Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: Skyscraper

Matthew Brady-deleted-1534855046
4/10  6 years ago
“This is stupid.”

Well at least it knows.

‘Skyscraper’ is a disposable action flick starring Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson. Just looking at the advertisements you can already tell it’s gonna be those type of movies where you have to accept it to enjoy it. If you watched the trailer where Dwayne jumps off a crane into another building to rescue his family who are trapped inside, before cutting to the release date. It’s absurd, although looks fun. Might follow the same path of ‘Fast & the Furious’ type of ridiculous, yet fun. However, what really took me by surprise is how the movie doesn't quite embrace it’s stupidity, and instead goes for a more serious tone. So during those ridiculous moments, when I meant to switch off my brain and enjoy, but I couldn't buy into it. Basically it’s ‘Dike Hard’ and ‘Tower Inferno’, drowned out in CGI.

I know those comparisons have already been made by many people and the marketing campaign seemed to catch on by releasing spoof-like posters of those two films. What some have failed to bring up it’s not just those two movies it’s ripping off, as there’s plenty more. Literally every action movie ever, just done better before.

Die Hard? more like ‘Try Hard’.

Dwayne Johnson can make anything watchable. The dude is instantly likable in everything he’s in; both on screen and off. In this movie it’s no different. Although It’s not one of his best and we have seen better from him. Dwayne character is basic family man saving his wife and kids. The charisma was lacking and you expect more from The Rock in terms of picking roles. There’s no witty banter between other characters to flesh him out or anything. Overexposed maybe?

Neve Campbell delivered a decent performance and it’s great seeing her back. Unfortunately, just like Dwayne Johnson, she has no character besides being a plot device along with the children.

So let's talk about the villains, and yes I say “villainS” because there’s are so many the film keeps shifting focus. The bad guys are generic and not threatening at all. It’s even more funny when you realize there was no thought about their plan for it to work- allowing only on luck and convenience. They morons.

The biggest strength I thought the film succeed on was playing on your fear with heights. My hands started to sweat and your heart begins to beat faster. You’re afraid to look down. I thought those scenes was well done, especially the close calls moments.

Also the opening scene was pretty good. The way it opened was tragic and really sad, but that doesn't last very long.

Overall rating: Better get more duct tape.
Like  -  Dislike  -  20
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
ALAMLEDP
/10  one year ago
In Skyscraper, Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a former FBI agent and war veteran who assesses security for skyscrapers. He and his family reside in the world's tallest and safest skyscraper, "The Pearl," in China. However, when the building is set on fire and he is framed for the attack, Sawyer must clear his name and save his family while fighting off the bad guys. The film, directed by Rawson Marshall Thunder, is a Die Hard-like action movie with an abundance of explosions and big moments. However, the story is weak and the visuals are inconsistent. Johnson's performance is solid, but the film falls short of being average. The climax of the film also falls short of expectations.
___________________________________________________
En Skyscraper, Dwayne Johnson interpreta a Will Sawyer, un ex agente del FBI y veterano de guerra que evalúa la seguridad de los rascacielos. Él y su familia residen en el rascacielos más alto y seguro del mundo, "La Perla", en China. Sin embargo, cuando el edificio se incendia y él es incriminado por el ataque, Sawyer debe limpiar su nombre y salvar a su familia mientras lucha contra los malos. La película, dirigida por Rawson Marshall Thunder, es una película de acción tipo Die Hard con abundancia de explosiones y grandes momentos. Sin embargo, la historia es débil y las imágenes son inconsistentes. La actuación de Johnson es sólida, pero la película no llega a la media. El clímax de la película tampoco está a la altura de las expectativas.
Like  -  Dislike  -  10
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
John Chard
/10  5 years ago
It's an ultimate frame of mind movie.

It is what it is, it's Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as the hero of the tale who has to achieve the impossible when the world's tallest building catches fire. His family is trapped in said building inferno and there's bad guys running around creating trouble.

So sit down and get ready for fantastically high energy action scenes and hold your breath peril sequences. You have to be in the right frame of mind for this type of entertainment, to understand it's a blockbusting popcorn piece made to take you out of the real world, it does not have cranial splendours or social commentary.

It's great to have Neve Campbell back kicking butt, rising above just being a female token waiting to be saved by her heroic husband. And of course if you can't smile at the makers having Johnson being handicapped with an artificial leg - and still turning into Usain Bolt for various scenes - then this isn't the film for you.

Some way short of the classy verve of The Towering Inferno or the brutal brilliance of Die Hard, this does its job handsomely enough for the like minded souls after some escapist carnage. 6/10
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Per Gunnar Jonsson
/10  5 years ago
Well, if you are a fan of The Rock this is a decent enough high octane action, disaster and special effects movie. If not, well then you probably have to be a pretty big fan of special effects and action to overlook its weak points.

Let’s start with the good stuff. One, it is The Rock (yes I am a fan) although he certainly doesn’t come out at his best in this movie. Personally I could do without the artificial leg crap but it didn’t bother me too much in the end. It didn’t really add anything except some silly (and unrealistic scenes) though.

Then we have the action and the special effects. They were as good as you would expect from a multi million dollar action movie. At least I enjoyed them. I really liked the design of the Skyscraper. I thought it was booth cool and beautiful. I kind of would like to see it built in real life.

Was the movie derivative? Well of course it can be said to be derivative! How many movies with burning Skyscrapers and bad guys hi-jacking them can you make before it becomes derivative after all? The first movie named Skyscraper was made in 1928 for Christ sake. It didn’t bother me at all.

Now for the not so good. The movie was hugely predictable. I mean, you could tell who the bad guys were from the first scene they were in. Especially the rat faced jerk Mr Pierce. The main bad guy? Well, he was no Hans Gruber that’s for sure. More like a common thug. The movie really lacked a bad guy with some charisma. Overall, most of the movie from start to finish was really a no-surprise-there event from the first bad guy entering the scene to the rebooting of the systems.

Then we have the realism factor. I do not expect an action and special effects movie to be realistic but there are some limits. Sawyer climbing around on the outside of the building (with one leg remember) in the updraft from 50 or so burning levels was just nonsense. Also, a building burning that much and that long and yet all the electrical wiring and plumbing still working was a bit too much. The absolutely worst offence though was how everyone magically survived sitting in the middle of the fire being extinguished by the release of halon gas (or some equivalent). That just brings stupidity (or maybe laziness) in script writing to a whole new level.

So, to sum it up, this move could have been a lot better. To me it was saved by The Rock and my love of special effects loaded action movies.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Gimly
/10  5 years ago
_Die Hard in a (X)_ is a pretty classic movie formula, it doesn't get as much play now as it did in the 80s and 90s, but we can still reliably expect at **least** one every couple of years, even now. But when it's _Die Hard in a Skyscraper_... I mean... That's just _Die Hard_. Even _Die Hard 2_ had the sensibility to be _Die Hard in an Airport_.

Except that, no, this isn't just _Die Hard_, because (and I don't think anyone would be shocked to find this) it's not as good. I mean I love The Rock and all, but come on.

Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top