I'm not sure why some people dismiss this as a weaker film in the Die Hard series. Obviously the first one was incredible and nothing can ever really live up to it in my mind, but this one (the third one) is at least as good as the second Die Hard film, and they are both definitely a million times better than the awful Die Hard films that have come since the first three.Great action, lots of good humor, good acting. This movie has it all, even a fantastic villain. Plus Samuel L. Jackson in a supporting role. This is a great action movie.

This film probably had the best acting, effects, characters, and action in the entire series. The more that I think about it, I think it is the best Die Hard movie, especially with the ending. But on the other hand, it is hard to watch due to the fact that it came out like at the same time as a terrible terrorist attack which makes it hard to see. This was the highest grossing movie of the year and I can see why, it was just in general a good movie.

This was a fitting end to a trilogy until they wrongly decided to continue with the series, with further moviews, which basically ruined the Die Hard franchise. Die Hard with a Vengeance is a unique film just like its previous editions. Die Hard was based inside a tall building; Die Hard 2 was based inside an airport; and Die Hard 3 was based within an entire city (New York). The villain was great: his name is Simon Gruber who is the brother of Hans Gruber, so this film has ties to the first one, so it makes it more interesting to follow. In the previous Die Hard movies, Bruce on his own was hard enough, but in Die Hard with a Vengeance, despite having Samuel Jackson along with him on this journey, they were still no match for the villain (or were they?). Though Die Hard with a Vengeance was a good movie, I still don't think it's better than its predecessors. If Die Hard was a great Christmas movie, or a great movie for the winter season, then Die Hard with a Vengeance was a great action movie for the summer.

John McTiernan has returned for a third time, and so Bruce Willis making his appearance as the beloved action hero John McClane. This time around, John McClane has become a heavy alcoholic, to the point where he is not only separated from his wife Holly but has also been suspended from the New York Police Department. After making an a rather awkward encounter with a Harlem pawn shop owner Zeus Carver (played by Samuel L. Jackson), the two witness a bomb go off in a department store nearby. The criminal mastermind behind the explosion is no one other than German terrorist Simon Gruber (played by Jeremy Irons) who gives McClane a call and pulls him a deadly game of "Simon Says", where he must perform a series of tasks around the city. Each time he fails to comply, another bomb will detonate. Assisted by the reluctant Zeus Carver, McClane must finish Simon's devious tasks one by one to save the city and stop him and his crew from robbing the Federal Reserve Building. I have watched Die Hard and Die Hard 2 plenty of times, and are they're both pretty fun action movies. The first one left a cinematic landmark on the action genre, and was a career-defining film for Bruce Willis. The second one is quite entertaining, though didn't quite make an everlasting impression like the predecessor. This one continues the franchise with more fun and edge-of-your-seat action, with Samuel L. Jackson making a surprising appearance as the supporting hero who helps John McClane on his mission to thwart Simon Gruber's twisted plan. Jackson is certainly not an actor I expected to see star opposite Bruce Willis in the franchise. Nonetheless, he does a fine job as his character, even when he gets annoying with his racial one-liners. Bruce Willis remains good as ever as the main character, showing a charismatic performance that brought to the previous two films. Willis and Jackson both work shockingly well together, and based on their performances; you can tell that these two star studs are having a blast. Jeremy Irons also brings solid appeal to his role as the main villain, though he doesn't quite bring the same charisma as what Alan Rickman delivered in the first film. I have to admit though, he does come pretty close.What is a Die Hard movie without some spectacular action sequences and a solid plot? A bad one, that's for sure. This film is filled with some exciting action scenes, complete with some tense gunfights off and on, an intense subway crash, and of course, some explosions done by the antagonist Simon Gruber. The plot on the other hand, is the biggest gem of the film. Based on the decent screenplay, the film follows a plot of the villain's plan to commit robbery, much like the previous films which also deal with robbery to acquire large sums of money, but never gets old nonetheless. The plot is full of surprises and suspense, and is solidly paced to grab viewer's attention and never let go. There is never a dull moment throughout the 131-minute runtime. Die Hard With a Vengeance is a decent continuation to John McTiernan's action franchise, and proves that Bruce Willis is still committed to his character John McClane. It is rare for a film series to age well after its third installment, but this manages to show that the third film is not always the end of the line for a great franchise.