MovieChat Forums > Angel Has FallenĀ (2019) Discussion > What I thought about Angel Has Fallen! (...

What I thought about Angel Has Fallen! (SPOILERS INSIDE! DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN FILM)


Expectations aside, I really liked this movie! Gerard Butler once again doesn't miss a beat in portraying Mike Banning, one of my favourite action heroes ever! I loved the character development of Mike, as in this movie, he is suffering from side effects of all the pain he had received from the previous "Fallen" movies and probably other events in his life too. Throughout the film, Mike is seen being a bit out of shape, tired, exhausted, not being able to push himself like he used too and I think also mentally scarred from the previous two movies as I think he stated in "Angel" that is seeing a doctor/psychiatrist. Correct me if I'm wrong there.
The action in the film is once again on the same level as the previous two "Fallen" movies, there is a great scene where Banning's father, a "tunnel rat" Vietnam veteran with PTSD, has remote detonated explosions all around his wooden shack and explodes every single one when Wade's men come looking for Banning. It was a great little nod to the Vietnam war itself as it looked like a scene straight out of a Vietnam war movie!
I was kind of hoping in this film that Banning would actually die, because this would have been a big emotional impact to the viewer as they have been watching this seemingly invincible guy run around ducking explosions and killing bad guys effortlessly in the last two movies, saving the day and then in a sudden twist, he gets killed somehow saving his family or something like this. Unfortunately, instead, the film ends on bit of a low note; nothing dramatic happens such as a set up for a new bad guy, or Banning actually resigning and living a peaceful life lol. Instead Trumbill just kind of encourages him to stay on, but not as a Secret Service agent, but as the Director of Secret Service. Banning accepts it and the film ends there. There is an additional scene in the credits where Banning and his father go to a meditation spa in an attempt to mentally de-stress. Although this shows us both men trying to overcome their own mental issues, it also serves as a comedy scene as when the lights go off in the spa, Banning's father shouts something along the lines off "That's it, I'm gonna get naked in this pool now!" It was a nice little touch to the movie.
Getting back to the actual movie though, the film starts off as a mixture of The Fugitive or something along those lines and slowly transitions into a typical "Fallen" movie where Banning and co. defend the President from impending doom. The gun battle at the hospital in the final act of the movie was fucking incredible! The sounds of the guns and explosions on cinema speaker was amazing, as you see Banning running through smoke grenades he threw, taking out Wade's men one by one, but also getting shot twice in the process. The old classic Banning is still there: the one who can take all the damage and fight, but, he is mixed with the new Banning: all his injuries from the previous films have taken a severe toll on his body and he can't push himself as much as he used too. This is seen in a few scenes; but especially at the beginning when he is breathless after the training exercise and especially at the end after his fight with his best friend Wade; he just drops down against the wall utterly exhausted, as Wade lays there bleeding to death. If this was Banning from "Olympus", he would just walked away instantly.
This film had nothing original to add to the action hero genre BUT it was in my opinion, a very good action film to watch to take your mind off things, to go after work to let off some steam, to see with friends or if you just love the adventures of Mike Banning. I personally want to see a fourth movie where the film is a lot more personally dark for Banning. Maybe his wife and child are murdered and he loses everything and he goes on one last killing spree to get justice and perhaps at the end he'll die once he kills the bad guys. How cool would that be? I dunno but could be good if done right. Call it Banning Has Fallen or something lol!

The actress who played Banning's wife in the first two had been recast. This initially took me out of the movie as I thought the other actress had owned that role well, however, twenty minutes into the movie and I got used to it.

I hope to see more "Fallen" movies coming out because although they are so ridiculous, I feel like we need movies like this now more than ever. Its silly, it's fun and it's just what a film was supposed to be originally: entertainment. We live in an era where Hollywood are pumping agendas down our throats more than ever. I couldn't see one agenda message in this movie. There was a reference to the suspected Russian involvement in a Presidential election but they never address Trump's name or anything; most likely Trumbill's election as he is the successor to the president from the first two "Fallen" movies.

Overall, I'd recommend this film if you just want 80's style fun time!

reply

I'm not going to read all of that.

reply

Haha!

reply

[deleted]

Sorry.

reply

Why sorry?

reply

You had a lot to say about this film I see. Just one pro-tip: You may want to put a space between all your paragraphs to make your posts more readable.

I also enjoyed the film, and I agree that we really need movies like this. The whole Fallen series has been fun for me, and I appreciate how these films don't always walk the line of political correctness that most films seem to these days.

I don't believe Mike was seeing a psychiatrist, but only a medical doctor for his physical issues. As he makes clear in the film, he enjoys the action and doesn't want to give it up. He's a lion, like Danny Huston says.

You say that Mike doesn't "resign to live a peaceful life," but I think him becoming director is pretty much that. He's retiring from the action and will be sitting at a desk for the rest of his career. Sure, he's still a CIA guy, but he's out of the line of fire.

I'm surprised you even noticed that the wife had been recast. I did not. I guess she just wasn't that important of a character to me.

A fourth film would be cool, but I kind of doubt it happens. I doubt they'd go the Death Wish-style vigilante route that you suggest, and it would also be difficult to believably take a CIA director and put him back into the field. The director just doesn't do work like that. But hey, who knows. Maybe it could be a situation where he's on official business in a foreign country and somehow all hell breaks loose around him and he's forced to fight back or die.

reply

Hey thanks for the feedback! This was my first sort of review-ish post about a movie on this site. I normally use paragraphs but I wrote it on my phone and I had no character space left to write anything else haha!

I suppose being director is somewhat peaceful but I think its possible like you said, where he will be forced to fight in a situation like being overseas on official business.

Really enjoyed this movie. Which one did you like the most? Olympus, London or Angel?

reply

I have seen a few of your posts around and I appreciate the effort you put into them. A lot of people on here tend to just post a few words and that's it. There's not enough actual, in-depth discussion going on, so it was nice to see someone really have something to say.

Like I said, I'd be down for a fourth film as long as they can come up with a good story. They need to not drop the budget again, though. The first film had a $70 million budget, the second was $60 million and Angel was only $40 million. And you could tell that they had less money to play with this time around.

To answer your question, I still think Olympus is the best of the bunch. Antoine Fuqua was behind the camera on that one and I think he did a great job. London I did not like nearly as much, but I rewatched it a couple of nights ago and I think it's growing on me. It is altogether a "dumber," more generic-feeling action movie, but it's not without its charms. I think I need to see Angel one more time before I know how to really rank it with the others.

reply

It's great to write about movies and discuss them on here! I talk a lot (as my wife is happy to keep telling me!) and sometimes I just go on forever and ever about movies, so I dont wanna bore her too much!
I discovered Moviechat about nearly two months ago and its cool to see whats trending in discussions.

I agree, some ppl just say a few words and disappear. Its good getting into details when discussing movies on here, in my opinion.

I watched London the night before I saw Angel on opening day, just to get back into the Mike Banning "zone" haha

I think London may be the most ridiculous one out of the three! But just suspend disbelief and its fun!

I think Olympus may be my favourite because Banning just really made an impression on me in this movie and I loved the Die Hard 1 feel - being trapped in the White House. I actually thought that would be a good idea for a 6th and final Die Hard movie. (Maybe I'll post that in the D.H section haha)

Also I too need to rewatch Angel, for second opinion and see what other details I missed.

The budget I didn't actually notice whilst watching, truth be told.

reply

This place will frustrate you. You'll start threads or make posts about something you really want to talk about and then no one will respond. Or they will respond with so few words that you wonder why they even bothered to reply in the first place.

But on the other hand, when everything works as it should, you'll get into some really good conversations. Those are the experiences that keep me coming back.

The trending feature is great and is something IMDB should've had. If only we had the number of members here that IMDB had then we'd be in really good shape.

I think Olympus is simply the best-made film of the three. I was honestly surprised by how good it was when I finally sat down and watched it.

London is definitely the most ridiculous of the three, no doubt about that. It's the most "stupid" film in the franchise and has a lot of elements that are not even close to believable. It's still a fun watch, though.

I could tell pretty early that Angel was a lower-budgeted film. The story was relatively small in scale with a lot of locations that didn't look very expensive. It doesn't cost a lot to film on a backwoods highway or out in the woods, for instance. But I can understand why they went that route. Being the third film in the franchise, they no doubt expected lower box office returns and wanted to make sure they could turn a profit.

reply