Skip to main content

The fact is, every single one of these guys is a terrorist asshole until proven otherwise.

London Has Fallen
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Rightly deplored for its bare-faced xenophobia, the real mark against London Has Fallen is that it’s relentlessly, inanely leaden. For a movie full of explosive fury and awash with head shots (Mike Banning never misses, even when he’s not trying too hard), director Babak Najafi does a very good job ensuring no one cares. Say what you will about the also-highly-objectionable Olympus Has Fallen, it at least had forward momentum, pace and – in all its neck snapping glee – attitude. This is closer to a bland, unfussy 24 knock-off, pushing the same kind of hasty made-for-TV approach but with even less attempt to disguise its jingoistic fervour.


What the hell do they make Gerard Butler’s Mike Banning from? Bourbon (I’m guessing not the biscuits) and poor choices, it seems. Which is presumably the mantra of returning screenwriters Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedict (both equipped with a great many teeth); also credited are Christian Gudegast and Chad St. John (the latter helping ensure the return of Xander Cage is something phenomenal, so satisfying the hundreds of millions who have been demanding it for more than a decade). 


Despite the unflinching manner in which evil terrorists pull out all the stops to blow the shit out of London and President Asher (Aaron Eckhart), we’re a good 20 minutes into this picture before anything of note happens, and then thoughts of how bereft it is are confirmed when an innocent child doesn’t blow up the German Chancellor with a flower (I mean, what a waste). It’s a small consolation that the said chancellor does indeed buy the farm soon after.


At least Banning is reliably, inconceivably politically incorrect, decapitating a terrorist on a pillar after the latter has the gall to swear at him (“Fuck me?!”) and his response to Asher noting he’s never seen a man strangled before (“I didn’t have a knife”) warrants a ghoulish chuckle. He even has some character development, since poor Radha Mitchell (poor, as in, has her career come to this?) is expecting his bibby (“Stay alive, you gotta see your kid” a dying Angela Bassett very unselfishly implores).


If London Has Fallen had a degree of self-awareness about how dreadful it is, it might have been moderately good fun. There is, in the mid-section, a certain unlikely, stark pointedness to its relentless distastefulness, taking in as it does the prevailing attitudes to those of Middle Eastern extraction (“The fact is, every single one of these guys is a terrorist asshole until proven otherwise”) and the old “no negotiations” attitude to terrorists (“That’s the sound of your brother dying” Banning announces to the leader; “Was that really necessary?” inquires the president. “No!” replies Banning – Ronnie would have approved). 


One might even see a commentary on the rise of ISIS from nowhere in Banning’s blasé “Why don’t you boys pick up your shit and head back to Fuckheadistan or wherever it is you’re from” (the bad guy, played by Alon Moni Aboutboul, is actually a Pakistani arms dealer). I half-hoped this would lead to the revelation that the terrorists were secretly working at the behest of bad seeds in the US government. If not Asher himself then Jackie Earle Haley. But no, the most shocking thing about London Has Fallen is that Haley plays a good guy!


The uptick doesn’t last long, however. London Has Fallen feels and looks cheap (it was quite cheap, so that’s alright, and going against the grain of sequels this year actually managed to make more than its predecessor worldwide), with a capital city so conveniently deserted, you’re half expecting Daleks to show up (now, that might have been interesting). Mind you, the prospect of a Prime Minister Clarkson would have anyone fleeing.


No one involved in this, pursuing a pay cheque, should feel very good about themselves, but one might suggest that it at least makes no fatuous plays towards moderation and seeing the “full picture” found in most hand-wringing War on Terror movies (whilst really reinforcing the current agenda). London Has Fallen isn’t terrible because of its political vacuity (at least, no more so than Olympus); it’s terrible because its ham-fisted in execution, dramatically incoherent and really quite boring. Except for that brief bit where Butler goes really kill-happy.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.