With a Vengeance ... and Minor Flaws ...

Rating: 8/10 (14 November 2011)

The "Die Hard" series is governed by a simple but infallible pattern, John McClane, no matter which situation where the average Joe would have 0,0001% chances to come back in one piece, he's put in, he will survive.
Indeed, John McClane is so inhabited by his innate heroic status dictating the fact that he's always the 'Man-of-the-Situation' that the question is never whether he'll get alive or not but how he will. The "Die Hard" series is all about the 'how', the spectacular reason-to-be of the series that would be so boring if McClane wasn't so fun to watch. That's why no matter how unrealistic some parts are, the movie provides the same level of old-school action-driven fun and enjoyment as another series about a charismatic macho hero named James Bond.
Let's develop now the idea behind the 'how'. The "Die Hard" films' appeal essentially relies on their ability to create surprises. The first one, released by John McTiernan, not only succeeded in that exercise, it became a landmark in the action genre, paving the way for the classic "average Joe movie heroes vs. elegant sophisticated movie villains" antagonism, this now-dated cliché was "Die Hard"'s innovation. The second film, released two years after by another director: Renny Harlin, was a good continuation of the first: set in Christmas too, with the same plot, and John McClane saving a day  where so much more lives were in danger (and the film is known for having a particularly impressive body count) Now to the third, it was released five years later by John McTiernan again, a predisposition for being better than the second? Maybe  but I still regard the second with higher esteem.
"Die Hard, with a Vengeance" delivers what everyone would expect from a "Die Hard" film, without even recycling the same plots that would have made it another Christmas disaster. This time, the film is set in a hot Indian summer day, in New York City. While the thrills of the first two films were largely conveyed by a feeling of claustrophobia, this time, the most frightening aspect of the enemy is his ubiquity. The movie starts with a spectacular explosion in the middle of Manhattan that sets the tone of the film, it's not a hijacked building or airport, it's the whole town, and more specifically, it's John McClane's territory. For the first time, he's at home. There will be basements and elevators of course, but also tunnels, subways, highways, chasing taxis, derailing trains, surfing trucks in a fast pacing that gives the profound feeling of a journey in hell (a subtle reference to the movie's French title)
But these are only minor bits of originality when compared to what makes the third opus really different from the first two. The first and most notable one is revealed in the title, a vengeance, and again, it is less about who gets the revenge than how he does. The villain played by a Jeremy Irons at the top of his game, will play with McClane through many riddles and intellectual games, one of the little things we most remember from the film. And this playful vengeance only serves a much more masterminded plot, which, after all the pieces of the puzzle get assembled constitute one hell of a creative plot. After all, you don't take a whole town with hostage without having invested some time to elaborate the scheme, one that makes Hans Gruber and Colonel Stuart look like amateurs.
The second aspect is the partnership with Samuel L. Jackson, as Zeus, a store owner involuntarily mixed in McClane's cat-and-mouse game. Zeus's prejudiced views on racial issues and his dislike for McClane aren't fooling anyone, we all know how this duo that looks like a combination of "The Last Boy Scout" and "Lethal Weapon" will end. But Jackson is such a charismatic actor that when he outshines Willis, we're able to detach ourselves from McClane and see him with more partial eyes. And their interactions get even more delightful when they try to solve one riddle involving some water jugs. If only, for these bits of creativity, I sometimes enjoy "Die Hard With a Vengeance" a bit more, although it does kill off the charm of the series by featuring probably 90% of the most unrealistic impossible-to-survive sequences. McClane might be 'James Bond' superhuman but he's not Superman, don't you remember his bleeding feet in "Die Hard"?
This is the movie's forgivable weakness, despite all its originality, it could have been titled "Die Hard With a Partner", "Die Hard in Town", "Die Hard with a Telephone" or "Die Hard without Holly", the movie doesn't avoid the blatant action-films clichés that would made it unworthy to have its title beginning with "Die Hard" and I'm not talking about unrealistic stunts. The villains-monologues, the decision to kill the hero with a bomb or to beat him to death instead of shooting him in the head that makes you wonder why the villains always have to kill poor sentinels or harmless looking guards in a straightforward and quite gruesome way, and give John McClane the benefits of a bare hand fight? There are a few moments like this where "Die Hard with a Vengeance" is objectively inferior to "Die Harder", let alone "Die Hard". And believe me or not, despite all this, I would still have given the same rating as number two if it wasn't for
a particularly weak final confrontation. I don't mind anticlimactic sequences, but when the most spectacular moment in the movie isn't the last one, it's really disappointing. This time, I wished "Die Hard with a Vengeance" was a bit more conventional, and I don't think it was too much asking from the fans.