London Has Fallen is not a movie worth thinking about. It’s not that it’s not good enough. It’s that it’s not that kind of movie. It’s a mindless action genre throwback. But I’m going to overthink this Olympus Has Fallen sequel anyway. Why? Because it is mindless movies in particular that offer me so little substance that my mind can’t help but wander and contemplate and attempt to engage with the material anyway. Of course, it’s still usually for nothing. All I’m left with is a bunch of open questions and no kind of response from the nonsense on screen. Here are those questions, though, in case anyone else wants to play along:
1. Did the Events of Olympus Has Fallen Actually Happen?
I’d like to start off with a question raised by our friend Dan Schindel in his review at The Film Stage, because it’s a perfect preliminary issue. He writes that the sequel “eschews any acknowledgment of the first film at all. When briefly seen, the White House looks no worse for wear after its ransacking three years past. One character ominously declares that the world is falling apart due to the lack of governmental vigilance, while another affirms the need for American interventionism abroad. An attack on the White House by North Korean terrorists somehow did not result in a worldwide police state, and the film’s message is that perhaps it should have.” Well, obviously the White House just had a great, fast repair job and, well, it would take too much thought for the screenwriters to consider how the world might have changed following what happens in Olympus Has Fallen.
2. Did British Intelligence Really Not Know They Were Bombing a Wedding?
London Has Fallen is one of those movies where the terrorist kind of has a good point about the evils of the “good guys” — not that it’s justifiable reason for a massive attack on a major city and a multiple world leader assassination plot, but you can understand why the villainous arms dealer, Barkawi (Waleed Zuaiter), wants revenge for a drone killing his daughter on her wedding day, as well as other presumed innocent revelers. He’s told there was no knowledge that they were bombing Barkawi’s compound on such a festive occasion, but why not? Is it normal for MI6 to just report where a target is and not offer any other context? What if he was in a children’s hospital full of orphaned babies? I think they did know they were killing innocents and did not care.
3. Did Barkawi’s Revenge Plot Need to Be So Extensive?
The attack on London and the multiple world leaders arriving in the city for a state funeral was very well-planned. It took years and involved hundreds of men, ultimately many who apparently had to go undercover and pose as police and military and presumably pass security checks, plus the convincing of one man in particular to commit treason to assist in a major way. His fee alone, not to mention everything else, also made this a very costly effort. Sure, it’s mostly effective. Nearly all the targeted leaders are killed. Much of London, especially its landmarks, are heavily damaged if not destroyed. Still, you have to wonder if any of it couldn’t have been done differently, more simply. Barkawi could have attacked London without the need for the whole scheme involving the Prime Minister’s death and wrangling of international leaders, and it might have been easier due to less-heightened security, while the assassinations also could have just been done anytime, anywhere. Okay, I guess I shouldn’t be explaining how a terrorist plot should be done “better,” but even for terrorism this seemed like overkill.
4. Is a Terrorist’s Head Stronger Than a Bullet?
Following the extensive attack, Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler), Secret Service Director Lynne Jacobs (Angela Bassett) and President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart) escape in an SUV that apparently has bulletproof windows. I forget if they said that was the case, but bullets are definitely seen hitting but not smashing the vehicle’s side and back windows, as they would on a normal SUV. But when a motorcycling terrorist plows into the back of the auto, his head crashes right through the glass. I’m not saying that his head is stronger than a bullet, really, but I guess his helmet is.
5. Why Do the Explosions Look So Terrible?
Let me take a moment, a minor interlude, for a non-plot-related question. This is a major theatrical motion picture and a sequel to a legitimate hit and is likely to also be a profitable release. So why does it have CG explosion effects (and fire and water) that are barely good enough for a Sharknado sequel? For such a gritty and primarily physical movie, in terms of its very intimate violence, the bad computer effects are especially jarring and fake-looking. The first one, following a lengthy lead up to the attacks, is particularly laughable because of how cartoonish it looks after such a serious escalation of suspense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment