Spends time on the wrong elements

Rating: 6/10 (26 October 2016)

I wanted to like this more. I really did. The concept is brilliant, perfect to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. As someone who knows the place, I commend the gorgeous, immersive filming of New York--even though it's from more than twenty years ago, the film looks like how the city really feels. This sets the film apart from other Hollywood depictions of New York. Most of all, Jeremy Irons' character is a worthy successor to his brother, exuding. . . let's just say he's hot and leave it at that.
Sadly, the elements I liked made the sagging elements all the harder to swallow. Most conspicuously, With a Vengeance sorely lacks the scintillating dialogue of the first movie, which was a huge part of why I love it. The first third had me totally attentive, but around the middle it derails and takes too long to wrap up. And yet, the end still feels very abrupt. I would not have killed Simon with such merciless speed. Hollywood, why are your bad guys so often more lovable than your good guys? I wished the film had taken the time to explain more about Simon's background. He was in the East German Stasi or something, and felt miffed when East Germany, therefore his job, ceased to exist. That's interesting! Tell us more! And why was Hans in the West in the 80s when there were still two Germanies? With a Vengeance could have explained that, too. For that matter, who is Katya and what is her relationship with Simon like?
The first Die Hard was such a delight to me because it defied my preconception that action movies were just fighting and explosions with no catharsis or character drama. This one is tipped, albeit slightly, towards the latter category.