Before listening to all of the 1 star reviews, hear me out. To start, if you think you're going to be watching a summer movie blockbuster that's 10/10 than you don't have a great judgement on films. Was the movie plot thin? Sure. Was the acting "Oscar winning?" Most certainly not. However, if you enjoy a decent action packed film from start to finish, you may just like this one a little bit. Gerard Butler plays his typical bad ass, ex-marine type character that helps to save the President of the United States. There's your plot. Simple and no more to it. That's what this film intended to give you. A simple plotted movie for action packed movie lovers. So, before you decide to toss this one out, go on Netflix on a boring Sunday afternoon and give it a try.
674 Reviews
Suspend your disbelief - it's only a movie
jamesharrison-541-83546213 January 2017
I enjoyed this film for what it is - yes, none of it's really that plausible, and yes, it's riddled with as many holes in the plot as there are bullet holes the President's Land Rover. Oh, and yes, it's one sided and terribly patriotic - if you're an American - but remember, it's only a film, and a Hollywood Tinsel Town film at that.
Significantly perhaps, as I watched The President face up to the plot against him, I kept wondering... "what would Donald do in such circumstances?" Let's hope he's not taking notes.
The naysayer membership here at IMDb who gave this film 1/10 are missing the point entirely. Like most of what is spewed out by Hollywood, it's all fiction and fantasy held together by as much implausibility as the producers can get away with, and I think most intelligent audiences will get that.
Ah, but "what about the less intelligent movie goer?" you might ask. Well, dress it up as much as you like and these people will never get the irony of such a picture. They've also probably made up their minds as to who's side they're on anyway - and no liberal, limp-wristed Hollywood alternative will convince them they're backing the wrong team.
So I encourage you to watch "London Has Fallen" if you get the chance, and if you can, enjoy your place in the Free World to make up your own mind...
Significantly perhaps, as I watched The President face up to the plot against him, I kept wondering... "what would Donald do in such circumstances?" Let's hope he's not taking notes.
The naysayer membership here at IMDb who gave this film 1/10 are missing the point entirely. Like most of what is spewed out by Hollywood, it's all fiction and fantasy held together by as much implausibility as the producers can get away with, and I think most intelligent audiences will get that.
Ah, but "what about the less intelligent movie goer?" you might ask. Well, dress it up as much as you like and these people will never get the irony of such a picture. They've also probably made up their minds as to who's side they're on anyway - and no liberal, limp-wristed Hollywood alternative will convince them they're backing the wrong team.
So I encourage you to watch "London Has Fallen" if you get the chance, and if you can, enjoy your place in the Free World to make up your own mind...
Awesome brainless fun
edwardgamper-0-12860923 July 2016
1 star? Not as good as the first movie? Let's get real! Olympus Has Fallen was equally ridiculous, jingoistic, lacking well-rounded characters, and originality - so why is everyone surprised when London Has Fallen is no different?
Yes it's jingoistic. Yes it's still lacking well-rounded characters. Yes it's mindless violence. And yes it's ludicrous...
...ludicrously freaking awesome that is!
The first thing I loved about this movie was the bad language. It was refreshing. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but go with me a moment...
...see, in an era of 12A action movies with tonnes of violence and no bad language, Butler dropping the F bomb a billion times ironically brings a level of realism to London Has Fallen, that is lacking in movies that take themselves far more seriously.
Yes the entire concept is stupid, but that's not what we're here for. I'm here to watch Butler stab bad buys repeatedly in the chest and shoot AK-47s out of 4X4 cars bombing along the Thames at 80 miles per hour. That's what I signed up for.
The pacing of this movie is perfect. It's never boring, and the action sequences are really fun. Yes, in places the CG is a bit shoddy, but the movie is still quite spectacular in pulling off some big set pieces in London.
London Has Fallen is mainly a two-hander between Butler and Eckhart, with some nice buddy moments and fantastic action sequences throughout, including a mega shoot-out at Somerset House, a mega shoot-out in the Underground, and mega shoot outs in dark buildings, including the finale in Soho, of all places.
This isn't going to get any Oscars, but it's a brilliantly retro action movie that takes itself far less seriously than throw-back action films like Taken, which is no less crazy in the plot department.
Anyone who enjoys mindless action will not be disappointed, and where this movie lacks realistic plot, it makes up for it in pacing. At 1 hour 40 - in an age of bloated, long movies that think they're more intelligent than they are - this is frankly a breath of fresh air.
Get a big bowl of popcorn and some sodi-pops, and enjoy relentless, shooting, stabbing, swearing and explosions. Great fun!
Yes it's jingoistic. Yes it's still lacking well-rounded characters. Yes it's mindless violence. And yes it's ludicrous...
...ludicrously freaking awesome that is!
The first thing I loved about this movie was the bad language. It was refreshing. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but go with me a moment...
...see, in an era of 12A action movies with tonnes of violence and no bad language, Butler dropping the F bomb a billion times ironically brings a level of realism to London Has Fallen, that is lacking in movies that take themselves far more seriously.
Yes the entire concept is stupid, but that's not what we're here for. I'm here to watch Butler stab bad buys repeatedly in the chest and shoot AK-47s out of 4X4 cars bombing along the Thames at 80 miles per hour. That's what I signed up for.
The pacing of this movie is perfect. It's never boring, and the action sequences are really fun. Yes, in places the CG is a bit shoddy, but the movie is still quite spectacular in pulling off some big set pieces in London.
London Has Fallen is mainly a two-hander between Butler and Eckhart, with some nice buddy moments and fantastic action sequences throughout, including a mega shoot-out at Somerset House, a mega shoot-out in the Underground, and mega shoot outs in dark buildings, including the finale in Soho, of all places.
This isn't going to get any Oscars, but it's a brilliantly retro action movie that takes itself far less seriously than throw-back action films like Taken, which is no less crazy in the plot department.
Anyone who enjoys mindless action will not be disappointed, and where this movie lacks realistic plot, it makes up for it in pacing. At 1 hour 40 - in an age of bloated, long movies that think they're more intelligent than they are - this is frankly a breath of fresh air.
Get a big bowl of popcorn and some sodi-pops, and enjoy relentless, shooting, stabbing, swearing and explosions. Great fun!
Bland, Obtuse and Arrogrant.
thehorsetowater14 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Having watched and mostly enjoyed (with the inevitable suspension of disbelief) the sister film 'Olympus has Fallen' I had the chance to watch this over in the states. Assuming another dose of suspension of disbelief, I settled down to watch it.
This film, despite its good lead cast appears to have left the brains of plot and due process behind as it made the leap across the pond.
Set in London which is gleefully smashed up within the first 30mins of the movie along with most of the global heads of state it puts action scenes over plot devices (not that I was expected anything else) but there are some concerning portrayals of real life characters which undermine any amount of nice explosions and gun-play.
The heads of state are all archaic stereotypes of what we assume to be the culture of each country rolled into one person.
For instance, the Italian PM has a young 30-year-old-love who he meets in secrete atop Westminster Abbey. The Canadian President has the perfect family. The French President is conducting some kind of important state business in a kind of renaissance launcher boat on the Thames replete with Champagne (did he really use it to get from Paris to London?) and the Japenese PM is stoically quiet, patient and reserved until the moment when the Thames Bridge is blown up around him. Of course the US President is portrayed as a hip, fashionable humane and judicious man with none of these stereotypes (negative or otherwise).
This marks the first concern - outside of their own nation, Hollywood really does not care how these cosmopolitan characters are portrayed - indeed - entire nations are mercilessly the subject of stereotypical derision as the hapless heads of state are killed in creative manners. Not that I mind red London buses being the unprinted cue for 'this film is set in London'.
What happens next is even more incredible. Since the 'assassination' of the British PM, with the exception of some kind of funeral planning meeting early on, there does not seem to be any kind of UK government / leadership / disaster management faculty left. Rather than employ characters from real life counterparts like 'deputy PM' or 'Defense Secretary' or 'COBRA' or indeed our intelligence services like MI5 the film leads us to believe the the job of bringing order to this chaos falls to a Chief Inspector who thinks that yanks is still an acceptable term for our American cousins. (He is not even a Chief Constable though confusingly he does have chief constable epaulet rank badges) of London's Scotland Yard. Really - the entire intelligence and counter-terrorism effort. (This would be akin to a police captain in the WDCPD mopping up after a similar event took out the President of the US, though we know of course in Hollywood this could never happen).
We have Morgan Freeman as Vice President giving strong suggestions (read: orders?) over some kind of skype thing to this Chief Inspecter who enacts his word like some kind of servile unthinking amoeba.
Even our army is portrayed by a portly old man wearing something from the dad's army set who dares to suggest a military response but is denied this by Morgan Freeman and sheepishly accepts this reprimand.
At some point the President asks to be shot by Banning should he fall into the hands of the terrorists. Of course as soon as this is heard we know that the president is going to fall into the hands of the terrorists and is undoubtedly going to be rescued again. This removes any anticipation of plot from the film and leaves the rest of it as mere action-porn than anything else.
Other issues such as the NSA revealing that they have been spying on a London address for ages and the mindless insertion of armed foreign nationals on the streets of London are too numerous to mention.
Should Aaron be re-elected for a third term in something like 'Paris has Fallen' then I think I might have to go back to watching nature documentaries on UK Gold to sate my action thirst. Beast hunting beast in the great oceans would have more twists and turns than this film.
A bland, obtuse and frankly disturbing revelation of how Hollywood regards the rest of the world should be portrayed against the might and absolute 'good' of the USA. How arrogant, patronising and disgusting.
This film, despite its good lead cast appears to have left the brains of plot and due process behind as it made the leap across the pond.
Set in London which is gleefully smashed up within the first 30mins of the movie along with most of the global heads of state it puts action scenes over plot devices (not that I was expected anything else) but there are some concerning portrayals of real life characters which undermine any amount of nice explosions and gun-play.
The heads of state are all archaic stereotypes of what we assume to be the culture of each country rolled into one person.
For instance, the Italian PM has a young 30-year-old-love who he meets in secrete atop Westminster Abbey. The Canadian President has the perfect family. The French President is conducting some kind of important state business in a kind of renaissance launcher boat on the Thames replete with Champagne (did he really use it to get from Paris to London?) and the Japenese PM is stoically quiet, patient and reserved until the moment when the Thames Bridge is blown up around him. Of course the US President is portrayed as a hip, fashionable humane and judicious man with none of these stereotypes (negative or otherwise).
This marks the first concern - outside of their own nation, Hollywood really does not care how these cosmopolitan characters are portrayed - indeed - entire nations are mercilessly the subject of stereotypical derision as the hapless heads of state are killed in creative manners. Not that I mind red London buses being the unprinted cue for 'this film is set in London'.
What happens next is even more incredible. Since the 'assassination' of the British PM, with the exception of some kind of funeral planning meeting early on, there does not seem to be any kind of UK government / leadership / disaster management faculty left. Rather than employ characters from real life counterparts like 'deputy PM' or 'Defense Secretary' or 'COBRA' or indeed our intelligence services like MI5 the film leads us to believe the the job of bringing order to this chaos falls to a Chief Inspector who thinks that yanks is still an acceptable term for our American cousins. (He is not even a Chief Constable though confusingly he does have chief constable epaulet rank badges) of London's Scotland Yard. Really - the entire intelligence and counter-terrorism effort. (This would be akin to a police captain in the WDCPD mopping up after a similar event took out the President of the US, though we know of course in Hollywood this could never happen).
We have Morgan Freeman as Vice President giving strong suggestions (read: orders?) over some kind of skype thing to this Chief Inspecter who enacts his word like some kind of servile unthinking amoeba.
Even our army is portrayed by a portly old man wearing something from the dad's army set who dares to suggest a military response but is denied this by Morgan Freeman and sheepishly accepts this reprimand.
At some point the President asks to be shot by Banning should he fall into the hands of the terrorists. Of course as soon as this is heard we know that the president is going to fall into the hands of the terrorists and is undoubtedly going to be rescued again. This removes any anticipation of plot from the film and leaves the rest of it as mere action-porn than anything else.
Other issues such as the NSA revealing that they have been spying on a London address for ages and the mindless insertion of armed foreign nationals on the streets of London are too numerous to mention.
Should Aaron be re-elected for a third term in something like 'Paris has Fallen' then I think I might have to go back to watching nature documentaries on UK Gold to sate my action thirst. Beast hunting beast in the great oceans would have more twists and turns than this film.
A bland, obtuse and frankly disturbing revelation of how Hollywood regards the rest of the world should be portrayed against the might and absolute 'good' of the USA. How arrogant, patronising and disgusting.
Just fine.
Genti2627 May 2016
London Has Fallen is directed by Babak Najafi and include the main cast of Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart, and Morgan Freeman. I enjoyed the movie throughout, even though it started off really boring it definitely had some interesting parts here and there. The ending is also quite fun, in a turn-your-brain-off kind of way. What bothered me the most was the editing, which was terrible up until that one-shot sequence at the end, where it finally got a bit better. Gerard Butler is really great on the role, a total badass, even though he was so in a very unrealistic way. The overall character fits with the theme of the movie. Aaron Eckhart is also fine here, as he is in any movie ever. I think this actor is terribly underrated and overlooked no matter what role he is playing. The CGI is pretty underwhelming, they should have increased the budget from the first movie, which was also better in almost every aspect than this sequel. London Has Fallen is not made to be over analyzed, it is just a fun action meaningless, suspenseful and to a point unnecessary movie that's made for 90's action movie fans to enjoy.
Actually Enjoyed it
nicholls_les17 August 2017
Sorry to spoil the party but I actually enjoyed this movie.
OK it isn't Shakespeare or some deep meaning movie but it isn't meant to be. OK it has lots of plot holes and is pretty far fetched, as are most thrillers but I didn't watch it for any of those reasons.
This a good paced thriller and Mr Butler carries it of well. The action never stops from beginning to end and the acting no where near as bad as others on here have said.
I am only glad I didn't pay attention to all the negative comments on here as this is a movie I would watch again.
OK it isn't Shakespeare or some deep meaning movie but it isn't meant to be. OK it has lots of plot holes and is pretty far fetched, as are most thrillers but I didn't watch it for any of those reasons.
This a good paced thriller and Mr Butler carries it of well. The action never stops from beginning to end and the acting no where near as bad as others on here have said.
I am only glad I didn't pay attention to all the negative comments on here as this is a movie I would watch again.
Cringe-worthy, cliché-ridden, blatant propagandist cash-grab.
gilfortuna-741203 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER FREE ZONE
Do not watch.
Seriously, I warned you. This movie is so bad I felt the need to create an account on this site to tell people the truth about it.
If you're a citizen of the USA who is overly nationalistic, if you buy into the hype of famous actors who end up having less-than-average performances, if you just started watching movies last year and aren't yet familiar with all the clichés you will find in this movie, if you think a blurry, confused action scene is a good action scene, and if you don't mind the poorly done CGI explosions and the plot-holes, then this movie is for you.
If not, and if you're really curious about it, just watch the trailer. The entire movie is there anyway.
SPOILER ZONE
Here is how it goes: Main character is a typical American-marine-special-agent kind of dude. He is a reckless, aggressive, dominant alpha male that can't go one minute without saying a cheesy one-liner. In fact, almost all his dialogue are cheesy one-liners. He has a pregnant wife, which is the typical stay-at-home American mom who cares for his husband.
Then there's the typical strong, maternal black women who dies courageously, the typical hot white girl female fatal which you "do not f*** with", the strangely naive USA president who is afraid to pick up a gun and shocked that so many civilians have died because of him (yeah, right), the typical eastern villain that hates America, the faceless enemies with storm-trooper syndrome, the traitor that thinks the system is flawed and accepted a bribe, and Morgan Freeman, who is presented as a major character but ends up playing a very minor role that could be done by any novice actor. Yes, from now on, beware of films with Morgan Freeman. It's not the first time (I'm remembering Oblivion, with Tom Cruise) that his face is plastered all around just to make the movie sell, but ends up being an insignificant part of it. He may have played great roles in the past, but now it's clear he is riding his own fame.
Even then, Morgan Freeman is probably the best actor there. Others are just not competent. Part of the blame is on the dialogue. It's too cliché and far-fetched. As told before, Gerard Butler does nothing but throw down one-liners. He has one or two facial expressions: The angry look and the tender, loving father look. Which makes him an one-dimensional character that you won't be able to build an emotional connection with. He is also an insufferable Mary Sue. The USA president, on the other hand, is pathetic. They try to make him a determined, strong American leader, but the contrast with his best man is just too big. It makes him look tiny, fragile and incompetent. There is not much to say about other actors. All of them play minor roles and are easily forgettable. And all of them play stereotypical, far-fetched roles.
Then there is the plot. Oh, god, the plot.
It's bad. The pacing is horrible. Action scene, chase, small break, action scene, chase, small break, repeat. Not much happens in between. In part because there is no decent plot. It goes like this: the most heavily guarded funeral in history ends up having some serious security flaws. And all because one dude in the USA security agency betrayed them. That one dude is apparently so powerful, or the security agencies (American and English) are so pathetic, that his simple betrayal goes undetected and cause the entire defense operation to fail. How did he do such a feat? How could half the guards in that day be enemies in disguise and that go under the radar? How could the prime-minister of England "die in his sleep" and then no autopsy having been made in time to clear any suspicions of poisoning? Why is Gerard Butler the only one who "feels" that "something" is about to happen? Why is it that the most important target (USA President) is the ONLY ONE that stays alive, and the LAST ONE that the enemy tries to shoot at? Every single point of this movie is far-fetched.
Okay, I'm aware that this is a mindless action movie, and plot and actor performance shouldn't be taken too seriously. BUT THE ACTION SCENES AREN'T GOOD EITHER! All of them are ridden with that annoying, off-putting blur and camera-shake effect. And they aren't original either. Oh, a last-second save. Oh, a car chase. Oh, the helicopter crashes and they are all alive and without a scratch. Except the black girl, of course. Oh, the enemies just send themselves at the hero at the most stupid fashion and end up dead, every single time. It's tedious, predictable and shows that they are lazy and didn't really spend any time to think on good ideas.
So if the point of the movie is bad, and everything else is bad to, what's good? Well, I find the stereotypical representations of the other heads-of-state to be somewhat enjoyable. There's the female German Chancellor that is clearly Angela Merkel, the womanizer Italian prime-minister that is clearly Berlusconi, etc. But all it shows is that this movie could have been a parody. It is certainly a parody, with all the exaggerated nationalistic lines and the plot and action scene clichés, but it's a parody of itself. Its crucial sin is that it takes itself seriously. But it certainly doesn't deserve more than to be a punchline of a joke. A bad, boring, predictable joke.
Do not watch.
Seriously, I warned you. This movie is so bad I felt the need to create an account on this site to tell people the truth about it.
If you're a citizen of the USA who is overly nationalistic, if you buy into the hype of famous actors who end up having less-than-average performances, if you just started watching movies last year and aren't yet familiar with all the clichés you will find in this movie, if you think a blurry, confused action scene is a good action scene, and if you don't mind the poorly done CGI explosions and the plot-holes, then this movie is for you.
If not, and if you're really curious about it, just watch the trailer. The entire movie is there anyway.
SPOILER ZONE
Here is how it goes: Main character is a typical American-marine-special-agent kind of dude. He is a reckless, aggressive, dominant alpha male that can't go one minute without saying a cheesy one-liner. In fact, almost all his dialogue are cheesy one-liners. He has a pregnant wife, which is the typical stay-at-home American mom who cares for his husband.
Then there's the typical strong, maternal black women who dies courageously, the typical hot white girl female fatal which you "do not f*** with", the strangely naive USA president who is afraid to pick up a gun and shocked that so many civilians have died because of him (yeah, right), the typical eastern villain that hates America, the faceless enemies with storm-trooper syndrome, the traitor that thinks the system is flawed and accepted a bribe, and Morgan Freeman, who is presented as a major character but ends up playing a very minor role that could be done by any novice actor. Yes, from now on, beware of films with Morgan Freeman. It's not the first time (I'm remembering Oblivion, with Tom Cruise) that his face is plastered all around just to make the movie sell, but ends up being an insignificant part of it. He may have played great roles in the past, but now it's clear he is riding his own fame.
Even then, Morgan Freeman is probably the best actor there. Others are just not competent. Part of the blame is on the dialogue. It's too cliché and far-fetched. As told before, Gerard Butler does nothing but throw down one-liners. He has one or two facial expressions: The angry look and the tender, loving father look. Which makes him an one-dimensional character that you won't be able to build an emotional connection with. He is also an insufferable Mary Sue. The USA president, on the other hand, is pathetic. They try to make him a determined, strong American leader, but the contrast with his best man is just too big. It makes him look tiny, fragile and incompetent. There is not much to say about other actors. All of them play minor roles and are easily forgettable. And all of them play stereotypical, far-fetched roles.
Then there is the plot. Oh, god, the plot.
It's bad. The pacing is horrible. Action scene, chase, small break, action scene, chase, small break, repeat. Not much happens in between. In part because there is no decent plot. It goes like this: the most heavily guarded funeral in history ends up having some serious security flaws. And all because one dude in the USA security agency betrayed them. That one dude is apparently so powerful, or the security agencies (American and English) are so pathetic, that his simple betrayal goes undetected and cause the entire defense operation to fail. How did he do such a feat? How could half the guards in that day be enemies in disguise and that go under the radar? How could the prime-minister of England "die in his sleep" and then no autopsy having been made in time to clear any suspicions of poisoning? Why is Gerard Butler the only one who "feels" that "something" is about to happen? Why is it that the most important target (USA President) is the ONLY ONE that stays alive, and the LAST ONE that the enemy tries to shoot at? Every single point of this movie is far-fetched.
Okay, I'm aware that this is a mindless action movie, and plot and actor performance shouldn't be taken too seriously. BUT THE ACTION SCENES AREN'T GOOD EITHER! All of them are ridden with that annoying, off-putting blur and camera-shake effect. And they aren't original either. Oh, a last-second save. Oh, a car chase. Oh, the helicopter crashes and they are all alive and without a scratch. Except the black girl, of course. Oh, the enemies just send themselves at the hero at the most stupid fashion and end up dead, every single time. It's tedious, predictable and shows that they are lazy and didn't really spend any time to think on good ideas.
So if the point of the movie is bad, and everything else is bad to, what's good? Well, I find the stereotypical representations of the other heads-of-state to be somewhat enjoyable. There's the female German Chancellor that is clearly Angela Merkel, the womanizer Italian prime-minister that is clearly Berlusconi, etc. But all it shows is that this movie could have been a parody. It is certainly a parody, with all the exaggerated nationalistic lines and the plot and action scene clichés, but it's a parody of itself. Its crucial sin is that it takes itself seriously. But it certainly doesn't deserve more than to be a punchline of a joke. A bad, boring, predictable joke.
London has...delivered exactly what you came for
matris11 May 2023
The good: Solid action, good pacing and tongue-in-cheek but solid performances from the leads. The film clips along at a nice pace and does not overstay its welcome. There really aren't any unnecessary scenes, but some do fall into exposition heavy territory.
The bad: Mostly just some implausible action scenes fuelled by absolutely stupid decisions by the characters. Both antagonist and protagonists are guilty, and it really takes you out of the movie. This dumbness isn't necessary - Die Hard conquered it in the 80s. Intelligent heroes and villains do exist.
Should you watch it? If you're wanting a standard action flick that is fun, enjoyable and not too long. You've come to the right place.
The bad: Mostly just some implausible action scenes fuelled by absolutely stupid decisions by the characters. Both antagonist and protagonists are guilty, and it really takes you out of the movie. This dumbness isn't necessary - Die Hard conquered it in the 80s. Intelligent heroes and villains do exist.
Should you watch it? If you're wanting a standard action flick that is fun, enjoyable and not too long. You've come to the right place.
Good Lord, this was bad...
kevcoe17 April 2016
I love a good, silly, dumb action movie. Truly, I do. But this one was just insulting... I felt like it was written by a bunch of 13 year old boys, cranked up on too much Red Bull.
Totally avoid of any characterisation other than in the broadest possible terms... the dialogue was just horrendous... the plot makes very little sense to anyone with the slightest scrap of brain in their head (what, most of the London police force were taken over by terrorists and NOBODY noticed?)and as for the SFX... you'd be embarrassed if you saw them in an X-box game! I'll admit, there was one good action sequence when Mr Butler and the SAS were advancing on the terrorists lair amidst a hail of gunfire, that was quite nicely done... but five minutes of decent enough action isn't enough to make me think that this film is anything other than an utter turkey...
Give it a swerve, IMO.
Totally avoid of any characterisation other than in the broadest possible terms... the dialogue was just horrendous... the plot makes very little sense to anyone with the slightest scrap of brain in their head (what, most of the London police force were taken over by terrorists and NOBODY noticed?)and as for the SFX... you'd be embarrassed if you saw them in an X-box game! I'll admit, there was one good action sequence when Mr Butler and the SAS were advancing on the terrorists lair amidst a hail of gunfire, that was quite nicely done... but five minutes of decent enough action isn't enough to make me think that this film is anything other than an utter turkey...
Give it a swerve, IMO.
A good action movie
chera_khalid20 September 2023
"London Has Fallen" delivered a middling cinematic experience that earned a 6/10 in my book. Its strength lay in the relentless action sequences and the palpable tension that kept me engaged throughout. However, the film's weakness became apparent in its somewhat generic and predictable plotline, lacking the depth and originality of its predecessor. The cinematography offered standard visuals without any standout moments, and while Gerard Butler's performance was commendable, the overall acting felt a bit one-dimensional. The music and visuals served their purpose but failed to leave a lasting impact. In the end, "London Has Fallen" provided an entertaining dose of action but failed to rise above the average, leaving me wishing for more substance and innovation in its storytelling.
A D grade movie that deserves to go straight to DVD and the bin after that.
phil-sydney15 April 2016
If like me, you liked the original, this will leave you greatly disappointed. No breakdown needed. Just mindless cheese through and through. Whilst the original shocked (in particular the opening scenes) with a grandiose, beyond belief terrorist attack, London has fallen shocks with its stupidity, predictability, poor CGI, complete neglect for any realism (not a even a tad!) and tediously boring action scenes that would be more fitting for a new van dame movie.
There's no need to break down this movie and pick it apart. Because the whole thing is just one big, boring mess of mindless BS.
How this movie got over 6.0 is beyond me ! It almost falls into the 'so bad, it's good category', but not quite, so it's just horribly bad and you won't be laughing either.
3.6 Material.
There's no need to break down this movie and pick it apart. Because the whole thing is just one big, boring mess of mindless BS.
How this movie got over 6.0 is beyond me ! It almost falls into the 'so bad, it's good category', but not quite, so it's just horribly bad and you won't be laughing either.
3.6 Material.
Clichéd But Still Entertains
sraavan-narayanan14 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I don't understand why people are being so political here. This is an action movie. In fact one of the best action movies this year. The CGI could have seriously been better cause its "Hollywood" but anyways through the movie there is something new and interesting happening. Even though we know where it will end and who and all will survive, still each and every scene turns out to be interesting. Banning surely has a style while shooting terrorists, surely works out. And could have avoided some unnecessary dialogues but still its fun and ought to be seen. The acting was quite casual and could have been more serious in the places where it should have been. But still a movie that every person can enjoy.
Major goof lol
eeriechills31 May 2021
Great action flick but with one major goof. When Banning and the Pres were at the mi6 hideout the agents there were told to leave and get to safety. The next scene showed the mi6 agents in the main mi6 headquarters briefing the chiefs. Why didn't Banning and the Pres go with them!!
Incredibly stupid, typical American crap.
brian_reid-977-38715316 April 2016
Possibly the dumbest movie ever, idiotic plot, American chest- beating, USA chanting nonsense.
There is absolutely nothing in this film remotely believable, and after the nonsense in the first one, you have to hope that this is the end of the franchise. What shocks me most is the appearance of Morgan Freeman in this movie. Is he so hard up that he needs to lower himself to this standard of film?
Do Americans understand anything that happens outside their country?
Save your time, save your money and avoid this crap. And please no more "has fallen" films. Let Butler retire.
There is absolutely nothing in this film remotely believable, and after the nonsense in the first one, you have to hope that this is the end of the franchise. What shocks me most is the appearance of Morgan Freeman in this movie. Is he so hard up that he needs to lower himself to this standard of film?
Do Americans understand anything that happens outside their country?
Save your time, save your money and avoid this crap. And please no more "has fallen" films. Let Butler retire.
Reasonably fun, if you are in the right mood
Wizard-816 August 2017
As I have said before, I have a soft spot for movies made by Millennium Films, because they are the closest modern day equivalent to the notorious Cannon Films, which made a ton of cheesy but fun B grade movies in the 1980s. The Millennium Films production "London Has Fallen" is really a glorified Cannon movie, and that's why I had fun with it. Oh, I will admit that a lot of it is silly and/or bad. The CGI is often kind of cheap, the depiction of the story's terrorists and their intricate plans is really hard to swallow, and the movie is quite predictable. But it's enjoyable all the same. The first twenty five or so minutes are kind of slow, but then it starts delivering almost non stop action until the end. It's certainly never dull, and even a little exciting at times despite the fact you'll know how each scene will end as soon as it starts. I can see why some people would hate this movie, but for me, it was a fun romp. The more you like B movies, the better the chance you'll like this movie.
If you liked Olympus Has Fallen, you'll like this better
kees_cornelisse4773 March 2016
So the trailer made me want to see this movie and I didn't see Olympus Has Fallen at that time. So I watched that yesterday and I liked it, fun action movie with some noticeable flaws.
Today I went to see London Has Fallen and I liked it better than the first one. The action scenes were a bit better than the first and more intense, the lighting and cinematography improved quite a bit compared to Olympus and the scale was bigger.
To get a little more in depth on certain matters that I liked: Gerard Butler is made for this role, he makes for a very likable action hero that gets the job done. He did that in Olympus and now in this one he did it a bit better I think.
The rest of the actors also do a good job, nothing really great but I got why everyone of them had a motivation to be there.
As I said the action was better than the first and with that I mean there is a good build up and when it starts I was invested in the scenes and wanted Gerard Butler to kick ass.
There are some issues with it though. In Olympus Has Fallen and the trailer for this movie I already saw that the CGI was really bad. Some explosions look really fake and it's weird that they didn't put more effort into making that look better.
Also this movie, like Olympus, is very patriotic. I think Americans will like the movie more than the rest of the world. I didn't mind it too much (I'm Dutch) but other people might find it somewhat annoying. What is a bit weird though is that they casted a Scot (Butler) to play an American. And the guy just doesn't have a good American accent which is just a bit weird.
Also some other technical elements like editing, sound etc. were quite poor during parts of the movie but I didn't mind it that much.
So all in all it's a dumb fun action movie and I'd recommend watching it, 7/10.
Today I went to see London Has Fallen and I liked it better than the first one. The action scenes were a bit better than the first and more intense, the lighting and cinematography improved quite a bit compared to Olympus and the scale was bigger.
To get a little more in depth on certain matters that I liked: Gerard Butler is made for this role, he makes for a very likable action hero that gets the job done. He did that in Olympus and now in this one he did it a bit better I think.
The rest of the actors also do a good job, nothing really great but I got why everyone of them had a motivation to be there.
As I said the action was better than the first and with that I mean there is a good build up and when it starts I was invested in the scenes and wanted Gerard Butler to kick ass.
There are some issues with it though. In Olympus Has Fallen and the trailer for this movie I already saw that the CGI was really bad. Some explosions look really fake and it's weird that they didn't put more effort into making that look better.
Also this movie, like Olympus, is very patriotic. I think Americans will like the movie more than the rest of the world. I didn't mind it too much (I'm Dutch) but other people might find it somewhat annoying. What is a bit weird though is that they casted a Scot (Butler) to play an American. And the guy just doesn't have a good American accent which is just a bit weird.
Also some other technical elements like editing, sound etc. were quite poor during parts of the movie but I didn't mind it that much.
So all in all it's a dumb fun action movie and I'd recommend watching it, 7/10.
Good twist raises this above standard terrorism films
SimonJack15 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"London Has Fallen" is a terrorism film with a novel plot that raises it above the standard Hollywood fare of the genre. The setting in London, with a plot to take out several world leaders. The complex operation has lots of action with associated pyrotechnics, special effects and stunt routines. Considerable CGI is used to show British landmarks exploding. The cast all are good in this action thriller.
Terrorist films were almost unknown before the 1960s. The few that were made mostly were about individual acts of terrorism. The most common of those was a rash of airplane hijackings into the 1970s. But since the rise of global terrorism by organized groups, mostly from the Middle East and Asia, Hollywood began to make movies around the new understanding of terrorists. Since the mid-1990s, a new terrorism movie has come out about every year or two.
Still, it's surprising that there haven't been more, especially where terrorist groups have been exposed or hunted down. This has happened with government operations in several countries. Most notable have been the U.S., England and France. The public appeal seems mixed from the films that have been made. It could be that much of the public doesn't want to be reminded of the real horror of terrorism that takes place somewhere around the world nearly every week.
One can't imagine why governments wouldn't want films made about their efforts and methods in finding and taking down terrorist forces. It would seem to be a reassurance and calming factor for the public. So, there may be other reasons why Hollywood hasn't explored this genre in more depth and with more films.
Terrorist films were almost unknown before the 1960s. The few that were made mostly were about individual acts of terrorism. The most common of those was a rash of airplane hijackings into the 1970s. But since the rise of global terrorism by organized groups, mostly from the Middle East and Asia, Hollywood began to make movies around the new understanding of terrorists. Since the mid-1990s, a new terrorism movie has come out about every year or two.
Still, it's surprising that there haven't been more, especially where terrorist groups have been exposed or hunted down. This has happened with government operations in several countries. Most notable have been the U.S., England and France. The public appeal seems mixed from the films that have been made. It could be that much of the public doesn't want to be reminded of the real horror of terrorism that takes place somewhere around the world nearly every week.
One can't imagine why governments wouldn't want films made about their efforts and methods in finding and taking down terrorist forces. It would seem to be a reassurance and calming factor for the public. So, there may be other reasons why Hollywood hasn't explored this genre in more depth and with more films.
This movie gets worse by the minute
green-3366314 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
How can decent actors accept to be in such a horrible movie? Morgan Freeman must have lost a bet to play a role in this movie. So much crap happens in this movie that basically needs the viewer to remove 99% of any kind of logical thinking. So the UK police, special forces, and military can easily be compromised according to this movie, and in front of real officers who are standing right next to them without wondering, hey who the heck are these guys? Bombs can be placed in every famous building without anyone noticing. Hundreds of bad guys can take over a city and have no army come in to confront them. The solution they found to deal with weading out the imposter forces, recall all the known good forces to sit inside while the bad ones can go about doing their terrorizing. WTF, directors, writers, who did they poll this movie in front of and had a response of "yeah this all makes sense". To be left with a feeling of not just wasting time watching the movie (even with forwarding scenes), and then being left with a feeling of how can smart people make such crap, is enough to leave the brain broken. I thought an IMDb rating of 6+ would be a watchable B movie, but this is not even close to watchable, how did this movie not get an avg rating of 3?!!! If you've seen it and liked it, think about this movie with a bit of logic, if you haven't seen it, don't, just don't, unless you enjoy feeling frustrated by stupid things that happen in movies.
Good old fashioned Shoot em up - fun to watch (Guilty Pleasure)
DaScoop14 June 2016
Is the plot stupid and unbelievable? Yes
Is the acting predictably shallow? Yes
But was it fun to watch? You bet it was.
I'm sorry all the moral apologists want to tag this movie with some underlying meaning or propaganda message but this is not journalism or a dissertation... IT IS AN ACTION MOVIE! I came in with no filters expecting to see a good shoot em up movie and I got exactly what I expected. I knew the characters from the first one and didn't need the time wasted on re-establishing their characters. The movie was almost constant (even implausible) action in a haphazard script that requires you suspend common sense at times.
Were there stereotypes? Oh yeah.
Were there cliche's for dialogue? throughout
But the bottom line is that I was entertained enough to have watched it more than once and that is all I care about when I see this type of movie. Understand what it is and what it is not and if it draws your interest, I'll bet you like it like a guilty pleasure. So I give this film a thumbs up, despite of all those reviews before me that ripped it apart piece by piece while missing the whole point of seeing a movie like this.
Is the acting predictably shallow? Yes
But was it fun to watch? You bet it was.
I'm sorry all the moral apologists want to tag this movie with some underlying meaning or propaganda message but this is not journalism or a dissertation... IT IS AN ACTION MOVIE! I came in with no filters expecting to see a good shoot em up movie and I got exactly what I expected. I knew the characters from the first one and didn't need the time wasted on re-establishing their characters. The movie was almost constant (even implausible) action in a haphazard script that requires you suspend common sense at times.
Were there stereotypes? Oh yeah.
Were there cliche's for dialogue? throughout
But the bottom line is that I was entertained enough to have watched it more than once and that is all I care about when I see this type of movie. Understand what it is and what it is not and if it draws your interest, I'll bet you like it like a guilty pleasure. So I give this film a thumbs up, despite of all those reviews before me that ripped it apart piece by piece while missing the whole point of seeing a movie like this.
Really bad
chrisst417 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
In a nutshell: Supposed best of the 'land of free' (the sunny place where everyone is happy and waves their spangley flag) come over to the London (where is constantly rains and everyone is incompetent and rather sad). London is blown-up but that's OK because they end- up single-handedly saving the most important person in the world (the US President of course) - so everything is fine! They do this by using a lot of fairly bad CGI and applying a script of continuous, cheesy one liners.
The script is predictable and from the start full of hypocrisy. Where did the big, bad arms dealer get his weapons in the first place? Emmm... tough one that! You are constantly left wondering who is the real baddie in this movie especially when Gerald and co. rattle-off their crass one-liners!
Summary: Avoid at all costs.
The script is predictable and from the start full of hypocrisy. Where did the big, bad arms dealer get his weapons in the first place? Emmm... tough one that! You are constantly left wondering who is the real baddie in this movie especially when Gerald and co. rattle-off their crass one-liners!
Summary: Avoid at all costs.
Same old story. Rating goes to gerald
shashankpatel-3736928 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Pretty much the same story, like london has fallen. with not much of a difference in the plot. The president gets attacked and it's best agent becomes the victim of a larger plan where he fights against all the odds to prevent the innocence and save the president at the same time.
London has fallen and your critical thinking might too
michaellyon14 April 2016
Hello everybody,
I've just created my account on this website because of this one. I felt it was important for me to write a couple of lines about this movie.
Unfortunately, while the title may seem interesting, I can't say the same about the film. Indeed, it's not a real movie in the proper sense of the term, it's a propaganda campaign.
a patriot secret service agent, Gerard butler, saving the life of his beloved president while fighting the bad guys with a beard and some black skin they call terrorists.
Just take a look at it, it won't take long before you understand exactly what I mean. I never thought they would release something like that, but they did.
this should be studied at school as a tool used to brainwash people. but if you are a patriot and think that America is heaven, ready to give your life for your president, if you like closing your eyes while you're screwed by some politicians and if you think that everybody else who doesn't accept your opinion should die, then it might be the "movie" you 've been looking for.
I've just created my account on this website because of this one. I felt it was important for me to write a couple of lines about this movie.
Unfortunately, while the title may seem interesting, I can't say the same about the film. Indeed, it's not a real movie in the proper sense of the term, it's a propaganda campaign.
a patriot secret service agent, Gerard butler, saving the life of his beloved president while fighting the bad guys with a beard and some black skin they call terrorists.
Just take a look at it, it won't take long before you understand exactly what I mean. I never thought they would release something like that, but they did.
this should be studied at school as a tool used to brainwash people. but if you are a patriot and think that America is heaven, ready to give your life for your president, if you like closing your eyes while you're screwed by some politicians and if you think that everybody else who doesn't accept your opinion should die, then it might be the "movie" you 've been looking for.
Really It belts us with the Seat
Aayush_Shah26 October 2017
Aah really!
I firstly thought of this movie as a disaster in London and the survival of those people and much more like San Andreas ....
But what! Really !
Movie was not just going it was just making me experience about that tight situation!
No Time pass in a single scene and full thriller movie that I've seen in 2017...( I'm late to watch it...) And sometimes it really makes me to recall WHITE HOUSE DOWN... I don't know why I love like this movie.. may be they are made for Survival for US/UK president or something other.
Full time it made us to get belted on a seat and not in a single scene it allow us to think about it and grab a corn in our mouth. REALLY REALLY BEST THRILLER. And yeah it is not to enjoy... Just feel that situation yaar! It was not for fun only... And the role of Mike! Aah really he worked hard and looking a real agent. the awkwardness of President was real and you can just feel that man! Don't enjoy is only that " Hey that firing and grenade and that all stuff"..
But,
What if that can be real?
(We know London is always ready for it.. but IT may happen- It can't be avoided")
And in short... It was just Tight movie
I firstly thought of this movie as a disaster in London and the survival of those people and much more like San Andreas ....
But what! Really !
Movie was not just going it was just making me experience about that tight situation!
No Time pass in a single scene and full thriller movie that I've seen in 2017...( I'm late to watch it...) And sometimes it really makes me to recall WHITE HOUSE DOWN... I don't know why I love like this movie.. may be they are made for Survival for US/UK president or something other.
Full time it made us to get belted on a seat and not in a single scene it allow us to think about it and grab a corn in our mouth. REALLY REALLY BEST THRILLER. And yeah it is not to enjoy... Just feel that situation yaar! It was not for fun only... And the role of Mike! Aah really he worked hard and looking a real agent. the awkwardness of President was real and you can just feel that man! Don't enjoy is only that " Hey that firing and grenade and that all stuff"..
But,
What if that can be real?
(We know London is always ready for it.. but IT may happen- It can't be avoided")
And in short... It was just Tight movie
What's With The Left Wing Diatribe?
dnacowboys16 April 2016
This was a fun, action packed movie, that's it. The photography was stunning, the plot laid out in a geopolitically realistic fashion and no money was spared on urban combat scenes.
What astonishes me, is all the left-wing hate. The film does not break any political conventions, nor promotes a singular right wing view of the world. However, what London Has Fallen does do is reflect the dangers of the modern world in relation to terrorism. Perhaps, liberal progressives don't like being reminded of terrorism or have some strange hatred towards strong, white role models. Perhaps, their white guilt led them to view the movie through some sort of twisted ideological lens, problem is, it's just a movie, a simply laid out, action-packed film, somewhat reminiscent of the great action movies of our past.
All in all, a strong 7.
What astonishes me, is all the left-wing hate. The film does not break any political conventions, nor promotes a singular right wing view of the world. However, what London Has Fallen does do is reflect the dangers of the modern world in relation to terrorism. Perhaps, liberal progressives don't like being reminded of terrorism or have some strange hatred towards strong, white role models. Perhaps, their white guilt led them to view the movie through some sort of twisted ideological lens, problem is, it's just a movie, a simply laid out, action-packed film, somewhat reminiscent of the great action movies of our past.
All in all, a strong 7.
Textbook Example Of How One Single { Truly 👾 } Racist Word , And A - ( Completely ) - Predictable Ending , Can All But Wreck An Otherwise { Very 💥❗} Thrilling Film
Radio-1s_Mr-MovieMad-Ami_104-1FM13 January 2020
A { ' micro ' } DVD-review .
Let me get straight to the point . " f...headistan " . ( The word is Clearly Audible at exactly 00 hours, 48 minutes, & 40 seconds ) . This tragic utterance, commissioned by none other than Gerard Butler's modern day "Swashbuckler" & U.S Presidential "Super bodyguard" Mike Banning, changed the movie for me. And not in a very pleasant way, at that. Occurring shortly before the 'halfway' mark, it is said to one of the Primary Antagonists in the story, and said to him.. { solely } ...on account of his perceived ethnic identity .
Banning consequently goes on to torture and viciously murder this character right before the somewhat "naively unbelieving" eyes of a seemingly shell shocked Aaron Eckhart, playing an 'alternately fiesty and coy' President Benjamin Asher. In a later scene he once again { ->- Very ->- } Brutally tortures a 'terrorist' for some Very Urgently needed "vital & actionable intelligence", almost to the point of death, & has to be physically restrained by operatives of the elite British 'S.A.S' Special Forces who arrive on the scene { just } in the nick of time. The way I see it, Mike Banning proves, unequivocally, that he can be ' Just As Vile, Cold Blooded, & Outright Unhinged ' ...{ ->- if not " More " ->- }.... as the purported 'terrorists' that he and his close friend, the U.S President, were up against .
The actual truth of the matter is, in fact, that the actual depiction of the 'Blitzkrieg' ( from the German WWII strategic term of reference meaning 'Lightning Warfare' ) Style " Full Frontal Assault " on the English Capital was nothing short of { Brilliant }, as were so many, many ( Other ) aspects of the film, as well. Now, I most definitely understand how deadlines, contracts, spur of the moment ideas, multiple input sources ..& the like... might play into the ultimate output of ( Any ) high wire action film on ( this ) magnitude, but even having said that :
" Dear Gerard Butler, you Co - Produced this picture. You should ->- { Never ⛔ } ->- have let ' that ' word stay in the final cut. That, & . . ( Of Course ) . . . there's that ' Super Predictable ' ending. I am indeed, ' Super Disappointed ' in you " .
Ergo : What ' Could ' Have Been A { Full Score } From Me... Is Now, Very Sadly ....Just 5.50 Marks Out Of 10. What Can I Say ? Why , " Viva - la - f...headistan , Of Course ⭐ 😬❗" .
Let me get straight to the point . " f...headistan " . ( The word is Clearly Audible at exactly 00 hours, 48 minutes, & 40 seconds ) . This tragic utterance, commissioned by none other than Gerard Butler's modern day "Swashbuckler" & U.S Presidential "Super bodyguard" Mike Banning, changed the movie for me. And not in a very pleasant way, at that. Occurring shortly before the 'halfway' mark, it is said to one of the Primary Antagonists in the story, and said to him.. { solely } ...on account of his perceived ethnic identity .
Banning consequently goes on to torture and viciously murder this character right before the somewhat "naively unbelieving" eyes of a seemingly shell shocked Aaron Eckhart, playing an 'alternately fiesty and coy' President Benjamin Asher. In a later scene he once again { ->- Very ->- } Brutally tortures a 'terrorist' for some Very Urgently needed "vital & actionable intelligence", almost to the point of death, & has to be physically restrained by operatives of the elite British 'S.A.S' Special Forces who arrive on the scene { just } in the nick of time. The way I see it, Mike Banning proves, unequivocally, that he can be ' Just As Vile, Cold Blooded, & Outright Unhinged ' ...{ ->- if not " More " ->- }.... as the purported 'terrorists' that he and his close friend, the U.S President, were up against .
The actual truth of the matter is, in fact, that the actual depiction of the 'Blitzkrieg' ( from the German WWII strategic term of reference meaning 'Lightning Warfare' ) Style " Full Frontal Assault " on the English Capital was nothing short of { Brilliant }, as were so many, many ( Other ) aspects of the film, as well. Now, I most definitely understand how deadlines, contracts, spur of the moment ideas, multiple input sources ..& the like... might play into the ultimate output of ( Any ) high wire action film on ( this ) magnitude, but even having said that :
" Dear Gerard Butler, you Co - Produced this picture. You should ->- { Never ⛔ } ->- have let ' that ' word stay in the final cut. That, & . . ( Of Course ) . . . there's that ' Super Predictable ' ending. I am indeed, ' Super Disappointed ' in you " .
Ergo : What ' Could ' Have Been A { Full Score } From Me... Is Now, Very Sadly ....Just 5.50 Marks Out Of 10. What Can I Say ? Why , " Viva - la - f...headistan , Of Course ⭐ 😬❗" .
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
