London Has Fallen (2016)

Sexton finds the sequel a zestful, briskly made action film, despite its silliness and inauthenticity. He praises its exciting chases and fights, along with its gleeful destruction of London landmarks.

Schager calls it a brash, brutal, simplistic throwback that delivers its mayhem with punishing precision. He praises the visceral staging of the action, especially a prolonged single-take street sequence.

McCarthy finds the film an effective, fast-moving action sequel that gets the job done. He praises Babak Najafi’s hard-driving pace and tone, while noting that the visual effects are merely adequate.

The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint can be verified from the supplied content.

The page identifies this as Screen Daily’s review, but its verdict is unavailable in the accessible text. No specific element of the film is available to report as praised or criticized.

The supplied page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no readable review text from which to identify what the critic praised or criticized.

The critic describes the film as an equally ludicrous sequel to Olympus Has Fallen. It follows Gerard Butler saving London from terrorists.

Gonzalez finds the film a dumb, politically shallow imitation of an imitation, though its action is kinetic. He singles out Butler’s nimble physicality and Najafi’s energetic staging of the chases.

The critic gives the sequel a poor verdict, finding its violence nasty and its destruction reliant on below-par CGI. They single out the tense build-up as a strength before the attack overwhelms it.

Bradshaw finds the sequel repetitive and cheap-looking, despite some surreal fun as London’s landmarks and dignitaries are attacked. He singles out the bromance between Gerard Butler and Aaron Eckhart, while criticizing the digital effects.

The critic calls the film bloodthirsty, derivative, xenophobic, and ultimately boring. He singles out its implausible, CGI-heavy massacre and bland, formulaic action for criticism.

Thomas gives the film a strongly negative verdict, calling its plotting exceptionally foolish. He particularly criticizes the implausible, city-wide attack and Banning’s relentless violence.

Abele condemns the film as a reactionary, by-the-numbers slog aimed at angry conspiracy theorists. He particularly faults its incoherent action and its simplistic portrayal of geopolitical conflict.

Vishnevetsky condemns the film as an inept, xenophobic action movie. He singles out its incoherent action and cheap-looking reliance on stock footage for particular criticism.

Lodge pans the sequel as crude, xenophobic, and poorly made, arguing that its action and flag-waving lack craft or insight. He singles out Gerard Butler as the film’s most committed performer, though even that praise is qualified by the material he serves.

The critic finds the film watchable but less adventurous than its predecessor, with its exaggerated action keeping it from becoming unbearably political. They praise the surprisingly accurate London geography, while faulting the narrow focus on the president amid widespread destruction.

Brew calls it a poor, disappointing sequel that wastes its budget and offers little tension or character. He singles out Gerard Butler’s committed, blunt performance for generating the few laughs and lifting the film somewhat.

The critic finds the sequel appalling and a throwback to jingoistic, morally simplistic action cinema. He particularly condemns its gleeful violence and stereotyping, despite a brief attempt to give the antagonists some nuance.

Hammond finds the sequel boring, predictable, and largely an excuse for implausible nonstop action. He praises Gerard Butler’s action-star presence and the diverse casting, but regrets that the talented supporting actors are stuck with clichés.

The critic is negative, finding the sequel derivative and its action too implausible to overlook. They acknowledge that the film moves briskly enough to keep viewers awake, but fault it for failing to conceal its plot absurdities.

Colburn condemns the film as alarmist, jingoistic, and ugly, arguing that it celebrates violence without meaningful reflection. He singles out Waleed Zuaiter’s ability to find pathos in a thinly written character, while criticizing the film’s visuals and shallow treatment of its subject.

The critic pans the film as a disastrous, incoherent sequel. They single out its implausible revenge plot and excessive violence for particular criticism.