John McLane 3.0 The first two Die Hard movies were really strong. These projects are still remembered with love, because the films have become classic action films, where the eternally grumpy and necessarily witty John McLane dealt with entire gangs of terrorists. The third picture is strikingly different in its setting, takes a different narrative vector and moves the viewer into the dynamic environment of a huge New York City, where the main character will again have to enter into direct confrontation with a whole gang of villains against his will. A lot has been changed in the film. It seems that only the main character John remained untouched, which is also well shown on the screen by old Bruce Willis. His McLane is going through hard times. It doesn't work out with Holly's wife (it's a pity that the heroine doesn't appear in the film), the cop is completely drunk, spends his life worthless. But the new rival seems to bring the hero to his senses, threatening to kill a huge city. Paradoxically, despite the increased budget again, this time up to $ 90 million, the abundance of explosions, chases, shootings and more is not as memorable as the various large-scale shots from the second film of the series. It's hard to say what the problem is. Maybe it's just that the second film was remembered better than the third, but the fact remains. There are so many different activities in the third picture that it is difficult to remember something special. A pronounced second main character also appeared in the film. He became a man named Zeus, who accidentally got involved in the events taking place. The role was played by an excellent actor and Hollywood motherfucker Samuel L. Jackson. The hero fit perfectly into this series and was quite good, often complementing McLane in this interesting adventure. Jeremy Irons did not fail either, who happened to present the main antagonist Simon to the audience. A cold and piercing voice, an icy look, excellent charisma worthy of Hans Gruber from the first film. The villain is motivated in his own way to clash with McLane, and also has his own plans for New York, where the events of the action movie take place. The film is full of diverse events. This approach does not let the viewer get bored when the characters of the picture literally find themselves in one alteration or another every minute. This, in my opinion, allows you to keep a high degree of tension in the film, makes it really lively and dynamic. You can feel the experienced hand of director John McTiernan, who directed the first film of a successful franchise. But in this picture, the director allowed himself to really roam in a big way, placing his characters not just in a skyscraper or on the territory of the airport, but giving them the opportunity to interact with the whole city, where danger can wait at every step. "Die Hard 3" turned out to be a worthy successor to the franchise. It's safe to say that the film has reached a new level. Yes, the scale has increased, but I personally do not have that love and reverence, as for the first two paintings. However, this is a good action movie, dynamic and interesting, which is designed to please the mass audience, and policeman John McLane is once again given the opportunity to prove himself in the fight against villains. 7 out of 10