Gerard Butler is back saving the President of the United States once again in the new action film, 'London Has Fallen'. This is the sequel to the 2013 film 'Olympus Has Fallen' which was a fun action movie. But would 'London Has Fallen' follow up on that or would it be a colossal failure?
|Gerard Butler back as Mike Banning|
Quite a lot of the time with sequels you just get the exact same movie but in a different location. 'London Has Fallen' so easily could've fell into this. There are some similarities in the film but for the most part there are differences. It is good that they didn't just have the president being held hostage for the entirety of the film as it would of been the exact same as Olympus.
There isn't that great logic in this film being perfectly honest. For some reason the only world leader with the suitable protection is the president. The German leader is standing out in the open with her protection behind her, what good is that? The French Prime Minister travelled via some sort of see through speedboat with no security with him. You can't really be surprised that something happened to him. Why was the only one with the adequate protection the American? Makes no sense.
There is a clear patriotism for America in this as well. I'm not surprised at all that al the world leaders were taken out so easily in this film except from America's. The story clearly shows the story that Americans will really eat up. It shows America defying all odds when faced with the toughest of challenges that only America would be able to do. I guess they didn't put Russia in this scenario in case of upsetting them. 'London Has Fallen' shows that no matter what, America will fight on and prevail over any challenge.
The villain in this film really isn't that great. Again he had the potential to be very good as you could see why he would want revenge on the western world. . He himself isn't in London or involved in any of the actual events in the terrorist attacks. He leaves everything down to henchmen whilst he sits at home and only interacts with characters via satellite and on the phone. He may of conducted it but he wasn't doing anything himself for the whole film. He also wants the president to be murdered live on TV. Why not any of the other leaders? Why did it matter if it were on TV? It would still carry a rippling effect especially with all the death and destruction caused. It was definitely just a mechanism to buy time for Banning to try rescue the president.
The CGI in this film at most points is terrible. In Olympus, most of the CGI was smaller scale so there wasn't a huge need for the effects. However in London the CGI is used on a much larger scale. Bridges are destroyed as well as destruction to Westminster Abbey and Big Ben. This had the potential to look fantastic. However the effects were not up to standard and most looked very poor. There were better effects in the 90's than in this film. It did lead to quite a lot of it looking very unrealistic and pretty silly.
|Destruction to London|
The ending of the film is also pretty questionable. They don't seem to learn their lesson and just carry out the same ruthlessness that got them into bother in the first place. Why just do the exact same thing causing more destruction and probably making yourself even less popular with that side of the world.