AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Olympus Has Fallen (March)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Olympus Has Fallen (March)

post #1 of 53
1/24/13 at 7:39am
Thread Starter 
...Nice to see Gerard Butler back in action!! Great cast too...
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 53
1/24/13 at 11:40pm
Hmmm..his last POC social responsibility Machine Gun Preacher left a really bad taste in my mouth. God I so hated that movie. How can normal level headed person disregard and neglect his family and go help complete strangers in another country is beyond me. I have no problem with the idea of volunteering and reaching out to help others but this nut job in the movie sold his business, home and went into bankruptcy for this cause.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 53
1/26/13 at 6:08am
Doesn't look too bad will rent first though
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 53
1/31/13 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Doesn't look too bad will rent first though

And if you like it you'll then see it in a theater next? tongue.gifbiggrin.gifrolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 53
1/31/13 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobg View Post

And if you like it you'll then see it in a theater next? tongue.gifbiggrin.gifrolleyes.gif

Will rent when it hits blu ray won't waste money to watch in theatre.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 53
1/31/13 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Will rent when it hits blu ray won't waste money to watch in theatre.
+1
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 53
2/1/13 at 7:51am
Looks like a couple of testosterone filled months ahead, A Good Day to Die Hard in February and Olympus Has Fallen in March.

Time to renew my Low-T prescription.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 53
2/2/13 at 6:08pm
It's going to be Olympus has Fallen Gerald butler, Morgan Freeman vs White House Down Channing Tatum, Jamie Foxx,

I'm putting my money on Tatum tots and Foxx.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 53
2/4/13 at 12:11pm
This looks like loads of fun!
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 53
3/22/13 at 2:00pm
Saw it this morning and while yes, the idea of a successful attack on the white house by anyone other than say China is ridiculous, for the most part the film succeeds in creating tension and suspense. Largely due to the extremely violent, blood and guts action, the likes which we have not seen since the age of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD.

Speaking of DIE HARD... Yeah, this film is a clone. But a good one, so whatever. The script is better than average (note I did not say awesome or superb) and the cast is first rate. How often will you see so many name actors surrounded by so many top notch character actors? And yes indeed, Gerard Butler rocks it. He is a born action lead. I'd love to see him chew some scenery with The Rock or Vin or hell yeah, Russell Crowe.

The CGI has been taking a bashing, but for the most part it's fine. There are some shots that look 90's-ish, but they are not the majority. Nothing as bad as that plane crash in Air Force One! I also think the CGI shots taking heat in the trailer are unfinished. I just re-watched the trailer and clearly saw three shots that were far more detailed in the theater.

My one big complaint involves SPOILERS...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
With RED DAWN we watched a studio wussy out and blame the North Koreans. Here the studio couldn't even blame North Korea and instead put the blame on terrorists SO EXTREME, they were kicked OUT by the North Koreans! Kinda silly.

See this in a theater. The violence will play better vs at home on a small screen.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 53
3/22/13 at 2:31pm
Thread Starter 
I saw it today as well and enjoyed every minute of it. It's so rare these days to see some genuine R action! wink.gif I haven't watched the trailer lately so I don't really remember about the CGI but in the film it was rather convincing except for a few questionable shots. Which doesn't mean that they were weak either. Just not totally convincing. But for the most part, the action seems to take place on a real set and that helps a lot. One thing that bothered me in the story department: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I find it hard to believe that the CIA wouldn't know what one of the most wanted terrorists looked like
...But the whole film is so much fun and filled with great action that I didn't really care and simply enjoyed the ride. Very intense! smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 53
3/22/13 at 6:43pm
I also saw this one today. Definitely enjoyable. Sound will probably be excellent for home theatre demonstrations as well. There are scenes which will stir up some emotions, especially pride.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 53
3/22/13 at 7:11pm
Saw it this morning as well, same thoughts as others: Die Hard in the White House (complete with its R-rated violence). In fact, replace Gerrard Butler with Bruce Willis, and this would have been a much better Die Hard sequel than the one just released. John McClane, former police detective, current secret service agent, demonstrates that some things just get better with age.

But I enjoyed this movie plenty just the way it was. Good action and just enough emotion to make you care about what happens to the characters. As for the villians, agree with what Matt said inside his spoiler tags. Still, worth a watch on the big screen.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 53
3/23/13 at 6:56am
Good to read guys will definitley give it a go.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 53
3/23/13 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Saw it this morning as well, same thoughts as others: Die Hard in the White House (complete with its R-rated violence). In fact, replace Gerrard Butler with Bruce Willis, and this would have been a much better Die Hard sequel than the one just released. John McClane, former police detective, current secret service agent, demonstrates that some things just get better with age.

I was thinking the same thing. Bruce would have excelled in this and it would have made a sensational DIE HARD film.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 53
3/23/13 at 6:39pm
+1
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 53
3/25/13 at 7:03am
Lots of Clapping towards the end, and when the movie was over. I do like it then the audience enjoys a flick.

I did enjoy this much more then I thought I would have. Older crowd 30+, and fairly full 80% .
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 53
3/25/13 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Largely due to the extremely violent, blood and guts action, the likes which we have not seen since the age of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD.

See this in a theater. The violence will play better vs at home on a small screen.

Saw this last night. I agree with other posters, see this in the theater.

I was surprised the studio went for the amount of blood and guts seen in this film... it is almost off the charts for a modern movie. I think Gerard Butler stuck a knife in some guy's face no less than seven times. I'm sure that the box office totals will tell the story of whether or not another film like this will get greenlit.

The CGI looked just fine to me, the only issues being the obviousness of how unreal some of the scenarios are (the Washington Monument crumbling, for instance). Most of the movie proper itself takes place inside The White House, on physical sets, without the aid of CGI.

It's not the greatest movie of all time, but if you only ever watch it once, see it in a theater.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 53
3/25/13 at 1:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

It's not the greatest movie of all time, but if you only ever watch it once, see it in a theater.

but it's certainly one of the good surprises this year so far... And since I don't want to watch it only once, I'll get the Blu-ray day 1 as well smile.gif

Also, is it me or more and more R-rated movies are getting released lately?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 53
3/25/13 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

I was surprised the studio went for the amount of blood and guts seen in this film... it is almost off the charts for a modern movie. I think Gerard Butler stuck a knife in some guy's face no less than seven times.

Nothing you won't see in an episode of The Walking Dead on TV.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 53
3/25/13 at 1:45pm
It is worth seeing once, although I wouldn't have thought that it would suffer all that much from BR. The premise is a bit unbelievable, it does point up a similar event that occurred with Zero Dark Thirty and Salt that I will not disclose.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 53
3/25/13 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Nothing you won't see in an episode of The Walking Dead on TV.
Yes, but a woman's nipple is still too off putting.

You know I watched DOC HOLLYWOOD the other day. It's PG-13 and has extended full frontal breasts and even one full frontal nude shot of the same woman! Today a nipple would give it an R. Today the nude scene in TITANIC would be a serious problem. The rating system is just beyond screwed up.
Edited by Matt_Stevens - 3/26/13 at 7:59am
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 53
3/25/13 at 9:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post



I was surprised the studio went for the amount of blood and guts seen in this film... it is almost off the charts for a modern movie. I think Gerard Butler stuck a knife in some guy's face no less than seven times.

Yer damned right! Just how it ought to be. cool.gif
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 53
3/26/13 at 8:09am
I saw this yesterday with a modest size crowd for a Monday night. This is a flat-out Die Hard rip-off no doubt about it. Even had the prerequisite Bill Clay, poignant last message to wife and 'feeling pretty damn unappreciated' moments. And at the end when Mike Banner (Gerard Butler) was working feverishly doing you know what I leaned over and whispered to my wife "Do a good job, do a good job" which is a line by Buscemi in Armageddon. The CGI was cheesy and it was so 'beat you over the head' pro-America that I was embarrassed for the film makers and the blatant appeal to our patriotism. If people thought Die Hard 5 was dumb and unbelievable this movie ups the quotient. Yes I was entertained but some parts were cringe inducing.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 53
3/26/13 at 8:23am
If Olympus (or any other movie for that matter) used implied violence rather than graphic violence, would it change your interest in the movie?

I'd probably exclude horror films from this question but I'm just curious. A while back I was watching an old Errol Flynn movie, Robin Hood, and with all the stabbing going on you quickly realize there was no blood. The thing is, it didn't make the film any less engaging for me. Then with many successive movies there would be a graphically violent scene and I'd ask myself if it was necessary. I'm not soap-boxing here, just opening up the discussion of violence relative to what's contained in Olympus (which I haven't seen yet btw but plan to).

I understand that it does add a realism to the scene and frankly if a guy gets shot point blank but doesn't bleed it's gonna look stupid. But I guess my question is more geared towards the framing of the scene in general. Using the Gerard Butler stabbing scene quoted above as an example (again, haven't seen the movie yet), but if they actually showed someone getting stabbed in the face, would it be less engaging if they put Butler in a tighter frame showing his stabbing motions but not actually showing the stabbing?
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 53
3/26/13 at 8:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

If Olympus (or any other movie for that matter) used implied violence rather than graphic violence, would it change your interest in the movie?

No it wouldn't. But I'm tired of dumbed-down PG13 hypocrisy and CGI blood. I'm an adult I can handle graphic violence, nipples and sex in a movie. If it's not gratuitous I have absolutely no problem with it. Implied violence in this film would have made it less engaging.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 53
3/26/13 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

No it wouldn't. But I'm tired of dumbed-down PG13 hypocrisy and CGI blood. I'm an adult I can handle graphic violence, nipples and sex in a movie. If it's not gratuitous I have absolutely no problem with it. Implied violence in this film would have made it less engaging.

This.

x1,000,000
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 53
3/26/13 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

No it wouldn't. But I'm tired of dumbed-down PG13 hypocrisy and CGI blood. I'm an adult I can handle graphic violence, nipples and sex in a movie. If it's not gratuitous I have absolutely no problem with it. Implied violence in this film would have made it less engaging.

Would it have been less engaging because it "relies" on the violence or at least uses it as more of a character? If this is the case then enters the argument for writers to script a better screenplay I would think.

I'm in complete agreement about anything gratuitous unless it's a spoof movie or something. Freddy Kreuger had a glove with knives and stalked people in their sleep for the sole purpose of killing them. So in that movie I expect to see something....horrific and gruesome being a horror film. And as far as CGI is concerned, I can appreciate embracing the technology to try to advance film making and ways to tell a story but IMO, in more ways than not it's an obvious distraction.

On the flip side (this should be fun), Star Wars Revenge of the Sith had a scene where Anakin slaughtered the younglings. But they never showed any of it, just his initial motion to do so. I personally thought that was one of the more powerful scenes in the movie and I believe showing anything more would have ruined it.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 53
3/26/13 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I understand that it does add a realism to the scene and frankly if a guy gets shot point blank but doesn't bleed it's gonna look stupid. But I guess my question is more geared towards the framing of the scene in general. Using the Gerard Butler stabbing scene quoted above as an example (again, haven't seen the movie yet), but if they actually showed someone getting stabbed in the face, would it be less engaging if they put Butler in a tighter frame showing his stabbing motions but not actually showing the stabbing?

Well, regarding the knife stabbing scenes, we're not actually seeing the knife go through people's faces, so it is implied. Those scenes are already framed tight like you suggest.

What I was referencing is the sheer body count this film racks up. There are people dying. And when people die, their bodies lie where they fall. And unlike a video game with limited resources that fades bodies away after a minute or two, this film has a sense of realism in that the bodies are still there. At the end of the movie, Butler is stepping over the body of a guy who died at the beginning, a guy who died the night before. No magical cleaning service showed up to remove the bodies, there are bodies everywhere.

This is in contrast to a PG13 movie like Transformers, where they go out of there way to essentially not kill anybody. You have giant 100 ton robots fighting in the streets of some anonymous city, rollerskating down the freeway flipping cars, and yet NO ONE SEEMS TO BE INJURED. It's not that I get some gruesome enjoyment out of seeing dead bodies, but the fact that characters in this film are mortal sends the point home that our hero is in real danger.

So the film is a classic send-up of the Die Hard genre and is unrealistic as humanly possible as far as a "this could actually happen" standpoint, but at the same time it at least tries to be real within the confines of it's own universe.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 53
3/26/13 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

Well, regarding the knife stabbing scenes, we're not actually seeing the knife go through people's faces, so it is implied. Those scenes are already framed tight like you suggest.

What I was referencing is the sheer body count this film racks up. There are people dying. And when people die, their bodies lie where they fall. And unlike a video game with limited resources that fades bodies away after a minute or two, this film has a sense of realism in that the bodies are still there. At the end of the movie, Butler is stepping over the body of a guy who died at the beginning, a guy who died the night before. No magical cleaning service showed up to remove the bodies, there are bodies everywhere.

This is in contrast to a PG13 movie like Transformers, where they go out of there way to essentially not kill anybody. You have giant 100 ton robots fighting in the streets of some anonymous city, rollerskating down the freeway flipping cars, and yet NO ONE SEEMS TO BE INJURED. It's not that I get some gruesome enjoyment out of seeing dead bodies, but the fact that characters in this film are mortal sends the point home that our hero is in real danger.

So the film is a classic send-up of the Die Hard genre and is unrealistic as humanly possible as far as a "this could actually happen" standpoint, but at the same time it at least tries to be real within the confines of it's own universe.

Got it. That certainly paints a bit more of a complete picture of what to expect when I go see Olympus. I still have my same general curiosity in general about the extent of violence in film now. Stepping outside the box for a moment....."magical cleaning service".....love it! At least trip over one of the bodies every once in a while...lol
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Olympus Has Fallen (March)