I still haven't seen the film so please keep spoilers out of this thread.
But I was just looking at the RT scores for the film. Wow. What a difference!
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/angel_has_fallen/
It's a movie I wanted to REALLY see anyway, so it didn't matter what the critic score was. It could've been 0% and I still would've seen it. I did enjoy the movie too. It's supposed to be the final movie in the Has Fallen movies and make them a trilogy. So if this really is the end, it does have a nice ending to the Has Fallen movies and I wouldn't mind Angel Has Fallen to be the final movie. But with the ending there COULD be a possible fourth movie if they really wanted to make one and try get more money out of it. There is no cliffhanger ending or anything like that. Everyone is in a spot where things can end narrative wise, but they could also make a fourth movie. It has an ending like the first movie where everything wraps up and stuff and it's surprising when they announce a sequel is on the way. You wouldn't expect there to be two more movies coming after the way the first movie ended. Angel Has Fallen has that type of ending. But I'd like it if they kept things as a trilogy. Mike Banning needs a break and to have a "quiet" job from now on while working for The President.
shareCool, glad to hear you enjoyed it. Thanks for chiming in.
How would you say it compares to the first two?
95 to 40, that's crazy. I will NEVER trust what the critics say. They dislike good action movies then give some artsy fartsy crap movie glowing reviews.
shareIt's definitely true that the critics often have a blindspot when it comes to action movies.
It's weird how arbitrary their decisions are when it comes to this genre. John Wick is a critical darling, for instance, but the Fallen movies get little respect. Hobbs & Shaw is Fresh on RT while Angel Has Fallen has a green splat.
There's no doubt that some of it is due to the fact that critics tend to be politically left-leaning.
Wait, is the movie right-leaning?
shareI wouldn't necessarily say that about this film, but I would say it about the first two.
That is, insofar as "right-leaning" is defined as actual patriotic fervor and a willingness to not put up with terrorists' bullshit.
It's actually a shame that this is "right-leaning" in the modern environment but I guess it is what it is.
I see, because I do remember this movie making fun of a militia as if saying that second amendment doesn't automatically make them as tough as a real soldier (or at least that was the impression that I got.)
shareI'm not sure what you're referring to, but I will say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't make anyone tough. It just assures them an efficient ability to protect themselves against most threats.
shareI'm assuming you've watched the movie already, but if not.
It's the gas station scene. The civilians that tried to apprehend Mike, the one with assault rifle identify himself as "we are the militia of .....", and then Mike take them down and said something like "your militia need work." And then the truck driver pulls a revolver and said "put the gun down" while mike just shoots at the ground to scares him off. The whole scene to me works like it tries to show that only gun doesn't make someone tough.
I remember that scene now. The editing was weird, but I agree that simply possessing a gun doesn't mean much.
You have to know how to use it and be willing to pull the trigger.
Rotten tomatoes scores are based on many factors and it may depend on the individual liking to the movie. It doesn't calculate it by collecting public votes.
Rotten gave dwayne jhonsons's baywatch really low rating and was criticised by dwayne on twitter. Since then rotten is giving really high scores to dwayne's movies like hobbs and shaw. I watched it here https://0123movie.net/movie/angel-has-fallen-29216.html and its far better than hobbs and shaw.
I love the way how angel's director tried to convey that violence isn't always the answer!
The margin difference is larger than your avg flick! Generally when I see that and see a movie I end up siding with the Audience, especially for action flicks since critics tend to rip some of the fun ones apart.
However, in this case the critics got it right, it was terrible! I loved the first one, one of my fave action movies of all time. Hated the 2nd, which this falls right in line with. IMHO.
Why was it terrible?
It seems to me that if you like action films then you'd like this one! Maybe not LOVE it, but I don't see any reason to call it terrible.
The original poster asked to not post spoilers, so I'm tagging it as such. Here's a few reasons...
- Replaced Archer with Morgan Freeman as president with no explanation
- Recasts Butler's wife someone who looks very different than the wife in the prior two movies (disrespecting the audience, like we're so dumb we wouldn't notice)
- Butler gained too much weight for the role and looks inadequate as an action hero compared to the last two outings making it hard to suspend disbelief (which you have to do to a certain extent - Olympus was great at this balance)
- FBI incompetence was unbelievable, especially given they gave NO WEIGHT to the previous two times he saved America from Nuclear war & terrorism ("Hi guys, I saved the president twice so I could kill him with some drones on a fishing trip")
- The villains were poorly constructed, mustache twirling and over-the-top. The fact that these two actors play villains in most movies just made it that much more predictable. The turn from best-friend war buddy to stab in the back villain was poorly executed.
- The villain killing the FBI agents and then storming the hospital expecting to escape was too unbelievable. Unless he had Chameleon like shape-shifting abilities, the plan seemed really dumb and stretched audience competence.
- Giving someone the post of Director of Secret Service, probably the most important security post in the world, to a person who is borderline stroking and randomly going unconscious with mental instability. OK!
- Pacing was poor, way to slow at times then nonstop great action (did like that)
- Chemistry was lacking between Nolte and Butler (Nolte felt like he belonged in a different movie - was acting like he was in a drama, as Butler hammed it up)
- CGI was bad at times (i.e. hospital blowing up)
- Vice President just sitting in his office after everything/cohort revealed, really?
- Villain reveal was poorly done, not surprising or shocking
Wow. When the critic:audience ratio is that stark, I get really interested.
Definitely going to see this now; thanks for the heads up! From the previews it does look like a good action flick.
Critics are paid to see movies regardless of whether or not the genre interests them. Whereas the audience votes with their wallets, they see movies that actually interest them. This movie delivers for its genre so I understand the disparity between critics and actual paying viewers.
share