Fox Video | Release Date: May 19, 1995
8.7
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 333 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
304
Mixed:
29
Negative:
0
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
TECfilmsJan 21, 2013
It's just Die Hard. What can you say more than these two magic words that make this already brilliant action thriller an amazing experience, even after the second and third time. Awesome!!!
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
10
ThegodfathersonMar 3, 2013
The "Yippy Ki Yay" is used at the right time. Die Hard With a vengeance was pure perfection from beginning to end. Samuel l Jackson makes the perfect partner in race against the time gritty thrillers. Hooking from the begging.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
9
ArkonBladeOct 27, 2010
the first film was great the second one was eh. the third one brings us back to where this series should be . willis and jackon are a great and funny team . lots of funny moments and some great action . one of the few sequels that didnt disappoint.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
DalekJan 5, 2011
Sure, it doesnt have the same feeling as the first or second one but its still amazing for a third sequel right? I mean, look other films that have had 3 sequels, they were bad. The beginning takes a little bit to get your head round. It'sSure, it doesnt have the same feeling as the first or second one but its still amazing for a third sequel right? I mean, look other films that have had 3 sequels, they were bad. The beginning takes a little bit to get your head round. It's basically John Mclane and Samuel L. Jackson solving puzzles by Simon. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
vikesh2206Nov 24, 2014
The poorly written dialogue and overblown third act provide minor obstacles for John McTiernan's second outing in the Die Hard franchise, which mostly thrills while serving up the right amount of action.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
Zanessa250QIApr 4, 2016
.......................................................................................A Masterpiece...........................Underrated for the knows-all CRITICS like Scarface (1983), But the public shows the truth..........
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
johnmcclaneJan 26, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From the star of Blind Date, the first two Die Hard flicks, and Pulp Fiction comes this masterpiece that will blow your mind. Detective McClane and an shopowner named Zeus Carver track down the mysterious Simon, who is Hans Gruber's brother (if you didn't understand that part you need to see the first one as well) and an soldier. Simon's plan is to destroy McClane, but he should have known he's an lethal weapon with an side of amazing skills and dangerous power. Can McClane catch Simon before he bombs an school hidden somewhere in New York? Expand
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
8
MovieGuysSep 27, 2013
It's fun to see how McClane plays Simon's little game in NYC, with Samuel L. Jackson at his side, and the film delivers the goods with a vengeance. Lots of action and explosions, just like what you would think. Some parts feel like anIt's fun to see how McClane plays Simon's little game in NYC, with Samuel L. Jackson at his side, and the film delivers the goods with a vengeance. Lots of action and explosions, just like what you would think. Some parts feel like an afterthought (the ending), but most of the movie works well as a Die Hard movie. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
grandpajoe6191Sep 18, 2011
The movie is overall fun as the 2 prequels, but decent at its own.
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
9
DanPSep 5, 2009
Awesome.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
LaMagiadeVirueAug 16, 2013
No deja de ser divertida y que te deja prendido al sillón, pero es la más flojita de la serie. No es el clásico estilo de la saga "Die Hard". Hay pocas escenas de tiroteos masivos como nos tenían acostumbrados hasta este momento. Luego en laNo deja de ser divertida y que te deja prendido al sillón, pero es la más flojita de la serie. No es el clásico estilo de la saga "Die Hard". Hay pocas escenas de tiroteos masivos como nos tenían acostumbrados hasta este momento. Luego en la 4, vuelven ese tipo de cosas que en esta no vemos. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
CassianJ.Jan 4, 2008
So once again we are in the company of John McLean, and what a ride we are in for! You all know the premise by now it is John against the odds. This movie is both a return to the spirit of the original movie in that it
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BobS.Aug 29, 2008
clever plot. well acted. lots of fun
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
[Anonymous]Jan 5, 2009
I think it is a little better then Die Hard 2. But, not nearly as good as Live Free or Die Hard or Die Hard. But, still an ok movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
P.R.Jul 28, 2006
better than die hard 2, but not better than the orignal still way better than most action movies out there.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JaredC.Aug 12, 2007
A good movie, but accurately should be a good 5/10. Just because the movie has a made-up story flawlessly thought-out, which I think isn't much, but the acting is funny, dazzling, smart, and terrific.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
LOmarGJul 4, 2012
An absolute blast. True to its predecessors and action-packed from beginning to end. Sam and Bruce play with and against each other quite well; I particularly enjoyed the humor during the scenes where they accuse each other or racism.An absolute blast. True to its predecessors and action-packed from beginning to end. Sam and Bruce play with and against each other quite well; I particularly enjoyed the humor during the scenes where they accuse each other or racism. Jeremy Irons is excellent as usual. A solid action film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
TokyochuchuSep 5, 2013
Die Hard with a Vengeance is a classic entry into the franchise. The film is fast paced, colorful and tons of fun. This is an excellent Die Hard sequel and one that comes close to topping the original.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
imthenoobJun 9, 2013
Honestly, I thought it was a pretty enjoyable movie. The addition of Jackson brought some comedy relief and Irons plays a great bad guy that, imo, made the movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Compi24Oct 27, 2017
As far as threequels go, "Die Hard: With A Vengeance" is more than just a success. Not only did it - at the very least - hold my attention and keep me entertained, but one can even say there are a few sparks of brilliance littered throughout,As far as threequels go, "Die Hard: With A Vengeance" is more than just a success. Not only did it - at the very least - hold my attention and keep me entertained, but one can even say there are a few sparks of brilliance littered throughout, such as the additions of Samuel L. Jackson and Jeremy Irons to the gallery of new figures John McClane has to traverse. However, I can't help but feel that there's a bit too much going on here at times. Juggling McClane and Zeus, the cops, and Jeremy Irons's character all at once does seem to get a bit too strenuous for director John McTiernan here for a bit, but by the time the third act rolls in, it all makes sense and its smooth sailing from there on in. Definitely not the best "Die Hard," but it is most certainly one of the better ones. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MeritCobaFeb 27, 2016
I have, as far as I can recall, never seen a die hard movie before so this is my first one. In Die hard: With a Vengeance the suspended cop McClane(Bruce Willis) gets neighborhood shop owner Carver (Samuel Jackson) to tag along as reluctantI have, as far as I can recall, never seen a die hard movie before so this is my first one. In Die hard: With a Vengeance the suspended cop McClane(Bruce Willis) gets neighborhood shop owner Carver (Samuel Jackson) to tag along as reluctant side kick, which guarantees some witty bouts of snarky exchanges and it gets delivered as can be expected.Just like 48 hours the movie turns around the combination of these two men, reluctant uncomfortable bed fellows who are forced to cooperate because a megalomaniac psychopath, played by the aptly haughty Jeremy Irons, has them run around New York against the clock solving riddles to forestall bombs going off. Soon it is revealed that Irons is the brother of one of the earlier bad guys Willis has dropped from a building in one of the previous movies. Killing a bad guy doesn't always end the evil: it might create a new one.

There is a nice twist in the plot as it becomes apparent that there is more to it than mere vengeance. In fact you might say you get to watch two movies for the price of one as the first half is different from the second half.

Unfortunately the movie is so bend on throwing you from one action sequence into the next, without spending much time on connecting these that the plot starts to unravel and the plots holes need to be patched up with all kinds of allowances. Irons, for instance, suffers from that omnipresence and omnipotence that is so typical for these movies otherwise the story would not stick. The CIA and FBA make a short appearance, but Irons calls the men out by name and after that, having been found out apparently, we never hear from these agencies again for it is Willis who needs to save the day and nobody else. Their only purpose seems to be to inform us who the bad guy is. Bad storytelling, if you ask me.. for they could have tricked Irons into revealing himself after Willis got him worked up. For a while it looks like that was they way they were heading, but that is dropped.

At various moments the movie relies on sheer luck or coincidence to keep on going. For instance one of Irons' games with Willis and Jackson involves a bomb in a briefcase in a park that is lying there for them to be picked up, yet nobody sees or steels the briefcase while it lies there, unattended in full view of a lot of people. At another moment Willis gets ejected from an underground tunnel and drops down to the ground at the same time as Jackson, making his was via another route, drives past him so he can pick Willis up and they can continue the pursuit together. After a while it seems that the writers just gave up making sense and went with the whatever goes is okay ploy.. At some point for instance Willis stops a truck thinking it is driven by terrorists without shooting the drivers first and it turns out just to be an innocent guy, yet some time later he just shoots the drivers, and it turns out they are terrorists.

After a while you get the feeling that movie is overburdened with twists, explosions and people. For instance Irons has a female sidekick who seems totally superfluous and could have been left out as her presence doesn't add anything to the story, just like the guy who is the go between between Irons and his employers from the Middle East. Also, after the first twist in the plot there is a next one and a next one after that one, until it starts to become tedious. In addition one wonders why Jackson is still tagging along. The choice of making him a shop owner who gets to be involved by accident loses all logic when it becomes clear Irons has lost his omnipotence and omnipresence and Jackson's presence is no longer required or demanded by Irons.

The major point is that the first movie, as I read, plays in one building with one man taking on the terrorists in that building. The scene, the time and the actors are limited which makes the story self contained. In this movie the scene is the whole of New York where the one guy vs a bunch of terrorists becomes untenable as too many things could and would interfere. This is why many movies corner of the set. Isolating the scene is done to cut off people from outside help and has an additional purpose of limiting the playing field and of keeping people in. This movie fails in this and thus it needs to patch up a lot of the plot holes and that shows..

All in all not a bad film, but not a good one either. So a five
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
LoRevisorFeb 25, 2015
Nitidamente superior ao segundo,John McTiernan volta com tudo trazendo um excelente Ás na manga Samuel L. Jackson que brilha e diverte com sua excelente atuação como o samaritano Zeus,Bruce Willis mais uma vez está excelente como JohnNitidamente superior ao segundo,John McTiernan volta com tudo trazendo um excelente Ás na manga Samuel L. Jackson que brilha e diverte com sua excelente atuação como o samaritano Zeus,Bruce Willis mais uma vez está excelente como John McClane. Jeremy Irons também é show de bola como o antagonista Simon. Larry Bryggman e Graham Greene também são destaques. Genial na ação,comédia e na história. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
marcmyworksDec 8, 2013
Putting Sam Jackson in the mix was a brilliant move by the film makers and Jeremy Irons is a serious badass. The big weakness is this film is the exclusion of Bonnie Bedelia.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
lukechristianscJun 24, 2015
Bruce Willis is back again his character still remains the same which is good, he still bring his charisma to the fourth installment. It's predictable but it's clever, Jeremy Irons was the best villain ever! Screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh'sBruce Willis is back again his character still remains the same which is good, he still bring his charisma to the fourth installment. It's predictable but it's clever, Jeremy Irons was the best villain ever! Screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh's script adds suspense and keeps McClaine the same and adds delivers just what it advertises, with a vengeance. Samuel Jackson was awesome. Grade A- Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Meth-dudeNov 26, 2017
It's unbelievable, over the top, predictable and cheesy, but it's still a very solid action flick. The acting is great, the action scenes are very well made and it's very entertaining. It's a way better sequel than the second.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BigZNov 5, 2014
Call me crazy, but I think this movie marked a big step forward for the John McClane Die Hard series and a story that hits just as hard as the others before it. John McClane is a mess and has lost his wife and family. All he has is his job.Call me crazy, but I think this movie marked a big step forward for the John McClane Die Hard series and a story that hits just as hard as the others before it. John McClane is a mess and has lost his wife and family. All he has is his job. So why would a German terrorist want him to suffer and or die, especially at the expense of others? For whatever the reason, some crazy terrorist is making John play a game while he works his own schemes on New York City. McClane must use his brain to see through the wiles and still come out as the hero. He will need help though, and he gets it. Some people like to rag on this one because it is about terrorists/thieves again. I mean yes, it is, but if it is just as clever as the prequels while bringing new dynamics in as far as scale, and characters, why mess with the formula? It works. I think the biggest gamble was Samuel L. Jackson being the partner/side-kick to Willis. Based on the ability Bruce has to be the lone wolf, adding someone next to him could ruin the vibe but it worked. Sam did it well delivering a memorable performance and making sure the human reasoning isn't lost among the explosions and shooting. They just got this down, if John McClane can stay this good and entertaining as a character and somehow keep making it through these crazy situations without getting ridiculous and unreal, why stop? Good job, worth a watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
EpicLadySpongeFeb 3, 2016
Keep the franchise going, keep it going. We all want more... except for... ding dong.... A Good Day to Die Hard. Die Hard: With a Vengeance will not just keep the franchise strong, but it also keeps it dead too.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FuturedirectorAug 1, 2016
Despite the flawed beginning, simple cast, and some-kind-of poor end, this film has enjoyable moments, tension parts and amazing story-telling, this film gets the best of the year. Bruce Willis is still being our die-hard man.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Cameronius_113Apr 29, 2017
Die Hard with a Vengeance was released in 1995 and was directed by John McTiernan. It is the third film in the Die Hard series and is about officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) who is called into action to stop a terrorist who is detonatingDie Hard with a Vengeance was released in 1995 and was directed by John McTiernan. It is the third film in the Die Hard series and is about officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) who is called into action to stop a terrorist who is detonating areas around New York City.
As someone who wasn't a big fan of Die Hard 2, this film impressed me lots and was a big improvement over the previous instalment. For me, Die Hard 2 was a rather bland action film with nothing particularly smart about it and at the same time felt too similar to the original with McClane's wife being in peril and also the fact that it too took place at Christmas, just like the first. This entry was refreshingly different and made for a great viewing experience.
The film gets off to a very strong start with brilliant pacing; we're given our situations at an expert pace and we're introduced to our characters without any slow or exposition-heavy moments. Right from the get-go, the main villain begins to play his cleverly-written game of cat-and-mouse with the heroes which was very exciting and tense. Right from the start I knew this would be much better than Die Hard 2 as it proves straight away that it has wildly different ideas and provides a whole new exciting experience.
Bruce Willis is once again great in the role of John McClane and the film doesn't slow itself down at any points to let us know what stage of his life he is in, and instead gives us the information over the course of the film which makes for a more effective way of giving us information rather than blatant exposition. Samuel L. Jackson was also great as Zeus, the person of whom John tags along with; the two had fantastic chemistry and I'd be more than happy to see them in a Die Hard film together again.
Unfortunately, after the excellent first half, the film becomes rather bland after the point where the villain stops toying around with the heroes like he did earlier and the film becomes a rather bland action picture like Die Hard 2 was. The film did maintain the expert pace and never took a minute to breathe but was not anywhere near as thrilling as the previous half was. Also, the ending of the film felt very tacked on and much like a reshoot; because that's exactly what it was. The way the scene prior to the final scene set up the ending only worked with the original ending it was expecting, however because of the studio wanting it to be changed, the ending we received feels very out of place and overall dissatisfying.
Overall, Die Hard with a Vengeance was the sequel we should have initially received instead of Die Hard 2 in my opinion and started off with many fresh ideas and constant tension as well as a brilliant pace, however most of these elements are sadly lost in the latter half and the film becomes a bland action picture towards the end. I was also dissatisfied by the new ending too and how it really didn't work at all. However, I would still recommend this film to the fans of the original Die Hard, even though the film does begin to run out of steam later on.
7.8/10
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews