Search
Search results
David McK (3185 KP) rated Moonfall (2022) in Movies
Aug 16, 2022
Peter Capaldi, Dr Who, 'Kill the moon'
Arthur C Clarke, 'Rendezvous with Rama'
2001: A Space Odyssey.
Any number of Roland Emmerich's own disaster movies.
It might seem odd talking about all those, bit throw them in a blender and the result might be something like this!
I was expecting a traditional end of the world disaster movie - like 2012, say, or Deep Impact, or something along that vein - which the movie does start as, with the moon mysteriously knocked out of it orbit and hence causing all kinds of chaos on good old planet Earth. Roughly about 2/3rds of the way in, though, it completely changes tack, becoming more of a sci-fi spectacle than anything, and closer - perhaps - to one of Emmerich's own most successful films of the mid 90s ...
Arthur C Clarke, 'Rendezvous with Rama'
2001: A Space Odyssey.
Any number of Roland Emmerich's own disaster movies.
It might seem odd talking about all those, bit throw them in a blender and the result might be something like this!
I was expecting a traditional end of the world disaster movie - like 2012, say, or Deep Impact, or something along that vein - which the movie does start as, with the moon mysteriously knocked out of it orbit and hence causing all kinds of chaos on good old planet Earth. Roughly about 2/3rds of the way in, though, it completely changes tack, becoming more of a sci-fi spectacle than anything, and closer - perhaps - to one of Emmerich's own most successful films of the mid 90s ...
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Aug 14, 2017
The man behind the hero
I thought this would be a typical disaster movie but it was so much more than that. It is contemplative, showing the effects of post traumatic stress, and the actual after the fact situation of wanting to be believed. Tom Hanks is a master, and literally gives everyone a run for their money. A heartfelt film.
David McK (3185 KP) rated The Core (2003) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
Somebody stop the planet! I want to get off!!
Disaster movie starring Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank as part of a crew who are assembled to travel deep (deep) underground, down to the Earths core, when it stops spinning leading to world wide natural disasters.
In other words, forget the ridiculous premise and go for the effects - some of which are like something from the 1970s! - instead.
In other words, forget the ridiculous premise and go for the effects - some of which are like something from the 1970s! - instead.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Based on the true and tragic events on April 2010, Director Peter Berg takes the helm of this re-enactment of the explosive ‘blow-out’ which destroyed the eponymous exploration rig off the coast of Louisiana. We follow Mike Williams (Mark Walberg) and the rig’s Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell) as they butt heads with the profit hungry BP executives who are more concerned with the fact that the operation is 43 days behind schedule than safety and have began to cut corners.
Berg builds and maintains the tension expertly, as this procedural disaster movie takes shape, but this is no Titanic (1997) or Poseidon Adventure (1976). The disaster itself only takes up about 30 minutes of the 107 minute run time as we are taken through the technicalities of America’s worst ever oil disaster, one which claimed 11 lives and spilled 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The tension is palpable, the disaster is terrifying yet exiting and whilst wearing its roughneck Vs. company man heart on its sleeve, you are left feeling that we are given a much greater understanding of the subject as well as the newsworthy disaster.
This is helped along by the great visuals and sound design, as well as art direction and visual effects, which along with the great performances, not least BP man, Vidrine (John Malkovich), makes this a must see.
Berg builds and maintains the tension expertly, as this procedural disaster movie takes shape, but this is no Titanic (1997) or Poseidon Adventure (1976). The disaster itself only takes up about 30 minutes of the 107 minute run time as we are taken through the technicalities of America’s worst ever oil disaster, one which claimed 11 lives and spilled 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The tension is palpable, the disaster is terrifying yet exiting and whilst wearing its roughneck Vs. company man heart on its sleeve, you are left feeling that we are given a much greater understanding of the subject as well as the newsworthy disaster.
This is helped along by the great visuals and sound design, as well as art direction and visual effects, which along with the great performances, not least BP man, Vidrine (John Malkovich), makes this a must see.
Rodney Barnes (472 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Mar 20, 2019
Worst Hero Movie Ever
As a person that loves superhero movies, all I can say about this one is: What were they thinking??!! I had heard it was a disaster to begin with because the actors and actresses couldn't get along. But as for the movie, the only thing that was done right was the origin story. It was based on the Ultimate FF4 universe. Besides that Doctor DOOM was terrible, The Thing was terrible. Jordan's character was like Johnny Storm, but a black Human Torch. Let's at least try and stick with the way the characters look for once. I can't say enough bad things about this movie so I will end it here. One word of advice..DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. Its a big waste of time
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Thirteen Minutes (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2022
A new disaster film, cue excitement. Even a low budget disaster film can be good…
Life is disrupted when a storm turns its eye on a small town. Residents are tested, and they must put their differences aside to help each other make it through safely.
... that thing I said above about even low budget disaster films being good? Yeah, I don’t know how much this cost (I’m assuming not a lot), but it was not good.
This could have been a great short that ran 13 minutes, instead, it’s 1 hour and 48 minutes long. Those extra 95 minutes are made of bloated storylines, and while they overlap, none of them really have any weight. Removing a couple could easily have allowed the others more time to develop and actually let the viewer become more invested.
Out of the cast I can’t really call out anyone. There are faces you’ll recognise from other things, and they’re generally solid actors, but in this... there wasn't really a lot for them to work with.
There are many moments that defy sensible behaviour, as you'd expect from a disaster film. Only one amused me, while the others were mainly annoying.
You either need to take yourself seriously, or embrace the inevitable ridiculousness behind the idea. If this had leaned hard into the ridiculousness it could have been great. 13 Minutes disappointed on so many levels that adding truly terrible effects may actually have helped! I won’t need to watch this again, a disaster film that barely has a disaster in it was not what I signed up for.
[Side note: Initially I gave this 2 out of 5 stars. I have since retracted a star for this film's sheer audacity.]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/13-minutes-movie-review.html
Life is disrupted when a storm turns its eye on a small town. Residents are tested, and they must put their differences aside to help each other make it through safely.
... that thing I said above about even low budget disaster films being good? Yeah, I don’t know how much this cost (I’m assuming not a lot), but it was not good.
This could have been a great short that ran 13 minutes, instead, it’s 1 hour and 48 minutes long. Those extra 95 minutes are made of bloated storylines, and while they overlap, none of them really have any weight. Removing a couple could easily have allowed the others more time to develop and actually let the viewer become more invested.
Out of the cast I can’t really call out anyone. There are faces you’ll recognise from other things, and they’re generally solid actors, but in this... there wasn't really a lot for them to work with.
There are many moments that defy sensible behaviour, as you'd expect from a disaster film. Only one amused me, while the others were mainly annoying.
You either need to take yourself seriously, or embrace the inevitable ridiculousness behind the idea. If this had leaned hard into the ridiculousness it could have been great. 13 Minutes disappointed on so many levels that adding truly terrible effects may actually have helped! I won’t need to watch this again, a disaster film that barely has a disaster in it was not what I signed up for.
[Side note: Initially I gave this 2 out of 5 stars. I have since retracted a star for this film's sheer audacity.]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/13-minutes-movie-review.html
Peter G. (247 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
Not bad attempt to mix "The Happening" and "A Quiet Place" Sandra Bullock is as always watchable these days in this mash up disaster movie.
It's really not as bad as others say, and the story is somewhat engaging though full of plot holes.
The cast are pretty decent, however John Malkovich is terribly underused and his character hamstrung by the average script, raises more questions than answers!
It's really not as bad as others say, and the story is somewhat engaging though full of plot holes.
The cast are pretty decent, however John Malkovich is terribly underused and his character hamstrung by the average script, raises more questions than answers!
Kevin Phillipson (9943 KP) rated Avalanche (1978) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019 (Updated Oct 14, 2019)
Mystery science theater 300 the return (1 more)
Robert foster
Avalanche effects (1 more)
The acting
Probably one of the worst disaster movies ever with some of the worst special effects ever even by 70s standards and the acting from the likes of Mia farrow and rock Hudson they must have been desperate for work probably the best part of the movie is mystery science theater 3000 the return poking fun at it and making it look good
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Roland Emmerich has done it again. He seems to get a kick out of bringing out humanities worst fears and putting them on screen in all its glory. After destroying a large part of the world in Independence Day: ID4, and trashing New York with Godzilla, he decides to go the rest of the way and change the face of the earth forever and in the process kill off most of humanity. What is the enemy this time? Aliens? Nope done that. Monsters? Nope also done that. Bad weather? Once again done that. What is left? I know lets have the sun spit out solar flares that heat up the earth's core and destabilize the planet! Whatever his problem with humanity is, it translates well on to film. This is an epic disaster movie. No part of the world is safe and there is no magic quick fix here.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
