Better than the first one? No. Just... no.

Rating: 6/10 (4 November 2012)

The blazing suspense of Die Hard is to this day nearly unmatched by any other action movie. I think that it's the best action movie ever made. In the sequel, McClane fights off terrorists that have taken over an airport. The very next day, I rented it. And... it wasn't as good. Maybe that's because it was more of a psychological form of suspense with a race-against-the-clock feel, which is what the original did not rely on. Despite its flaws and not as good of pace as the original classic, it was still a great sequel with a great premise. And then when my dad said that DIE HARD 3 was probably the best, I had to see it. It took me a while, but I finally got around to seeing it, and I... didn't love it! DIE HARD 3 is seriously overrated. I came into it with gigantic expectations, and I came out slightly disgruntled. Let me explain why. DIE HARD 3 features a hungover John McClane, who is called by a mysterious bomber named "Simon" who tells him that he will use liquid binary explosives to blow up various locations around the city of New York, and if he doesn't want that to happen, then he'll have to play his twisted version of the game "Simon Says". This is ingenious, but I feel that they did not focus enough on the games, instead focusing on what the games were created for.
John is forced to do various humiliating, difficult, and strenuous tasks to save innocent lives and this is where the film needlessly introduces Samuel L. Jackson, McClane's partner, (for some reason) and the two fight for the whole movie. Jackson does do a great job in this film, like always, but... how is that charming? It isn't. Yet people seem to say that their chemistry is "superb", but pretty much for the whole movie they're arguing about race issues when there's a psychotic bomber on the loose. Simon, played by Jeremy Irons, is amazing and by far the best part of the film. Halfway through the film, it is revealed that Simon is actually Hans Gruber's brother. Hans Gruber, who was played by Alan Rickman, was the main villain of DIE HARD. This is ingenious, since Jeremy Irons both looks and sounds like Rickman. Irons has the charisma and chops to live up to Rickman, but his lines are silly, and he can't even measure up to Rickman's amazing performance. This isn't Irons' fault, but he isn't given much to work with.
Simon reveals to McClane that he didn't even like his brother, so revenge isn't his motive. He actually only wants a bunch of gold from The Federal Reserve bank and is using the bombs to distract the police force while his massive army )?) and his bizarre girlfriend, I think, steal it. This is also pretty clever, unfortunately it is never explained what exactly he wants this for and the audience is left to assume that the Gruber brothers must just be gambling addicts. It is very unexpected to put a twist on the whole 'revenge' scenario, but, again, this film even has vengeance in the title. Besides, there has to be motivation as to why Simon wants all this money. This is a very complex plan, doesn't he have some higher reasoning for this heist? I think another reviewer put his motives best: He wants revenge for his brother! Oh no, he's just a terrorist. Wait, he's stealing the gold. No, he's going to sink the gold. Oops, no, he's taken the gold and killed his boss... and apparently wants to buy a country? But the two discover Simon's true motives and try to stop the dastardly Simon from going through with his ambiguous plans. And the ending just comes out of nowhere. It isn't spectacular, groundbreaking creative, or awe inspiring like the other film's endings. It's just sort of over, which is weird, because the film goes from having way too much action to too little.
What happened to Die Hard With a Vengeance? It had such a brilliant premise! Well, that's anyone's question, but the bigger question is why everyone loves it. It does have some really good scenes and a superb direction (John McTiernan who did 1). Otherwise, it's just a confusing mess. I could barely follow the last half of the movie at all, because it was so poorly written and explained. The cinematography wasn't as good as its predecessors, either. There's no sense of claustrophobic wonder that the other two did so well. It certainly is more creative than 2, but it is so poorly executed that it can't be considered more than a wasted opportunity.I guess I can admire McTiernan for trying to take the series in a different direction that makes you think, rather than mindless action sequences in a building. But unless you're good at math or riddles, you won't get what's going on until after a second viewing or so. In the end, it's just too crowded, unclear, and empty to be a worthy sequel to either of its predecessors.
Not saying that I hate it, because it is a great movie, like all the others, but it really takes a couple viewings to appreciate and understand the film, and that is definitely a sign of weakness for this. Go see it, but don't get discouraged if you get confused, because it's bound to happen. Definitely worth a viewing, especially if you're a Die Hard fan. You won't be disappointed with it, but you do have to watch it a couple times to understand it fully. This isn't a bad thing, it just isn't as effective as its predecessors. Still, the premise is very clever, and I suppose that overrides the film's flaws, especially if you can make sense of them with a second viewing. Probably better than Die Hard 2 overall, but it has muddled pacing.