Die Hard 3: With a Vengeance (1995)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Mike S

  
  Gets better for every time! A highly underrated sequel that nearly matches all the fun and brilliance of the original. Jeremy Irons makes a great villain and Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as John McClane's sidekick. Lots of twists and turns and non-stop explosive action.… More
  Gets better for every time! A highly underrated sequel that nearly matches all the fun and brilliance of the original. Jeremy Irons makes a great villain and Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as John McClane's sidekick. Lots of twists and turns and non-stop explosive action. Simon says watch this movie! Otherwise you'll be missing one of the coolest, funniest and well-directed popcorn thrillers ever to have graced the realm of cinema.

• Sophie B

  
  A much better follow up to the original.

• Matt G

  
  Zeus: So what's up with this L.A. thing? You famous or something? John McClane: Yeah, for about five minutes. Zeus: Don't tell me. Rodney King, right? John McClane: Fuck you. He's back, John McClane is back, and he has some help this time, mister Samuel L. Jackson,… More
  Zeus: So what's up with this L.A. thing? You famous or something? John McClane: Yeah, for about five minutes. Zeus: Don't tell me. Rodney King, right? John McClane: Fuck you. He's back, John McClane is back, and he has some help this time, mister Samuel L. Jackson, who is Zeus, the racist motherfucker who works alongside McClane to stop a bomber, who is played by Jeremy Irons, known as Simon [says] in the film. Zeus: Morning. John McClane: Good morning. Zeus: You having a nice day, sir? You feeling all right? Not to get too personal, but a white man standing in the middle of Harlem wearing a sign that says "I hate negros" has either got some serious personal issues, or not all his dogs are barking. [John yawns] Zeus: Hey! I'm talking to you! Now you've got about ten seconds before those guys see you, and when they do they will kill you, you understand? You are about to have a very bad day. John McClane: Tell me about it. While this is the most underrated of the Die Hard franchise, this is my personal favorite. So many things make this film great. Watching the wonderful chemistry between Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis is an absolute joy to watch. All of the racism lines had me laughing for hours on. John McClane: I'll put my foot up your ass, you dumb, mother... Zeus: Say it! Say it! John McClane: What? Zeus: You were gonna call me a negro, weren't you? John McClane: No I wasn't! Zeus: Yes you were! What were you gonna call me? John McClane: Asshole! How's that, asshole! Hans Gruber is still technically my favorite villain in the franchise, but his brother Simon Gruber is still pretty damn badass. He kills way more civilians and has a much better reason for what he does. An absolute blast. Chief Cobb: Have you been drinking, McClane? John McClane: No, not since this morning.

• Dead A

  
  One thing I liked about the movie "Die Hard" (applies on every sequel) is that, every action is unpredictable with awesome actions in it.

• Martin S

  
  Great action in this one...the blueprint

• Dan S

  
  A convoluted by nonetheless enormously thrilling and spectacular action film concerning rugged cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) and his being called back into action under the command of a lethal and evidently psychotic bombs mastermind (Jeremy Irons) who is threatening the city's… More
  A convoluted by nonetheless enormously thrilling and spectacular action film concerning rugged cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) and his being called back into action under the command of a lethal and evidently psychotic bombs mastermind (Jeremy Irons) who is threatening the city's safety with explosives littered in unknown places. This movie has the feel of a good-time summer blockbuster all over it, but it does not forget its roots, notably McClane's consistent wise-cracking under pressure, as well as enough character development (Samuel L. Jackson's Zeus helps this along especially) to make you care for those involved. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this film is the high-wired, intense performance Irons gives as the sinister villain. Irons plays his character a bit above your standard bad guy, and due to the sensational balance of charisma and subtlety involved in his turn, this ends up making him a more frightening and menacing character in the end. Overall, solid entertainment from a series who knows how to bring the goods, with McClane once again proving himself worthy of demanding two hours of our time.

• Drake T

  
  I actually liked the story of WaV more than others in the franchise, what with the avenging brother, Cain and his drinking problems... the "twist" heist plot turn, the various set pieces that perpetuate the story. Oh, and good ol' Jackson's repertoire with Willis!… More
  I actually liked the story of WaV more than others in the franchise, what with the avenging brother, Cain and his drinking problems... the "twist" heist plot turn, the various set pieces that perpetuate the story. Oh, and good ol' Jackson's repertoire with Willis! Not sure how it deserves 49% when the fourth installment hit 82% with far less compelling villains and a no-brainer story brought on by the "digital" age. But hey, critics usually don't "get" this particular genre anyway.

• Nicki M

  
  After mum got through torturing me with "The Waterhorse", she sat me through this one. Ack. I may have to consider disowning her - family crap followed by action, two of my least favourite movie genres. Really pushing it! On the plus, I guess this was entertaining if you… More
  After mum got through torturing me with "The Waterhorse", she sat me through this one. Ack. I may have to consider disowning her - family crap followed by action, two of my least favourite movie genres. Really pushing it! On the plus, I guess this was entertaining if you like blood and explosions and a totally crappy plot that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It was bearable but not especially enjoyable. Samuel L Jackson was the best thing about this. He played a decent part and I found him quite watchable here. Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis - he always seems the same to me in every film I see him in.

• AJ V

  
  The third Die Hard movie, I liked it better than the second, but of course the first was the best. This one is more fun, and it has Samuel L. Jackson, and Jeremy Irons, who are both good actors. The action takes place all over New York City, John McClane's hometown, so he has… More
  The third Die Hard movie, I liked it better than the second, but of course the first was the best. This one is more fun, and it has Samuel L. Jackson, and Jeremy Irons, who are both good actors. The action takes place all over New York City, John McClane's hometown, so he has that to his advantage, and means he isn't in as strange a situation as he was in the first. This movie is fun and exciting for the most part, though, so I wont complain too much, I just think it could have been better.

• Daniel P

  
  There's no question that the third Die Hard is action-packed, and in some areas, after the second one, this installment goes back to basics, referencing the original film's villain, putting McClane on the walkie with the baddies, and of course, using that catchphrase we all… More
  There's no question that the third Die Hard is action-packed, and in some areas, after the second one, this installment goes back to basics, referencing the original film's villain, putting McClane on the walkie with the baddies, and of course, using that catchphrase we all know and love as the big pay off. But unforunately, Volume Three (for me) got kind of boring around the three-quarter mark, and I missed the personal stake McClane had in the previous film: saving Christmas and probably his marriage. Writing out his wife and kids (to say nothing of Christmas) and putting the personal weight on secondary characters played by Sam Jackson and Jeremy Irons was a choice that left me blasé about the outcome. (Not that it was ever in doubt.) But, hey, it's Die Hard: lots of things go boom, Irons is cheesy enough to be watchable, and I think this might one of Jackson's most under-rated roles. Watch it to close out the (intended) trilogy, but don't swear by it. In this series, nothing lives up to the original. In a lot of ways, the "reluctant partner" angle they played for laughs made this a film better suited for the Lethal Weapon series.

• ♥˩ƳИИ &

  
  Cast: Bruce Willis, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L. Jackson, Graham Greene, Colleen Camp, Larry Bryggman, Kevin Chamberlin, Sharon Washington, Anthony Peck, Nicholas Wyman Director: John McTiernan Summary: Bruce Willis is back and kicking bad-guy butt as New York detective John… More
  Cast: Bruce Willis, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L. Jackson, Graham Greene, Colleen Camp, Larry Bryggman, Kevin Chamberlin, Sharon Washington, Anthony Peck, Nicholas Wyman Director: John McTiernan Summary: Bruce Willis is back and kicking bad-guy butt as New York detective John McClane in the third installment of this action-packed series, which finds him teaming with civilian Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson) to prevent the loss of innocent lives. MClane thought he'd seen it all, until a genius named Simon (Jeremy Irons) engages MClane, his new "partner" -- and his beloved city -- in a deadly game that demands their concentration. My Thoughts: "I loved this one as much as the first. Perhaps it's because they used the director from the first film (John McTiernan) for this one. Definitely no slow spots in this film, just full on action. I loved Bruce and Samuel L. Jackson together. They were just great together and really made the movie even better. They were hysterical. This may even be better then the first film. I just seemed to enjoy this one more. This film connects with the first one when dealing with the 'bad guys'. Definitely a huge step up from the second film, which was a bit of a sleeper. This is my favorite of the Die Hard films.".

• Jeff "

  
  Third film in the Die Hard franchise is definitely much better than the second one. John McTiernan returns as director and he delivers a much better sequel. In this third entry, the brother of Hans Gruber, played by Jeremy Irons takes John McClane on a wild goose chase, as he prepares… More
  Third film in the Die Hard franchise is definitely much better than the second one. John McTiernan returns as director and he delivers a much better sequel. In this third entry, the brother of Hans Gruber, played by Jeremy Irons takes John McClane on a wild goose chase, as he prepares a heist on the Federal reserve bank. Simon (Gruber's Brother) plays a series of deadly game with John McClane. Only thing is that now McClane gets the help of an unwilling Samaritan played by Samuel L. Jackson. The plot of this film is very elaborate, probably the most elaborate of all the Die Hard films. I find Die Hard: With A Vengeance to be very elaborate for the reason that it doesn't happen all in one place (like the first two films of the series) In this we have John McClane running around New York trying to outwit the terrorist as well as trying to to stop him. A very tense game of cat and mouse is played throughout the film. The acting here is superior to Die Hard 2, where most of the characters were annoying. But in this one, I found that most of the characters where more serious. Jeremy Irons plays an awesome villain as Simon Gruber. He truly is one of the best actors to grace a villains role since Alan Rickman in Die Hard. He has a strong screen presence and he lights up the screen. After the lacking Die Hard 2, McTiernan gives this third entry a much needed boost, with the terrific cast at hand, he's able to create a better sequel. Though not perfect, This third entry is very much an entertaining thrill ride filled with suspense and loads of action. Of the four Die Hard films, this is the second best sequel in the franchise, with the first being Live Free Or Die Hard. A thing that I appreciate about the film is that they added a partner of sorts to John McClane, Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson are terrific. Also another thing I loved is that there are no annoying and ignorant characters who doubt the truthfulness of McClane's word. Die Hard: With A Vengeance is a big improvement over the disappointing second entry, and the film works well because John McTiernan director of the first one returns, and he has a terrific cast at hand to create a roller coaster ride of an action film. Like the title says, the series is back with a vengeance. Luckily they were able to keep the momentum going with fourth film as well.

• Chris W

  
  The action may take place in a far less confined setting, losing some of the tension and intensity of the first two, but this is still a thrilling action and suspense film nonetheless. It's good to see John McTiernan back in the director's chair for this one, even though… More
  The action may take place in a far less confined setting, losing some of the tension and intensity of the first two, but this is still a thrilling action and suspense film nonetheless. It's good to see John McTiernan back in the director's chair for this one, even though Renny Harlin did a really good job with the second one. Even though this one does have a more spralling setting, it works pretty decently given the plot specifics. I think a few things that help in this regard are the plot twist that ties this film to the first, and the terrific performance by Jeremy Irons. The basic plot is that a mad bomber basically forces John McClane into a tense game of cat and mouse throughout NYC, but things aren't quite as they seem, and something deeper and different is going on. By this time, Willis knows the character inside and out, but he isn't sleepwalking through things. He brings lots of energy to a character that shows signs of having everything but that. It would have been nice to see Reginald VelJohnson make an appearance, but I can't think of a plausible way that they could have included him. Samuel L. Jackson is great though. I like his character a lot, and the interactions between him and Willis are dynamite. In fact, the great chemistry they have together, and their face off with one another is one of the best things the film has going for it besides the spectacular stunts and action scenes. This is a small step down, but this is by no means a bad film at all.

• Lewis C

  
  I honestly cannot understand why I don't love the Die Hard series. I'm a Bruce Willis fan and I love action flicks, but these movies just tend to be only average, in my eyes. The fourth entry was fine, the first one was decent, and tbe second one was alright, at best.… More
  I honestly cannot understand why I don't love the Die Hard series. I'm a Bruce Willis fan and I love action flicks, but these movies just tend to be only average, in my eyes. The fourth entry was fine, the first one was decent, and tbe second one was alright, at best. Clearly this is a well-loved series, so I'm assuming that the problem must be with me. As for Die Hard with a Vengeance, I'd put it on par with Die Hard 2. Some aspects of the movie worked well. The connections to the story of the first movie were a nice touch, and the pairing of Samuel L. Jackson with Willis effectively turns it into a buddy cop movie. It's more entertaining seeing John McClane interacting with another character, than it is to see him going gung-ho alone. But beyond that, I just didn't think it was very exciting or interesting. There are plenty of late 80's and early 90's action movies that I absolutely love, but I can't add this to that list.

• Conner R

  
  Just as good as the original and certainly as fun. This is John McClane on a grander scale and his adversaries are just as deadly. It works way better as a true sequel to the first, with Hans Gruber's evil brother out for blood. A lot of the sequences are just amazing and unlike… More
  Just as good as the original and certainly as fun. This is John McClane on a grander scale and his adversaries are just as deadly. It works way better as a true sequel to the first, with Hans Gruber's evil brother out for blood. A lot of the sequences are just amazing and unlike anything else, John Mctiernan really is a god when it comes to making action movies. There was also a huge return to the original nature of John McClane, he is at the top of his game. Just as witty and tired of crime, full of problems and heart-ache. Samuel L. Jackson really works well as a side-kick and made the movie even more fun.

• Tsubaki S

  
  I wish Simon's character was a bit more developed, and the ending is quite anti-climatic. But aside from that a very fun and solid sequel.

• Daniel M

  
  Die Hard 2 was essentially Airplane! without the jokes; if the franchise was going to be revived they had to take things up a gear. By setting it all over New York the writers and director have got things out of a holding pattern, the only problem being that the film has none of the… More
  Die Hard 2 was essentially Airplane! without the jokes; if the franchise was going to be revived they had to take things up a gear. By setting it all over New York the writers and director have got things out of a holding pattern, the only problem being that the film has none of the intense claustrophobia of the original. Thankfully most of the time they avoid resorting to impressive stunts to cover this up. Samuel L. Jackson, who had just completed Pulp Fiction, joins the cast and definitely manages to be more than just a sidekick. The film generally avoids making the error that was made in this area on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - namely having the sidekick as someone of a different race merely conforming to racial stereotypes, and thereby coming across as weak so that the white hero looks good. They attempt to address the issue of racism, with the scenes between Bruce and Sam tackling what it is to be racist, and whether it operates in both directions between black people and white people. However the film loses its nerve eventually with this, in its portrayal of both the street gang and the Harlem schoolchildren being broadly in line with the caricatures. Jeremy Irons is clearly having a ball playing the villain, although the premise that he is somehow the brother of Alan Rickman?s character from the first film never quite seems believable. Merely being able to change from German to American accents is not enough of a family resemblance. But by having him as a sociopath who likes to play games, the film thinks that it can get away with endless plot twists and double-crosses, particularly in the last half-hour. As a result you're left sat there at the end of the film both impressed and confused; you think you liked it, but you also know it isn?t brilliant and you?re not quite sure why. This is the most interesting of the Die Hard films, both in the way that it broadens out the landscape and shows the development of Willis' character into more than just a guy with bad luck. The original is still the best, but this is an improvement on Die Hard 2, so catch it if you can.

• Anthony L

  
  This is my favourite of the 4 Die Hard films. The introduction of Samuel L. Jackson as a side-kick gave the film another dimension. I also liked the way John McClane was not longer trapped in one place like in the two previous films, here he really gets to spread his wings across New… More
  This is my favourite of the 4 Die Hard films. The introduction of Samuel L. Jackson as a side-kick gave the film another dimension. I also liked the way John McClane was not longer trapped in one place like in the two previous films, here he really gets to spread his wings across New York, albeit with a headache. Good clean fun.

• Cassandra M

  
  Someone calling himself Simon detonates several bombs in the centre of New York City. He then sets a series of dangerous tasks for Officer John McClane to achieve or he will detonate more. McClane sets out to meet the demands of the terrorists with bystander Zeus Carver in tow. This… More
  Someone calling himself Simon detonates several bombs in the centre of New York City. He then sets a series of dangerous tasks for Officer John McClane to achieve or he will detonate more. McClane sets out to meet the demands of the terrorists with bystander Zeus Carver in tow. This is the third in the Die Hard series and it makes an immediate improvement on the second by bringing back the original director John McTiernan. Here the film doesn't try to repeat the formula of the first film (terrorists/wife/rescue) but instead takes on a whole new plot while still tying it into the first film. The second movie tried to repeat the first film's plot but set in an airport, here the different angle makes this feel a lot fresher and feel like a movie in itself. The tie-in to the first film is clever and not too much of a stretch of the imagination - happily this is not the reason for the action itself - instead the terrorist's main aim is the gold held in vaults in the Federal Reserve on Wall Street, but the game with McClane is a special treat. McTiernan was great in the first film, making everything feel tense and claustrophobic. Here he has the whole of NYC to run across and the camera shows this new found freedom. In action scenes the camera swings wildly round and zooms into focus on the action. During scenes set in offices etc containing a lot of dialogue the camera slowly prowls round like it's dieing to rush off to the next action scene. It's the opposite to the style in the first film and again makes this feels different enough to be a film in it's own right. Usually film series can get a lot of baggage (watch Lethal Weapon 4 for proof), but here all the repeat characters are dropped, even McClane's wife only features as a voice on the phone. And that works well here and the only characters that are brought back here are McClane (of course) and Hans Gruber (in a flashback). This frees the film up to basically go where it wants without having to squeeze in old characters the way the second film did. However it links the films by having Simon Gruber taking supposed revenge for the death of his brother. The fresh active feel to this movie really gives it life and lifts the series out of the hole that the second film had threatened to put it. The chemistry between Willis and Jackson is great and lends a lot of comedy to the film, there's lot of racial humour between the two and Jackson is more than the "black sidekick" that exists in many films. Irons continues the fine tradition of English actors playing Hollywood villains and is good for the most. His ticks and stutters stop him being anywhere near as good as Rickman was in the original role but he's still good. Willis gets good support from the likes of Graham Greene, Larry Bryggman and Colleen Camp as fellow cops but really him and Jackson carry the show. Some of the scenes are a little forced and the plot doesn't always join together easily (a scene where Willis is fired out of a water pipe just as Jackson happens to drive by is a little too convenient) but many iffy bits can be overlooked if you focus on the action. The most effective thing that returns from the first film is the musical score. In the first film the score used variations on Christmas music to dramatic effect, here the score uses music well to add tension and comedy in a different way. It's difficult to put into words but this effect was missing from the second film. The film has a hatful of nice twists towards the end and the only problem is that the conclusion in Canada doesn't feel like it fits in (the original ending was changed following the Okalahoma bombing) but this is a minor problem in a film that is a great addition to the action packed Die Hard series.

• Phil H

  
  This starts out so good, the bomb threats over NY and willis having to chase all over to get to em, brilliant stuff. Jackson is also great as Willis' partner, very amusing in a loud sarcastic way. I just think it loses its punch midway through and doesn't get it back… More
  This starts out so good, the bomb threats over NY and willis having to chase all over to get to em, brilliant stuff. Jackson is also great as Willis' partner, very amusing in a loud sarcastic way. I just think it loses its punch midway through and doesn't get it back totally. The ending is alittle flat and to be honest I never thought much to Irons as the baddie, its just trying to ride on the success of Rickman and his character.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings