Rating: 
Summary: A non-stop express thriller
Review: This film is an action-packed, rapid transit express that races along on its almost two-hour non-stop journey about mountain climbing, double-crosses and murder. The movie's opening rescue sequence is both thrilling and horrifying in its unfolding drama and sets the tone for the rest of the film. Gabe Walker is a believable hero, subdued and sensitive but tough in the clutch and gets a great assist from girlfriend Jessie who understands the reasons why Gabe is haunted by the demons of guilt. John Lithgow again is a suave villain, an evil mastermind who watches his master plan spin out of control as bad luck and bad weather conspire to thwart his grand design. Lithgow has plenty of help from a motley crew of killers and vicious types who try to outdo each other for sheer brutality and end up snarling at one another like the jackals they are. Great stunt work and Italian Alpine vistas add realism to the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Exciting action flick, though not up to DIE HARD
Review: A previous reviewer called CLIFFHANGER a "guilty pleasure," and that is pretty much the way I see the film.CLIFFHANER was a return to action form for its star Sylvester Stallone, after he had made his indelible mark on the genre with his RAMBO trilogy in '80s. His character here, Gabe Walker, is drastically scaled-down, befitting the film's "high" concept, which is basically "DIE HARD on a mountain." Okay, so the premise (which is actually credited in this movie to a man named John Long) is not breathtakingly original---a nasty group of robbers led by evil Eric Qualen (John Lithgow, effectively playing his role to the hilt) lose three cases of American money in the Rockies and force Walker and companion Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker, he of HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER) to help them find it. Director Renny Harlin---who also directed DIE HARD 2---brings all his action expertise to bear on the thin plot and actually succeeds in crafting a good action film out of it. He was lucky in getting cinematographer Alex Thomson on his team, and Thomson makes the most of the Italian Dolomites (standing in for the Rockies) mountain settings by creating shots that revel in its scenic grandeur and impart an appropriately dizzying sense of vertigo to the proceedings. And Harlin uses his penchant for fast action pacing to good effect here, generating an exciting sense of momentum that hardly ever lets up until the final showdown. So, as action entertainment, CLIFFHANGER can be counted as a success. So why do I find it a "guilty" pleasure rather than simply a pleasure? Well, I have to admit that I found some of the violence in the second half of the film a little too much at times---not only gratuitous but sometimes downright brutal. The first half of the film is much more discreet with the bloodshed, relying more on genuine suspense-building and awesome special effects and stunts to make its proper effect (the first twelve-minute sequence is arguably the last word in sweat-inducing suspense and mounting tension). In the second half, though, the script (credited to Michael France and Stallone) and director let rip with gory abandon, and thus we get images of a black bad guy getting skewered upon a stalactite by the hero, and scenes like Tucker being kicked in the ribs and nose like a soccer ball for a good minute or so by a British terrorist (with some tasteless slo-mos to draw out the grand brutality). Did we really need to be subjected to such witless violence? Do the filmmakers assume that we are all so base in our tastes that we actually get turned on by this bloody stuff? Well, who knows? Maybe they have a point there, since I admit that the first time I saw this film I was shocked but hardly appalled by the violence on offer here. It is only after having seen it a few times since then that I am starting to question the validity of the violent scenes on offer here. Harlin started the film out so well, but then, after about an hour or so, it turns into a second-rate one-upping of icicle-in-the-eye scene in his superior DIE HARD 2. Notwithstanding my unease about the violence in this movie, though, it must be said that CLIFFHANGER works. It is sometimes very exciting and suspenseful, the performances basically get the job done, and overall this is one of the better DIE HARD clones, thanks to some great cinematography and noteworthy action scenes. If neither of the first two DIE HARD films are available for rental, this will fit the bill. Just don't be surprised, after it is over, if you feel a little guilty about having enjoyed it as much as you did.
Rating:
Summary: See above
Review: Sorry, posted this review more than once by accident. See above
Rating:
Summary: It is a Sylvester Stallone's show.
Review: Sylvester Stallone turned upside down did show aging effect on his body.
Yet, his meticulous touches in face actions were still near perfecto. Bravo, if Sylvester Stallone could still do one movie like that, the audience will be lucky.
Without Sylvester Stallone to be there, the show might be only worth watching for the fall of Sarah and the concentrated focus of Jessica in rescuing. But even those, anybody can do the work.
Sylvester Stallone chose a tough career. Acting is a fun but difficult living. This actor must love acting. The real sense of relieving from acting is again viewed in his final note where he held Jessica but showing all the signs ready to move on to either the reality of the life or to another acting role.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthy of the "Die hard" genre
Review: Although this movie did not have as many inside jokes ("I had fifty bucks bet on those ***holes") and as much character development ("she's heard me tell her a million times 'I love you' but she's never heard me say 'I'm sorry.' Would you tell her that for me Al? Tell her John says he's sorry") as Die Hard, Lithgow is, dare I say it, as good as Rickman, and the action sequences are more varied, more plentiful and more realistic. The endings to both satisfy and the overall coherence of the plot in both is excellent. Buy both "Cliffhanger" and "Die Hard" for your action collections.
Rating:
Summary: Return to Form for Sly
Review: After a string of ill-conceived comedies, Stallone returned to what he did best in 1993; the action junket. Armed this time with a pedigree to prove, and a director that knows his stuff (Renny Harlin), Sly became a box-office sensation once more, and wowed audiences all over the world with this phenomenal thriller. The acting is average, with a few bright spots; John Lithgow (in his third incarnation as a villain--the others being "Ricochet" and "Raising Cain") overshadowing Stallone in a battle of one-liners, and Michael Rooker, who always manages to put in a solid effort in whatever film he's in. The real star of this movie, however, isn't the superbly filmed action, but the cinematography. Set in the Italian Dolemites, the scenery is breathtaking--some of the best mountain footage seen in theatres in a long time. When there's a break in the action, you're enthralled by the background, which isn't always the case with any movie, let alone an action flick. Much props to the director for filming most of this movie on location. The DVD is pretty good, and the commentary track is reasonable--but with DTS sound, and a quality surround system, this movie looks and sounds phenomenal. They've done a great job with the video transfer, considering that DVDs would only become popular about five years after this film was released.
Rating:
Summary: A great action movie
Review: I thought this movie was very exciting, and Sylvester Stallone has never looked better! Great Action ! and a good plot, much better action movie than most!! I have the DVD and the picture and sound quality are excellent,(anamorphic widescreen and 5.1 dolby digital)Also some great special features on disc "How it was done", and Commentary, etc.. If you are a fan of Action Movies or Stallone ... GET THIS !!!
| 
