Die Hard with a Vengeance

"Simon's going to tell Lt. McClane what to do, and Lt. McClane is going to do it." Unlike the first two, Die Hard With a Vengeance isn’t set at Christmas time and, after Los Angeles and Washington, tries its luck in New York. The position of director was taken up again by the tried and tested maker of part one, John McTiernan and, instead of being cooped up in a skyscraper, this time we career around one of the largest cities in the USA. The story harks slightly back to part one, but in a completely different style than to what we were used to in previous Die Hards. Even Willis’ McClane is more like Joe Hallenbeck from The Last Boy Scout. And we also have Sam Jackson, who is excellent as McClane’s involuntary partner. Plus, the original dubbing on the VHS is almost as perfect as the dubbing of the cult Pulp Fiction and wisecracks are reeled out left right and center. (14/07/2006)

I enjoyed it just as much as the second one, mainly because we are returning to the events of the first movie. Jeremy Irons could easily be the film brother of Alan Rickman, both are excellent villains. The city, which is a much bigger playground, suits John and he knows how to maneuver here. Samuel L. Jackson is a good sidekick. (15/04/2014)

Very strong 4*. It’s very nice to see the way this (at the time) trilogy developed. The first one is a thoroughbred “one vs everybody” 1980s action flick with old-school practices, boosted by a new breed of reluctant hero and an original closed space. The second one also relies exclusively on McClane and combines “survival” action with the genre experimentation of the 90s and high production values in an amusing way. The third one is an even more easygoing buddy movie, where Willis is still that “dolt” from the 80s and Jackson represents the wisecracking black character, famous from The Last Boy Scout and even Pulp Fiction. And it all works together very well, the story delivers action entertainment non-stop (what’s most interesting is the total absence of exposure and the introduction of new characters), the only weakness is that by the end is not as bold as at the beginning (the escape from an exploding boat couldn’t be more tired and the ending lacks ideas and creativity). But the pace is great, gradually dividing the action among several groups of characters, this time with a quick change of key locations. In terms of humour, this is hands down the best episode, but, as a representative of the traditions of pure action, it lags a little behind the first two. 85% (18/04/2019)

A boring mess lacking action, where John McTiernan buried both his career and the basic storyline of the entire Die Hard franchise. Both the first and second films were about an individual fighting against overwhelming odds, the first one in a skyscraper, the second one in an airport. Some details different, Renny Harlin is slightly better with action, but otherwise it's essentially the same thing. But this attractive trademark gets completely sidelined in the third installment, and in an effort to be eye-catching and different, the director throws together everything possible. He turns the city upside down, offends the black community, he even has “helper” Samuel L. Jackson (which, cool as it may be, he’s just unfitting here) and the main villain Jeremy Irons is simply embarrassing. There is a lack of action and it can't be compared to the second film. The least of the problems are the many gimmicks in the convoluted plot (suddenly someone comes up with something and miraculously it always works), the dream-like stunts (how could someone survive a 10-meter fall onto an iron container) and the dull visual effects (water in the tunnel). (22/04/2007)

As a standalone film, Vengeance is a solid watch, but as a proud continuation of an excellent series, it is disappointing. McTiernan was unable to replicate the lightness of the first installment and failed to adapt to Harlin's attempt to unleash pure action. He attempted to do so, but in the process turned McClane into a tough guy who drinks, curses, and bleeds, but he is not the same John from the first two films that the audience feared. From a certain point, I was just waiting for Simon to finally catch up to him and take care of him in a flashy way with "Yipee-ki-yay" on his lips. And when the finale came to an end, I just nodded, because the reckoning is filmed so coldly and almost unconcerned that it symbolically belongs to the entire movie. Nevertheless, Vengeance cannot be completely condemned. Jackson proved to be an excellent partner, and the pessimistic beginning with the grumpy main character is absolutely flawless. However, the basic problem stems from the fact that the scope of the events is once again expanded, this time disproportionately. Progress from a skyscraper to an airport entices, but from the airport to the whole city, the plot shatters into too many diverse variations, causing the viewer to lose sight of the main antagonist. In Irons' cold-blooded portrayal, he unfortunately becomes a mere talkative figure who cannot bring anything to a conclusion. But I will say it again - it is not a complete disappointment, and for one reason only. There is McClane, and therefore Bruce is not absent. Just his "pissed-off face" prevents it from going any lower. (16/06/2007)