good movie but original was much better
This is FAR BETTER than any other Die Hard!
Lots of spoilers in this review. Glad I was too young to care about Die Hard at the time.
may not be as good as the first movie but i dont care this was a fun movie.
This isn't the original Siskel and Ebert review.
One on my Top-50 movie list.
Die Hard 3 (which was converted from Lethal Weapon 4...and shows) was the worst of the first three.
Wait is this re-edited?
I'm afraid so, the uploader had to do it so it can present the way it's meant to be: R-Rated films they are reviewing uncut and uncensored so little kids don't have to watch it.
Jeffrey Kolodziej
and You .
this was the best after Die Hard....
Great movie...or greatest movie?
I'd rather see the original clips they used.
Classic, Saul Goodman !!!
DH2 was a cheap imitation of the original and I can't understand why S&E liked it more than 1. It lacked Alan Rickman and the plot twist you never saw coming. This one was filmed with too much foul language and violence and looks like any other action film. Willis is just loud and obnoxious and he doesn't generate the sympathy we had for his character in the first. This review is edited and we never see Ebert here, but I remember when they did the review and Ebert really liked it too. But at the end they both say "Great bad guys!" without ever giving us a reason. I thought Dennis Franz was really good though.
howie9751 yo soy de argentina ¿ die hard 2 que tan recordada es en tu pais o solamente es recordada por algunos ? A mi se me hizo una secuela mas que decente pero muy inferior a la original, a mi de villano me hubiera gustado a kevin costner o a jeremy irons osea villanos con apariencia de hombres debiles y no un villano que parece indestructible jaja
@@nahup944 ??
@@howie9751 i asked you if in your country die hard 2 is remembered or is remembered by some and that a more than decent one was made to me but much inferior to the first.
I am from argentina
@@nahup944 Die Hard is legend. Die Hard 2 is not. Gracias.
@@howie9751 what do you think of lethal weapon ?.
I wish i could visit your country
This was poorly edited together. It makes it hard to enjoy the commentary, and appears more to be a trailer than a serious review. If you wanted to show us both the movie and the commentary maybe try a little harder to control the sound and clips.
i've SEEN the original review 2 or 3 times. THIS is not it.
just that one shot of some dude minced up by jet engine lost it all it's credibility. die hard is light years better.
i still like part 2 its way better then most action bs that was out in 2018.
Better than the overrated original.
Love it! LOL Spoilers n all
That's the spirit!
lol, the entire review was all Siskel talking. Seriously, it's 4.5 minutes of Siskel + clips. What happened there?
Eberts half didn't make it to this clip. He really liked it too, thought I can't understand why.
I found the movie logic of the movie ridiculous
The worst Die Hard behind the latest one.
I think this is the second best one---pure energy movie
Any of the first three Die Hard films are the best.
@@FervAnimalLover 3 WAS THE WORST- AFTER THAT LIVE FREE WAS A JOKE
this was HILARIOUS! great job!