stormhawk2018 "Die Hard with a Vengeance" was the first "Die Hard" I saw in the theater and it's my favorite of the sequels. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is back and this time he's not in the wrong place at the wrong time. He's the right man, being targeted by a terorrist bomber named Simon Gruber (Jeremy Irons), Hans' brother, who wants to play a game of "Simon Says". If McClane doesn't do as he says, then he will blow up anything from a subway to a school in New York. McClane gets help from Zeus (Samuel L. Jackson) a guy who saves his life in Harlem, and they try to stop Simon and find out why he is doing all this. John McTiernan was the director of the first movie and this is the only sequel he came back for, probably why it's the best. The action is phenomenal, the story is exciting, and Irons' Simon is the best of all the villains in the series, besides Hans Gruber. There are some scenes that are very over the top, but this is probably the most grounded of the entire series. Great movie, and if your looking for a roller coaster ride of a movie, then pop this bad boy back in.

akgonen60 This movie was off the chain crazy i seen part 1 and part 2 and 1 was the best hands down part 2 was garbage and boring to me this movie blew my mind action packed with good cast i thought it was awesome and just got it on blu ray to add to my collection 10/10 from me

jwiley-86292 I wanted to like this more. I really did. The concept is brilliant, perfect to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. As someone who knows the place, I commend the gorgeous, immersive filming of New York--even though it's from more than twenty years ago, the film looks like how the city really feels. This sets the film apart from other Hollywood depictions of New York. Most of all, Jeremy Irons' character is a worthy successor to his brother, exuding. . . let's just say he's hot and leave it at that.Sadly, the elements I liked made the sagging elements all the harder to swallow. Most conspicuously, With a Vengeance sorely lacks the scintillating dialogue of the first movie, which was a huge part of why I love it. The first third had me totally attentive, but around the middle it derails and takes too long to wrap up. And yet, the end still feels very abrupt. I would not have killed Simon with such merciless speed. Hollywood, why are your bad guys so often more lovable than your good guys? I wished the film had taken the time to explain more about Simon's background. He was in the East German Stasi or something, and felt miffed when East Germany, therefore his job, ceased to exist. That's interesting! Tell us more! And why was Hans in the West in the 80s when there were still two Germanies? With a Vengeance could have explained that, too. For that matter, who is Katya and what is her relationship with Simon like?The first Die Hard was such a delight to me because it defied my preconception that action movies were just fighting and explosions with no catharsis or character drama. This one is tipped, albeit slightly, towards the latter category.

Filipe Neto This is the third film in the series "Die Hard", which runs around the character of John McClane. In this film, he will face a terrorist group seeking revenge on him, specifically, by placing bombs in several places of New York. Directed by John McTiernan, the film has a screenplay by Jonathan Hensleigh. Bruce Willis takes the lead role.This film marks the return of McTiernan to the director's chair and managed to be different from the previous films. Addressing racial issues with humor, the film has good comic moments between McClane and Zeus, a seller from Harlem that takes racism too seriously and, eventually, become the main sidekick of McClane.Bruce Willis managed to shine again in a role that he knows well, but the spotlight was also turned on Samuel L. Jackson (who played Zeus) and Jeremy Irons, who gave life to the main villain. The eloquent and precise combination of the three actors was very important to the success of the film. The script also deserves congratulations: besides introducing humorous moments with great intelligence, also fled the pattern marked by two films, where Willis worked alone and out of his jurisdiction, to save his wife and the other people who were with her in danger. The time element is crucial to the film: with McClane working against the clock, the adrenaline flows freely and quickly infects the audience, which is attached to what is happening on the screen. The special, visual and sound effects are good, the picture is also positive.