It seems like American movies sometimes feel the need to promote a sense of national pride that borders on ridiculous. “Olympus Has Fallen” managed to do that while still having some redeeming qualities; this one doesn’t achieve anything similar, instead portraying other countries—particularly Britain—in an unflattering light. It reinforces the idea that Americans believe their nation is superior and engage in competition with others in a way reminiscent of teenagers comparing… well, you understand the comparison. This film serves as a sequel to “Olympus” and depicts how the American president narrowly escapes a terrorist attack that feels more like an act of war. The plot is so predictable—it’s hardly a spoiler to say this—that you can anticipate what will happen almost from the moment you begin watching! Terrorists launch an assault on Western leaders gathered in London for a state funeral, and it's portrayed as though security agencies were completely caught off guard. As expected, the Queen and the entire Windsor family are spared, remaining untouched by the attacks and continuing their tea time at Buckingham Palace without even appearing onscreen. On the other hand, there’s the somewhat amusing detail of the French president meeting an unfortunate end in the River Thames; though, considering the ongoing protests in France, perhaps they aren't mourning his loss. I realize I’m being overly sarcastic, but it’s difficult to watch this movie without feeling a sense of offense. The film’s portrayal of the United States as exceptional while diminishing other allied nations—direct competitors in defense and economics like Canada, Germany, the UK, France, Japan, and Italy—makes you almost want to witness American failures, which, unfortunately, sometimes happens in reality. It's jarring to see international leaders casually strolling about when they would normally be surrounded by security; it’s a very inaccurate depiction of how these events are handled. But it’s probably unrealistic to expect a film like this to care about something as trivial and unimportant as believability. When there's plenty of action and a major city is destroyed with the same ease as a village in Syria or Afghanistan, does it truly matter if any of it makes sense? They could have even included Mickey Mouse wielding a machine gun! Who would notice? Regarding the cast… what can be said? It’s safe to assume they were well-compensated and that the film significantly boosted their bank accounts, especially for Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, and Gerard Butler, who seemed to require minimal effort in portraying their characters. Even considering that Freeman is the standout performer, he doesn't come close to showcasing his full range of talent, which speaks volumes about the overall quality of the acting. The film attempts various strategies to entertain but falls short. The weak dialogue and clumsy efforts at humor would have warranted a slap on the wrist for the screenwriter, who apparently assumed that we, the audience, lacked intelligence. The action sequences are loud, with Americans running around London like cowboys shooting and destroying things, yet the special effects and CGI are surprisingly poor. Editing is another issue: unlike the previous film, which immediately plunged viewers into the action without much buildup, this one drags on unnecessarily in its introduction. Who cares if the Canadian Prime Minister’s daughter fails her driving test or if the German Chancellor prefers men in uniform? And if Freeman's character enjoys fishing so much, he could head to New Bedford, Massachusetts, and buy himself the biggest boat available.

Source on TMDB