So, yeah... This is good.
It's not bad. And it's neither deserving of the extreme vitriol and scrutiny thrown its way by people who never had any intention of seeing it, the extreme criticism of people who hold up the 1984 version as some ultimate example of masterful genre filmmaking that it isn't; nor does it merit the excessively luminous reactionary and defensive praise heaped upon it by certain people who desperately want to go against the grain and prove…
Jason Bourne's story was effectively and satisfyingly told across three excellent films. And so, Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon told us all they would have no need to ever return to this well again... Over and out.
That is... Unless Greengrass and Damon had a new and interesting story to tell, say, ten years down the line or something like that.
To that effect, I guess they kept their word. Because here we are again about ten years later and…
I guess, in the end, it comes down to what you favor... What you want out of a mainstream blockbuster property. There are times when filmmakers don't care what people think, and the powers that be give them enough clout and pull so they may get away with murder (both literally and figuratively) and - well - that's what happened here.
Zack Snyder and company wanted to do something very particular and specifically risky with the megabuck franchise they were…
Fans of Batman: The Animated Series and all its subsequent iterations are likely to get a kick out of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprising the vocal performances that made them icons of 90s animation.
For many, Conroy and Hamill represent Batman and The Joker for the ages.
And that's fine. And, to be fair, they're as solid in their delivery as they've ever been in any of these things. And "these things" also include a handful of cinematic video…
I suppose there's a little bit of a cloying preciousness here and there. Maybe it comes with the territory. But, all in all, I have to say this is a pretty good movie.
First and foremost, it does what it's supposed to do - I think - which is to appeal to a wide audience of children and get them excited and interested in history...in the idea of exploring a museum and learning about the world.
I don't know that…
It would not surprise me to learn that this movie was a big influence on the wave of extremely popular and successful legal procedural television shows that came throughout the 90s...some of which continue to exist today.
Point of fact, it was the influence for the short-lived EDDIE DODD, which I've never seen because it was on the air for only a few days sometime in the fall of - I think...I THINK...1991 or something.
In any case, everything about…
Bud Spencer and Terence Hill became international superstars with this laid back comic western, which eschews violent gun play in favor of fanciful fisticuffs.
And it's an enjoyable, occasionally refreshing film as a result of that aloofness.
It's a film that understands what's naturally funny about watching a burly guy conk a smaller guy on the top of the head, then pick him up and slap him across the face to knock him down again.
I suppose what keeps it…
It's interesting... The franchise is called "Airport" but the films have very little to do with airports. And that's probably why the ZAZ parody was called what it was called.
Anyway... This movie came out about a year before that famous parody. Which means it had a year's head start to already serve very effectively as a parody of itself.
Because there is no way in God's great heaven that you can take this movie seriously. It brings back some…
And would you believe it? The third one is legit, no bullshit, I'm not even kidding...a good movie.
There are perfectly identifiable reasons for this. First of all, the soap opera horseshit is kept to a minimum - basically to the point of being nonexistent. And it makes a difference when we are presented with an easily palatable melodrama, asked to take it at face value and then the film makes it relatively easy for us to do so.
And if the first one started a trend, then it's the second one that is basically the reason famous parodies exist.
Basically... All the stuff you like from Airplane? This is where they got it from. Well, sort of.
In any case, this is the one with a bevy of recognizable 1960s and 70s TV stars on the plane, along with the singing nun (played by Helen Reddy, who can't act and if we're being honest her song stinks), the…
The one that started it all, right?
In any case, I guess the standard formula for the disaster movie blockbuster craze that dominated most of the seventies began with this movie - which might have either been the gold standard for star studded blockbusters at the twilight of the sixties...or a last gasp from "Old Hollywood," as they were being overtaken by the American New Wave.
Whatever it was, it stands as a very particular relic now. With elements that…
And so... A very imaginative concept, gorgeous visuals and an agreeable cast are all used in the service of a fairly standard adventure fantasy.
But that's okay. Because the movie is basically good. It has all the elements you come to these things for and not an ounce of fat. You've got Colin Farrell in noble hero mode and Christoph Waltz in Disney villain mode. You've got Steven Tyler playing a charismatic worm, and Pitbull playing a deceitful bullfrog -…