Die Hard was once a very profitable franchise, so it’s been sad to see how its veered off into such a sour territory after the failure that was A Good Day to Die Hard in 2013, because its early stages provided some pretty successful movies that did quite well at the box office. The first film defied expectations and became the tenth highest-grossing movie of 1988, Die Hard 2 doubled the amount of earnings of the first film in 1990, and the third film, Die Hard with a Vengeance, became the highest grossing movie of 1995, with it in particular being titled the second-best entry in the entire franchise. With this kind of pressure on its shoulders and considering the first movie is viewed as one of the greatest action movies in cinematic history, how does this movie hold up not only as a third in the Die-Hard family, but as a movie overall?

After a bomb goes off in a department store in New York City, the police department is contacted by the perpetrator who identifies himself as ‘’Simon’’ (played by Jeremy Irons), who threatens to continue setting off more in crowded locations unless policeman John McClane (played again by Bruce Willis) complies with his bizarre tasks. Having devolved into a drunken bum after separating from his wife, McClane begrudgingly agrees to take part in this psychopath’s game, even getting store owner Zeus Carver (played by Samuel L Jackson) roped into this mess after saving him from one of Simon’s games. Now working together to solve these riddles, the two start to discover more about who this Simon is, and that this elaborate game is nothing more than a cover up for another scheme, which is to smuggle $140 billion worth of gold out from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Building while the police are occupied with diffusing a bomb in an elementary school, forcing McClane and Carver to work together in order to take down Simon and his goons before things literally go sky high.

Though it received mixed reception upon release, many audience members and especially fans of the series consider Die Hard with a Vengeance the strongest one next to the first film, but it’s hard to say that it’s really that strong on its own merits, or even as a follow-up film.

Die Hard as a franchise really only relied on its lead character and tone rather than on its story to draw people in. While both the first and the second film were based on books that were adapted into movies under a different title (with the first film being Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp, and the second film being 58 Minutes by Walter Wager), this film came from repurposed script ideas, with the eventual chosen one written by screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh named ‘’Simon Says’’ was originally supposed to be a Lethal Weapon sequel before it was bought by Fox and turned into a Die Hard movie. This explains the buddy cop mentality of the film, the choice pairing of a white and black lead, and how the mindset of this franchise has become an excuse to continue shilling out the brand with whatever action script they can create rather than something that requires a continuation. This film is quite dissimilar to the vibe and spirit of the original Die Hard, with a more streetwise, ground-level feel that incorporates more wacky situations, which is extra bizarre considering that John McTiernan (who directed the first Die Hard) returns to direct this feature after passing on the second.

The first Die Hard was larger than life and home to some cartoonish characters as well, but there was a unique personality and sense of sophistication and purpose behind that wild side which made it such a fun package, whereas here, the plot is very one-note in some places and almost derivative of the original in others, causing it to feel unbalanced and all-over-the-place from start to finish. The first act is very unengaging, packed with dumb action/buddy cop cliches, and has a pacing and structure that is very repetitive and not very entertaining to watch. It feels like any random action property rather than something specifically unique to the brand, and since Die Hard went out of its way to try and be more than just a standard action popcorn flick, seeing one of its sequels devolve into one is a little annoying. Things however do pick up when the true plan is unveiled, as the back and forth that comes from the leads discovering and following the true plan while the police investigate this bomb scare has better pacing, energy, a sense of adrenaline that is peppy but also intense enough to keep people invested, and something that feels more akin to the original spirit of its namesake, concluding in a much more fulfilling sense which could explain the preference people have for it.

The characters in the first film were slightly cliched, but through entertaining performances, made for a lot of memorable roles. This film doesn’t have that benefit, with a lot of them either feeling watered down, underutilized, or just like basic action archetypes without anything new added to spice up the formula. John McClane is clearly the one running this franchise, so he constantly shows up, does his familiar thing without growing or evolving, and then leaves to wait for another film to show up, and while that’s fine for a movie or two, it’s not a face that can survive forever. He’s pretty irritating during the first act, with his attitude and even dialogue coming across as much more aggressive and unpleasant, and less ‘’flawed but trying’’ like it did originally. It settles down a bit as it continues, and Willis still does a good job but starts to show that he and the writers can’t coast on the same thing anymore. In contrast, Samuel L Jackson as his co-lead doesn’t feel like he’s given enough to stand beside him, being left with a character that feels underwritten, lacking purpose and development, and only feels like an extra pair of hands for Willis rather than his own character with a goal to strive for.

He shares very little connection with Willis as most of their scenes are just them shouting at each other without forming any bond, his performance gets a little too shouty and one-note after a while when it comes to his reactions, and he doesn’t bring much to the movie and only feels like support, which is something Samuel L Jackson should never feel like. Most of the side characters don’t leave much of an impression either, despite some like Graham Greene, Colleen Camp and Larry Bryggman being fine from an acting standpoint. Jeremy Irons has proven several times to be a scene-chewing delight in various projects, but his portrayal here doesn’t have much meat to savor as he’s mostly kept as a carbon copy of what Alan Rickman already did in the first film (even if it does sort of make sense when his real identity is revealed). He isn’t even physically shown until halfway through the movie and isn’t allowed to have much screen time with the main characters, which prevents a fun hero/villain dynamic (even though there’s a small amount in the climax). He’s not terrible by any means, but for such an entertaining actor in a franchise that helped create arguably one of the best action villains of all time, he doesn’t hold a candle to what he’s trying to replicate.

The action has that same level of high-octane, fast pace to it that made the first one fun, but the benefit this film has against the first and even the second is that it isn’t restricted to a specific location like a skyscraper or an airport. There are a few car chases that have a fun ‘’crazy taxi’’ feel to them with how violently the car tosses and swerves around, so a lot of credit should go to the stunt drivers for creating such fun uncontrolled vehicle action that isn’t normally seen in these kinds of movies, where they look risky and even incredibly unsafe, but still cool. The problem is that a lot of the scenes don’t feel like they contribute much to the overall film, as none are very long, don’t usually contain a lot of focal characters, and even when they do, they’re so few and far between that they don’t leave much of an impression.

The action was sparse in the first film as well, but it was sectioned off effectively, the characters of focus were usually always involved, and the main goal of escaping the terrorists and the building was always driving the situation, whilst in this movie, some of these car chases are just to get from one place to another, an elevator fistfight is just killing off some random thugs, and even the climax feels so plastered in that it could’ve come from an entirely separate movie (which could’ve been the case as the original ending was much quieter and talk-heavy). The confrontation on the boat during the final act has a nice pace to it as well as a climatic feel, but it again doesn’t stand out too strong even when some of the stunts and set pieces look quite real. Moments like a department store exploding and a train crashing through a subway lobby are cool to witness, but it’s also match with some less than impressive computer effects that while minimal, are glaringly poor.

Die Hard never needed to be a franchise and only continued to live as long as it did because of its popularity and the expected nature of duplicated rehashed sequels that come with the action genre. This third film feels like a repercussion of that mindset, where it doesn’t really matter if it was needed or even if the script was meant to be created for it specifically, as long as it’s something that can be used for a popular property regardless of whether or not it fits, that’s all that matters. Die Hard with a Vengeance is a perfectly solid film and provides a decent little waste of time with solid acting, action, and a personality familiar enough to the brand while also not just feeling like a retread, but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that it’s the second best to the original as there’s very little that reaches that same level of impressive (either that or the other films are just that poor that this is the runner-up by default). Will certainly be a preference thing, venture into this cult classic and see if you view it as the one that almost reaches the same level of status as its predecessor.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,