adamreviewsfilms

I had the best seat in the house last night. I sat down and whoomp, my whole bucket of popcorn slipped out of my hands to the floor and rained like confetti on the next row. Very grateful nobody was sitting there at the time.

As everybody knows, this is Mel's first warmup in the director's chair since Hacksaw Ridge and before tackling the - what will most definitely be controversial - Resurrection movie(s).

Flight Risk is a classically perfect, by the numbers, entertaining action film in every sense. I was wishing it was in black and white. I could Imagine the leads being Cagney, Barbara Stanwyck and Peter Lorre as the snitch. Everybody does a good job here, even if the dialogue falls short throughout. Another dialogue pass would have gone a long way in the writing phase. Walberg seems to do the best at making the most of it. But do we re-quote lines from Commando like "Let off some steam, Bennett!" because we like Shakespearean hero speak? I think not. So there's that.

So, outside of this movie being more at home in another century, it's good. It's the kind of movie where you focus on the rope, a ring, a 73 Winchester, but this time it's a plane.

Excellent experience I'd say - for those who love popcorn.

Graciously free refills at AMC. Thank you!

Let me tell you a story. I am now in my forties, but when I was 14, I went to the theater to see Twister and had my ever-loving mind blown. I loved it so much that I asked my parents to drive to the local bookstore, where I purchased the script treatment by Michael Crichton. It resembled the movie very little. I didn't understand that Hollywood scripts often go through endless revisions, many times during production.

I was in love with the movie, though. And when a friend of mine said he hated Twister because "the plot sucked," I didn't understand. I just wondered what was wrong with him.

Fast forward to last night. After decades of waiting for a sequel--even following Bill Paxton's attempts closely until his demise--the time had finally arrived.

Twisters is a remake with a few tweaks, minus the strong cast-no offense to them, considering the script and direction. The effects are spectacular here and there, but overall, they do not have the impact of the original. I felt every tiny, terrible line of dialogue. I felt the director pushing the lead actress to look into the eyes of the male lead "in that way" to speed along their relationship, which is entirely too fast. Yes, I understand the need to progress both the characters and the relationship. Still, it is a glaring problem. They could learn from Karen Allen's Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

But the main problem for me is the crew setup. You have likely seen the trailer or the poster. In that case, you enter the movie knowing Kate inevitably joins the other group. Why spend the first half of the film dancing around it? Is anyone on edge wondering how that happens? I think not. They could have just cut after the tragic opening scene and picked up in NY with Tyler trying to petition her to join him, which she would do reluctantly for "XYZ." Then, the other crew shows up with her friend and the investor. The ebbs and flows feel forced, like many things in this movie. Tyler and his crew steal the film's first half when they are on screen.

Almost every line of dialogue feels disingenuous, unlike the first film, which was one of its strengths. Even now, the original Twister crews seem like real people saying real things. Of course, Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Carey Elwes could read a phone book and engage a crowd.

The special effects wizards have nothing to be ashamed of here; it glistens and shakes in a Dolby room.

It is a perfectly acceptable brain-off popcorn movie, but I can't say I liked it. Unlike the teenagers beside me, who hung on to every joke, reacted to the action appropriately, applauded when they were supposed to, and genuinely seemed to love it.

I wish I did. My 14-year-old self may have felt differently. If you love it, I don't blame you for wondering what is wrong with me. I know how you feel.

Although occasionally tugging at the old sentimental heartstrings, A Quiet Place: Day One offers zero answers about what happened during the initial invasion.

It's true, "hiding the monster" is essential in some cases, but we are now three movies in, know what they are, and we WANT to know more about them. But alas, nothing.

The two leads are solid but given very little in the way of action because there is little to go on. The earlier installments, especially the first, had a way of steadily ratcheting up the tension from beginning to end, keeping the characters in what felt like genuine danger at all times. Not here; the monsters are always off someplace in the distance, like watching a Lion at a zoo that barely sticks his head out of his cave to take a bite, then goes back in for a nap.

The fleeting moments when we see the monsters are technically impressive, showcasing the filmmakers' skills. However, it never feels like a danger to our two heroes or their cat. Maybe a little here and there?

This isn't a terrible movie, and It doesn't feel like a "cash grab" when watching it. However, when you make a prequel billed as 'What Happens on Day One' and it doesn't show it, with little tension, no new territory covered, or answers given, it's hard not to feel disappointed.

___

September 2024 - Clearly the top three reviewers (I am currently in 4th) read my review first, even using my angles and terminology. Maybe they are A. I.? Who cares, except, they couldn't write a review without spoilers could they?