Could have been better, but still an enjoyable entry in the Die Hard series

Rating: 7/10 (13 June 2007)

John McTiernan, the director of the first Die Hard movie, was unable to film the sequel due to scheduling conflicts with The Hunt for Red October, but came back to do number three, which follows the Hollywood tradition of being bigger, louder and more ambitious than the previous installments. Alas, this doesn't mean it's necessarily better, in fact Die Hard: With a Vengeance is weaker than the first two films in the series, although it remains a watchable piece of violent, profane entertainment.
Unlike other threequels, the new Die Hard has almost no connection with the films that precede it: apart from John McClane (Bruce Willis), not a single character from the first or second movie is still around. And McClane's situation is not one of the best: he's got a drinking problem, is separated from his wife and has been suspended from the NYPD. However, when a man named Simon (Jeremy Irons) starts bombing certain areas of New York, he demands explicitly that only McClane be allowed to try stopping him. Why? Because Simon happens to be the brother of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), the German terrorist our hero threw off the Nakatomi Towers in the first film. With this comforting knowledge, the former cop, along with reluctant helper Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson), sets out to solve the various riddles his opponent has left around in the city. One mistake, and many lives will be lost. Or is that so?
Not only is Die Hard: With a Vengeance larger in scope (the action takes place in an entire city, as opposed to just one building or an airport), the writers also try to make it more complex (the first two movies were rather straightforward) by suggesting Simon's primary objective may not be what it seems. This provides a few neat twists throughout the movie, and they are quite good. Unfortunately, the villain himself turns out to be the weakest link in the movie: instead of making the character his own, Irons prefers to merely imitate Rickman, turning Simon Gruber into a pale reminder of what an intriguing opponent his brother was. There are problems with the so-called "money shots" (action and sex) as well: some of the set-pieces, no matter how spectacular, look too contrived to fit in the Die Hard universe, and there's a sex scene involving Irons and a female villain that is completely gratuitous and unnecessary (by the director's own admission, it was included just because the film was going to get an R-rating anyway, and it shows).
On the flip-side, what is nailed right from the beginning is the chemistry between Willis and Jackson: after appearing in separate sections of Pulp Fiction, the two are finally allowed to share the screen, something they take advantage of to the maximum, delivering a double act that's funny enough to rival anything Mel Gibson and Danny Glover did on Lethal Weapon (the best bit being probably Jackson's reaction when Willis explains the situation to him: "You mean to tell me that I'm caught up in all this sh*t because some white cop threw some white a**hole's brother off a roof?").
Final verdict: as uneven as it may be, Die Hard: With a Vengeance is worth a look if you're a fan of the franchise, and by the time McClane pronounces his trademark line (one of the most quotable in cinema history) even the most skeptical are likely to start cheering.