goldenscout14 said:Look, nobody with half a brain is actually expecting some profound masterpiece or gritty realism from a flick like this. We get it. But people are still allowed to have an opinion, and in my view, this movie fails to even function as a decent action flick. Don't get me wrong, there’s plenty of action, but is it actually fun? Not even remotely. What really kills the initial momentum of the takeover sequence isn't even the glaringly obvious CGI; it's the lack of soul. Then you have the second half, which just drags on with uncharismatic characters, overblown sentimentality, and a level of pretentiousness that feels like they're trying way too hard to be deep. It's just a collection of tropes we've already seen recycled a hundred times before.
Everything mentioned is a mandatory, fundamental part of this genre. It just is. By buying a ticket, you’re essentially signing off on those tropes—but clearly, some people failed to grasp that.
ruggedcrane14 said:This movie easily sits at the top of my list for the absolute dumbest things I’ve ever watched. I made it to the 1:46 mark, but those last ten minutes? I just couldn't do it. I genuinely felt like if I sat through the end, my stomach ulcer was going to give up on life... and hey, health comes first. I gave it a 1/10 on IMDb strictly because they won't let you input a zero, though honestly, this deserves an -8. If you know anything about math, you'll know exactly what I mean by that... Gerard Butler used to be a great actor before this came along, but after this, I’m done with his entire filmography, unless my wife forces my hand (much like how Butler was forced by the South Koreans in this flick). All things considered, regardless of how massive the budget was, they should have just used that money to feed people in starving nations, or burned it in a pile, or literally anything else. This movie is a crime against humanity. Everyone involved in making this belongs in a maximum-security prison in the middle of nowhere...
over & out
Give it a rest. We all know you'll be first in line for his next flick. Your attempt at a critique is about as effective as putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.
Glad you're "over and out." There's always God.
It’s always amusing when people try to find realism, consistency, logic, or depth in movies like this.
This is just a high-octane version of "almost being in the house" meant for adults—so stop whining.
Bradley Nelson2 said:Can someone explain why White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen dropped at basically the same time? They’re practically the same movie.🤷
So Mercedes-Benz and BMW release the same class of cars at the exact same time—so what? What does BMW actually care about regarding Mercedes-Benz sales? Or vice versa? It’s all the same.
You think producers coordinate things ahead of time? Give me a break—how does some kid like Ivan expect to manage a production of any kind, let alone a feature film?
You dive headfirst into a project—commit fully to the execution—because we’re talking months, maybe even years of grinding. By then, you’ve already burned through a mountain of cash. Then comes the realization: the competition is running the exact same play. At that point, there’s no turning back. You either see it through to the finish line and force it onto the market, or you fold. It becomes a survival of the fittest. Isn't that right? It is.
Is it any clearer now why similar projects tend to pop up at the exact same time—sometimes? 😁
ironowl60 said:Ugh, what a total disaster... I was really hoping for at least a decent action flick, especially given the cast they put together, but man, this was just painful... It’s honestly one of the most unrealistic things I've seen in a long time... Like, the whole attack on the White House felt like it was scripted by a toddler... I actually ended up laughing at how ridiculous the entire thing was... definitely the worst movie I've sat through all year ☕
And I suppose all those other "one man against the world" action flicks are perfectly realistic? Is the first Die Hard movie supposed to be some documentary? Or any of those other critically acclaimed movies in that genre??? WTF??? Keep going—this is actually getting funny.
Sean Johnson40 said:You aren't far off. Honestly, I'd give it a 2/10. People seem to think if you just pack a movie with enough gunfights, blood, and brutality, you've suddenly got a solid flick on your hands. And of course, there's that tired old formula: the President is in danger, a hero steps up to slaughter all the bad guys, and the audience walks away happy...
Good grief, if the powers that be use movies like this to desensitize the public—maybe to push for a harder line against North Korea or to justify future military moves toward them—then we have a problem. As far as art goes, I don't think this movie had any other purpose; it was just a total flop.
Are you actually serious right now??? 😁 Did you even watch the movie? Or did you just skip it?
So, I caught it yesterday. My overall impression is a bit soured by the second half—they really dropped the ball with some minor logical leaps and a rushed finish. What actually sat poorly with me, even for this genre, was the excessive sentimentality in that typical American style, plus a few forced jokes thrown in during the last 120 seconds to try and lighten the mood before the credits rolled and the house lights came up.
All things considered, it’s pretty solid. A 7/10 for two hours of decent entertainment; the action is constant and definitely doesn't skimp on the thrills—plenty of gunfights, bad guys getting absolutely wrecked, and explosions galore. 😁
Just watching this right now—the first half actually feels like one of the better action flicks we've seen in years. Sure, it’s loaded with clichés and the finale is predictably intense, but there's a solid sense of tension here. The action is top-tier, tight, and lacks that obnoxious, forced humor that plagued the last Die Hard. If it holds up through the credits, I’d give it an 8/10 as a pure, unapologetic action movie—nothing fancy, no pretension to be something it isn't, just two hours of high-octane entertainment. 😁
hollowmaker242 said:I actually liked the movie. It’s solid, low-effort two-hour entertainment for a night in front of the TV. If I’d sat through this in a theater, I would have felt ripped off—both in cash and time—but watching it at home? 4/5.
So, if you pay for a bad movie, it's a bad movie. But if you watch that exact same movie for free, suddenly it's "much better"?
Is that some kind of communalist, hippie logic for rating films??? 😁
Jessica Gonzalez said:It feels like they really missed the mark with this one. It seems like Em has released a few similar projects lately (for instance, something very close to Oblivion), and I guess Will Smith is a bit of an overexposed actor who might be getting a little tiring. Plus, I get the impression it's aimed at kids because of his son and the push for a franchise. The trailer felt pretty repetitive, like we've seen it all before.
Aside from a desolate Earth and a displaced human race, I don't see any significant overlap between the plot here and the plot of Oblivion, which I actually thought was quite solid.
Whatever. Let's just wait until it hits theaters; then we'll all be "richer" by one more experience. So far, the reviews suggest a massive flop, but I won't believe it until I see it for myself. 🙂
I don't usually go into a movie with preconceived notions, but I'll be seriously surprised if this isn't a total disaster.
I don't have much of an argument here—though the trailer hints at where things are heading, and trailers can be misleading either way—it’s just a gut feeling that after Earth won't be worth the time. Still, if I managed to sit through Skyline, I can handle this. I'm expecting a mess somewhere in the realm of Prometheus, just hopefully less hollow and pretentious.
By the way, I've never been a fan of nepotism—not in any industry, really—but that's the least of my concerns with this one. Will is a decent guy, sure, but I honestly can't take him seriously in any role; he just doesn't have that presence.
I had high hopes, but honestly, I’m finding this nearly impossible to sit through. It’s been two days and I still haven't managed to finish it. The kid's performance is great—really—but man, the whole thing just feels incredibly grating. I haven't read the book.
Richard Wilson4 said:Is there even any point in making sequels to movies like this? The whole magic trick was convincing people in theaters that the footage was actually real. Once you realize it's just another movie, the second one feels totally pointless.
Of course it makes sense. Because... as long as they're printing money, why wouldn't they?
What am I supposed to take from the fact that despite this thread being viewed about 150 times, not a single person on this forum—aside from me—has uttered a word about this movie? Is everyone just completely speechless, or what? The subject matter isn't groundbreaking—nothing ever is, right?—but the film itself is a masterclass in aesthetics. The cinematography is genuinely phenomenal, the score is perfectly curated, and the messaging hits hard with some serious dramatic weight. Yet, there’s zero commentary here. No praise, no criticism—just silence. 😕
@ Dana Reyes5 - major props on the self-discipline, the persistence, and that sheer willpower. Your story is a hell of a lesson—I'm sure it’ll serve as a solid blueprint and some serious inspiration for someone else out there. 👍
I started taking this seriously when I was four—testing out training wheels by tearing through Central Park like a maniac while my dad chased me down just to prevent a total wreck. Good times. After that, I’d occasionally rip around on my brother's pony, followed by a long hiatus.
Then came the big day: I finally got a real bike—a beautiful blue and white Specialized road bike. I rode the hell out of it, retired it a few years back, took a break, and now I'm back to feeling the wind in my hair whenever I hop on my red Conjack cyclocross bike. It feels too damn good every single time I hit the pedals.
