Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gautsvo t1_j9wupnx wrote

Why would it go that low? People seem to enjoy it, mostly. It did okay at the box-office (over 30 million in the US), and even reviews from critics were positive (it has a green Metascore). It has a 3/5 average on Letterboxd from over 30k ratings.

6

hambluegar_sammwich OP t1_j9xaagm wrote

Yeah, that’s why I made the post. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I grew up on the lowest budget movies out there and have loved lots of them. What was lacking in special effects, cinematography, writing, et al can sometimes be made up for with quirky fun stuff like a deformed hero with a mop for a weapon.

I just got zero fun out of this movie at all. Even the old straight to video/sci-fi channel movies had some campy jokes. This was just a straight forward disaster/terrorist action flick with zero inspiration and a $10 budget. People were rushing out of the screening in total silence. Idk just a weird experience seeing it have an audience.

−3

jamesneysmith t1_j9yaotb wrote

The issue seems to be you were expecting a campy movie when it's actually a sincere movie. This is not even in the same category as Snakes on a Plane. You're grading it's 'fun' level on a campy scale. Whereas I think most people are enjoying it sincerely. It's just a fun movie that's more akin to straight to DVD action films than campy shlock produced by Troma.

2

hambluegar_sammwich OP t1_j9yxxv7 wrote

I didn’t know anything about the movie aside from it being attached to a big star and that it had a theatrical release, so I was assuming it would be a mid-budget action movie kind of like John Wick. Within 30 seconds I realized it was either extremely low budget or very poorly made, at which point I was at least hoping for some camp.

Anyway I didn’t make the post to be a jerk, and I know lots of talented people worked hard on this movie, but I am genuinely shocked by the response this movie is getting. What I saw was a $25million movie that I swear to all things holy looked like it was done for $10k. I’ve seen found footage movies that looked better.

1

jamesneysmith t1_ja0ppei wrote

I honestly don't understand your critiques of how it looked. I thought it looked fine for it's budget. The only bits that looked a little wonky were the nighttime shots of the exterior of the plane flying and crashing. It looked like a budgetary constraint thing and directorial choice thing to make it look more stylized than realistic. But even then those shots were short and they were fine for the budget.

And going forward I feel like a better comparison for Butler movies are the Liam Neeson movies he did for a decade. They're dad movies, usually low budget with the appropriate action and cgi to reflect that, are surprisingly sincere, fun in a good guy saving the day way as opposed to shlocky or 'cool' way, and are just an easy watch with broad appeal. He's not making John Wick movies nor do I think he wants to. He's right in his preferred pocket of the 90's B-tier action movie. And personally I love that he's making these movies that kind of died in the 90's.

2

hambluegar_sammwich OP t1_ja64292 wrote

Normally I would point out things like framing the shot or design, but I swear this movie looked and sounded worse than any movie I’ve seen from the past 30 years by a wide margin.

1

Lolalolita1234 t1_ja0w6cc wrote

I wouldn't say it's akin to straight to DVD.

1

jamesneysmith t1_ja14pox wrote

"More akin than ..."

1

Lolalolita1234 t1_ja165a0 wrote

Even with the qualifier

1

Lolalolita1234 t1_ja0w3ic wrote

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a great movie or that many other people loved it.

1