what's wrong, why do you want to make a sequel?
Since the mid-to-late 1990s, the action movie market began to decline under the influence of computer special effects. Hollywood, which has not been in trouble with the president himself for many years, has been released continuously for three months like a sudden seizure three years ago. Two resurrection works in the 1990s that "destroy the world and blow up the White House". The main creative lineup of similar specifications (not actually), and the investment scale of similar level (not actually), although there is no big battle after the release, there is one that will be better after all.
Directed by CG Mountain King Roland Emmerich, the new American dancer, John Travolta’s future successor Channing Tatum and the singing and dancing comrade Jiang Ge, Jamie Fox starring in "Shocking "Crisis", rushed to the early episode of the summer file, still pitted Sony Columbia, who was always injured, into the sky. The cost of 150 million US dollars was not even half of the local cost. Fortunately, the scale of the global distribution is large enough. The foreign box office finally passed the 200 million mark.
A dance professional Qian boss, and a motherfucker Jones who can sing and dance, the popularity and face are there, even if the two make a song and dance film, they will not have such a low rate of return.
Wait, think about "Magic Mike 2" and black "Annie", it may be true.
All in all, "The Fall of the White House" introduced in the spring file is more capable. "The Fall of the White House," with an investment of only 70 million, has one word from the inside out: cheap and affordable. Anthony Fouquay, Gerald Butler, Alan Eckhart, Morgan Freeman led, followed by Melissa Leo, Ashley Judd, Angela Besse Special, Dylan McDermott, Yin Chengzhi. Say it's famous, it's really there. Can be counted as one of the masterpieces that can be handed out, the remaining few people may not add up to Mr. God.
However, such an "old school" action movie with a setting called sci-fi, full of loopholes, old-fashioned characters and prejudices, easily won close to 100 million box office in North America. Even if it is issued by a small factory, the total global box office has exceeded 160 million.
Coupled with the performance in the DVD market, it is estimated to be a little bit of fun.
Earning a little bit of affordable box office in the hands of the right audience is the best thing for movies like "The White House Has Fallen".
After all, even if it can be like Guo Da Statham, most of the movies are much worse than this.
And this is probably the only reason why "London has fallen" appeared.
The comrades who were responsible for naming the film in Chinese back then were also far-sighted. The English names of the two "Destroy the World and Explode the White House" were simply synonymous exercises. As a result, the first one became "The Fall of the White House" and the second one came later. Became "Shocking Crisis." If there is a sequel that blows up London today, it is the latter, it would be a little troublesome to think of a suitable Chinese name.
The setting is still sci-fi, the plot is still full of loopholes, and the characters are still old-fashioned and prejudiced. On the surface, it just changed the time and place. In fact, it really just changed the time and place.
If you understand the changing trends of "Hurricane Rescue" and its sequel, and happen to watch "The White House Has Fallen", then you have actually watched "London Has Fallen". "London has fallen" has not escaped the path of most forehead sequel movies, except that it has been changed to a more localized (and cheaper when shooting) location. Basically, the soup is not changed. The two movies are similar. It's disappointing. The same group of people is like Conan possessing his body, changing a place and then using a similar process to walk again, but the walk is more sloppy and sloppy. Without the direction of Anthony Fouquet, the movie can't hold the last hardcore temperament. It has to add some CG special effects that are not useful except for continuing to reduce the credibility of the whole story.
You know, "The White House Has Fallen" and "Shocking Crisis" are compared. One of the reasons why the former is better is that it has low CG and emphasizes on-site reality. If you lose this point, and there is no money (the cost of 60 million is cheaper than the previous one), you can imagine what it will be like.
In this situation, the cheap version of "Ghost Rider", which was impossible to pretend, reappeared yesterday.
(Don't believe Nicholas Cage, never.)
(Don't believe Gerald Butler, never.)
Hollywood is a magical place. On the left hand side, there can be such an annual masterpiece as "Crazy City", which is technologically and ideologically advanced with the times, as well as "London Has Fallen", a film that is at least ten years behind and has been forgotten. Of course, this can't all be blamed on the creators. The screenwriters of the film, Craigdon Rosenberg and Katrin Benedit, wrote the script for "The Expendables 3" in the middle of the two films. That's right, this once-popular market has now shrunk to this point. To please a small group of conservative middle-aged men who still miss the good times 20 years ago, as if to please the whole world.
In the same type of movies in the 90s, the works that make an impression are either Stallone, Die Hard and Deadly Weapon—with a well-matched opponent or partner, or like Forber’s "Death of the Dead", "Air Force One", Cage's "Break into Death Island", "Changing Face", and "Prison in the Air" have a long-lasting setting that can be explored. "The White House has fallen" and "London has fallen" are weak in both aspects. The rhythm of "London Has Fallen" is out of control, and the first 30 minutes are all dull, clumsy, and literary dramas with no highlights. I can't grasp the point of Bai Drowsy and sleepy. You must know that the total length of this movie is only one and a half hours. One part of the time was so extravagantly wasted, and "The White House has fallen" anyway, there is a rollover scene at the beginning. The foreign director Barbak Najafi, who lacks experience, failed to capture the strengths and weaknesses of the previous work in time: Gerald Butler is very suitable for this kind of iron-blooded hero who is cold and hot inside, but this is not bad. The characters have no room for development in the sequel; Alan Eckhart, Morgan Freeman and Angela Bessett have almost no human background in the previous work. The sequel is due to shrinking costs. Please don’t A human background that has raised more affordable actors and thus has increased exposure. As for the action scenes, the large-scale explosion has greatly increased the activity of CG, and the more vague scripts have been replaced by meaningless Sutu, and the editing is not as powerful as the first episode. It has almost become a live-action video game.
And like the classic game "Call of Duty", the plot is also one episode after another, which makes people unable to lift the spirit.
Old School’s hard-core action movie, put aside how to shoot now, "Hurricane Rescue" and "Quick Chase" have given good examples. Simple imitators can hardly survive (Sean Penn’s "Undercover Gunner", Kevin Costner’s "Three-Day Assassination"), let alone clinging to small fragments of outdated ideas.
Even so, "London Has Fallen" is still a popcorn movie that you can watch, but it's basically the same as those decadent movies that are okay on CCTV 6 sets, just forget it.
So, if you are really bored, you wouldn't mind being a little less bored, right.
View more about London Has Fallen reviews
