It definitely had a "Jack Napier killed Bruce Wayne's parents" vibe to it.

To be honest, I never expected it and for that reason alone I really liked it.
Death is the standard breach for a complex prize.

I agree, even as a kid in the '80s I thought that was weak and unnecessary. This movie relies on too much coincidence. First that the guys Riggs & Murtaugh are chasing at the beginning of the movie turn out to be the same guys Leo is on the run from. They go straight from trying to find Leo's would-be assassin back to working on their original case, and they never even have an ah-ha moment "Hey, Leo's guys are the same guys we're after!"
Then to also have the guys they're chasing just happen to be the same guys who murdered Riggs' wife. If he had really murdered Mrs. Riggs wouldn't there have been evidence? He says he ran her off the road. Wouldn't the cars have traded some paint, etc.? It might have made sense if in the first movie, or at least in Riggs' speech to Trish earlier in LW2, he mentioned that it was a hit-and-run but they never caught the guy. We always thought it was an accident and suddenly it's a murder. They might as well have tacked on that Volstedt was also Riggs' long-lost brother. Y'know like with Bond
and Blofeld in
Spectre.
Then instead of killing Riggs, they put him in a straight jacket and throw him in the water. That would probably mean death for anyone else, but it just happens to be the one death-trap we already know Riggs can escape from! What a sheer bit of Hollywood luck that Riggs knew exactly how to escape from that, and only that, one specific trap. Do the writers think the audience is that dumb that they have to show us Riggs escaping from a straight jacket earlier in the movie? They could have had him dislocate his shoulder earlier, say in the car chase at the beginning and slam his shoulder against the wall to correct it. Later on he could escape from the straight jacket and we wouldn't know how he did it until he corrected it again with the ol' shoulder-against-the-wall. At least then there would be some suspense that Riggs might actually be in danger. As it stands, we know prior to him going in the water that he's going to be okay.
There was some good character moments and good action in this movie, but the contrivance level is high.

The only problem with that is that it would become repetitive to have Riggs avenging the death of loved ones in each film
They basically did that anyway. In LW3 Travis shoots Lorna and Riggs thinks he's killed her because he has cop killer bullets, and Riggs goes insane and kills him.
Lorna survived but they still pulled the same scenario they pulled here.
My life fades the vision dims all that remains are memories

yea, I don't understand everyone's complaint on this. Then again people complain about everything in movies today.

There was a suggestion over on the Lethal Weapon 3 boards some time ago that the "I killed Riggs' wife" twist should have been saved for that movie. It would've made the guy in that movie more menacing and nasty (the racism and killing Rika was plenty enough for the South Africans). I think it would've been a great idea, personally.
The only problem with that is that it would become repetitive to have Riggs avenging the death of loved ones in each film. Besides, I think the twist worked fine here and it gave LW 2 that extra bit of drama. Seeing Riggs revert back into crazy mode and avenge the death of his wife and girlfriend was just too good. This is the funniest, yet darkest film of the series in my opinion.

This message has been deleted.

Having just watched it again I finally heard it. Strange how after all these viewings I never noticed that until someone pointed it out.

Welcome to the middle of nowhere-
-the center of everywhere.

After they capture Riggs, they try to drown him by throwing him into the ocean. He and Vorstedt (the South Africans' top enforcer) have a little chat just before that, and that's when Vorstedt tells him.
Fichtre! Voila qu'on me tue mes morts.

When was this stated?! I've seen this movie numerous times (watching it NOW, even) and I seem to have missed that reveal every time. O_O

Welcome to the middle of nowhere-
-the center of everywhere.

I agree, but it didn't rub me the wrong way as much as Spiderman 3. We practically saw the guy kill Pete's Uncle for God's sake. Then they change it in the last movie? Weak.
For my latest movie reviews and news:
http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

Well..it didnt really bother me but the idea of Vorstedt killing Riggs wife was a way to put Riggs dilemma at rest and move on with his life with Murtaugh and his family.
Gibson's character was changing time after time ever since he was partnered with Murtaugh.

I think Vorstedt was lying to piss off Riggs before sending him to his death, Riggs seemed pretty calm knowing he was probably going to die until the "phony revelation".

If anything, that twist would have made more sense in Lethal Weapon 3 or 4, because hes not remotely a lethal weapon in those movies, and it would have given him a reason to be.
There was a suggestion over on the Lethal Weapon 3 boards some time ago that the "I killed Riggs' wife" twist should have been saved for that movie. It would've made the guy in that movie more menacing and nasty (the racism and killing Rika was plenty enough for the South Africans). I think it would've been a great idea, personally.
That man is playing Galaga! Thought we wouldn't notice. But we did.

I have to agree with the OP. I think that twist was not needed at all, not because its unrealistic (I can handle unrealistic in an 80s action movie) but because its really not necessary. As the other poster said, Riggs became a lethal weapon the moment he saw Rikas body underwater. That, combined with the fact that all of his friends on the police department had been murdered, gave him all the impetus he needed to become the eponymous crazy man we knew from the original film.
If anything, that twist would have made more sense in Lethal Weapon 3 or 4, because hes not remotely a lethal weapon in those movies, and it would have given him a reason to be.

I think it would have been fun to find out later that Vorstedt actually had nothing to do with Riggs' wife, and that he only said all that stuff to mess with Riggs' head before killing him.
Although it's probably bad writing, I'm not too bothered by it, mainly because LW2 would still be a wild mess of a movie even without Vorstedt's revelation. Entertaining, surely, but still a wild mess.

'It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?'
'If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.'

Maybe trying a little too hard. Maybe.

I agree with OP it slightly ruins a great film.It was better off as if Riggs' wife had just died in a car accident and just have Riggs pissed off at the fact that they'd killed Rica.
There was really no point to it.He'd still lost two women he loved either way,so his actions at the end would still be justified.Not to mention afterwards he finds out about his friends been killed as well.
A pointless plot contrivance.But I can ignore it because the film's just too damn good.

Classic twist! C'MON!

Yeah, one would have thought killing of the broad and half a dozen police detectives he personally knew woulda been enough to get at least some rise out of him
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I don't care how out of left field it might be, so long as it's written and performed well - and it is! Come on; you lose the sheer coldbloodedness of Vorstedt (best villain of the series ) if you take that out! I actually believed that the character was evil when I heard how perfectly lines such as:
"She didn't die straight away - took a bit of time "
&,
"You don't have much luck with women, do you, Riggs?!"
were delivered. If Riggs were real and I'd have been in his position then that would have sent me nuts, too. Plus, it shows continuity between series entries, and I like that.
It's made from bits of real panther, so you know it's good

They let on early that Vorstedt knew Riggs from before, that had to lead somewhere, and Vorstedt being Rudd's right-hand-man and main killer and all the misery he cause Riggs gave him an excellent reason for the way in which he killed him.

Are we talking real life or the movies?
Things never really have closure in real life You often just accept things as 'he works in mysterious ways'.
In the movies it helps the audience to identify with and get behind the hero.
Brains are good, especially when sauteed with caramelized onions.

So you're saying that if his wife had merely died in an accident and no one was to blame, Riggs would never achieve closure? She had to be murdered by someone and Riggs had to take revenge on that murderer for closure to happen? That kind of sucks then for all the rest of the people who lose their loved ones to accidental circumstances.