In my opinion, this film is much better than even original Die Hard which is currently 8.2 rated. And mostly thanks to outstanding performance by S.L.Jackson and Jeremy Irons.
It surely deserves a 8.
It's alright. Not as good as the first two, but better than the next two. I didn't care that much for Jackson, as he brings up too much racial crap.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
Definitely better than 2!
shareI've always loved this movie because of the interplay between Bruce and Sam J, the villain is arguably more morally ambiguous, and the whole city is at stake vs a building or an airport.
shareWorst entry in the Die Hard series. Remove Sam “I always play the same role” Jackson, and it’s marginally better; but still the worst.
Excellent cast, except for Jackson, who should have retired a decade ago. Not nearly as inventive as Live Free Or Die Hard, which had the benefit of a better cast and the action direction of Joseph Wiesman (auteur behind the Underworld series and who has the inspiration of having Kate Beckinsale as his wife).
Not for nothing, the phrase the OP wanted is “under-rated,” or, even better, “under rated.” One wonders when morphing two words into one phrase became acceptable. It was probably at the time when education and civilization both collapsed.
I agree that this is the worst of the original Die Hard trilogy. Samuel L. Jackson is good but the film drags on and on and on, the script is all over the place not being helped by the fact that it was originally the screenplay for an entirely different film, then it was going to be the screenplay for Lethal Weapon 4, then they tacked on Die Hard characters and rewrote the last half. It is agonizing and dumb seeing John McClane and Samuel L. Jackson running around NYC playing children's games that never turn out to amount to much. We're supposed to find that the villain is the brother of a previous villain getting revenge on McClane but actually nvm he didn't really care about that after all, he's just going to pull some sub-tier James Bond villain shit? Not to mention Jeremy Irons is poorly cast here, he has none of the impact and screen presence of the late great Alan Rickman. Irons looks like a henchman in one of the Brosnan Bond films. Really boring villain.
I just kinda found this movie a chore to watch. This one gets praised a lot while DH 2 is often cited as the worst? I don't get that at all. DH 2 is flawed but it still is in keeping with the tone and feel of the first film.