London has Fallen (2016)
We went and saw the London has fallen. The sequel to Die Hard in the WhiteHouse, is Die Hard on the run.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2016-03-05 |
Sometimes, I feel like the chick in the family. My wife watches the football, and enjoys a good action flick and suggests we go to see them. This was one of those movies, "Let's see London has fallen". OK.
But first, we watched the Prequel: Olympus has Fallen (2013) on TV. Then off to see the sequel in theaters: John McClane goes to London. New scenery, same plot Impossibly well organized, large, and highly trained Pakistani's take over London, blow up most of the sites and try to kill all the world leaders.
A slightly higher budget excuse for violence -- same plot, more chase scenes -- and without the TV editing, a lot more F-bombs and one-liners. I should have said spoiler alert, but you probably know this was where it was going from the teasers or title.
Lots of cliché's, tricks, completely expected plot twists. But it was more enjoyable on the big screen. He was a bit more stabby on the big screen that he was on TV. (The not-edited for TV version plays it with crunchy-squishy sound effects. Many chickens gave their carcasses to the sound studio specialist). And the rotten tomato reviews got even more snobby about the sequel, giving it a 26/63. Meaning the audience still got what they expected, but it was even less artsy (and more politically incorrect) than the first one.
I think the reviews are idiots over getting whiney because the "good guy americans were killing the evil brown-skinned people" thing that sets off their PC reflexed to hate it -- yet it's no difference than Arnold killing White-Russians, or Sylvester killing Asians. If the same scenes had been done on Wall St., or blacks killing whites (aka Django Unchained), with it's dumber plot and worse filming, it would have probably gotten the 88% reviewer approval that film managed.
Film Critics[edit source]
If you want to see leftist bias in media, you just have to look at all the examples of how far off from their reviewers are from their viewers. I use the spread as a predictor of whether I'll like a film. Big spread with audience over critics? I'm going to like it. But big spread with critics over audience? I'll usually side with audience.
| Tatometer | Summary |
|---|---|
 |
London has Fallen (2016) - The reviewers had apoplexy and it got 25/63 critic/audience spread, because snowflakes melted, "good guy americans were killing the evil brown-skinned people". This is not different than Arnold killing White-Russians, or Sylvester killing Asians -- only the wokeness changed. The first film Olympus has Fallen (2013) was the same film, and it got twice the reviewer appoval. If it had been done on Wall St., or blacks killing whites (aka Django Unchained), with it's dumber plot and worse filming, it would have probably gotten the same 88% reviewer approval that film managed. |
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
In the end, it's a solid bloody shoot-em up, continuous chase scene movie. Bad guys are going to die, lead character good-guys are going to live (with a few heartfelt sacrifices and dying utterances to justify them being mad and violent). And it's going to be a machine gun opera. Sort of Bollywood with lots of red-dye filled squibs. If you don't like those, you'll hate it. If you want to see this mindless fluff, you won't feel robbed.
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/olympus_has_fallen_2013/
- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/london_has_fallen/
Tags: Movies Reviews Olympus has Fallen (2013)
