Invasão a Casa Branca

If you live long enough you'll notice something funny about the way movies are made in Hollywood. Every once in a while, particularly during summer months when studios are rolling out their blockbuster hopefuls, you'll see a couple of movies released that seem to be mirror images of one-another. Not exactly the same, but similar enough that it seems like they must have some common ancestor.

The reason why this happens is pretty straight forward and has to do with the unusual way the movie industry works. Often, the scripts for movies aren't developed in-house by the studios, but rather purchased from freelance writers who come up with an idea and then "pitch" it to multiple studios looking for a buyer.

The process works for both the writers and the studios. There is a catch, however, which is that the person pitching relies upon a studio honoring an informal agreement not to use an idea without compensating the creator. The problem is that less scrupulous studio executives will have no problem passing on an idea and then blatantly copying it for their own movie. And even though everyone involved knows what's happening, it's pretty rare for anyone to actually sue over it, so it tends to keep happening.

A famous example of this (famous in the relative sense) happened with the movies 'Deep Impact' and 'Armageddon'. The original author who pitched 'Deep Impact' watched a studio exec take copious notes during the pitch, pass on it, and then rush to create a script and get his ripped off version made in time to compete with 'Deep Impact', which was purchased by another studio.

This usually happens when someone creates a script that captures the zeitgeist; that taps into an idea that just clicks with what people are talking and thinking about and it becomes the "must have" idea of the year.

Unless you're an industry insider, it can be difficult to know which movie was the original concept and which was the ripoff, but generally the original idea will be more polished and well thought out. 'Armageddon', for example, famously had such huge plot holes that the cast was complaining about them during filming.

'Olympus Has Fallen' (OHF) came out around the same time as 'White House Down' (WHD). Both movies feature an attack on the white house with an invading force, aided by a turncoat secret service agent, conquering the presidential security in an attempt to take him hostage. Both movies also have a protagonist who isn't secret service, but has some connection to the agency and ultimately proves that he deserves to be guarding the president. Both movies involve protecting a child caught in the crossfire. Both have failed attempts by special forces to re-take the building. Both involve explosions that destroy the building. Both movies involve forcing a change to foreign policy. And so on, you get the idea.

I don't know which was the original, but I have a guess. The movies were made during the presidency of Barack Obama. After he was elected, there was a lot of speculation about whether he would be the subject of an assassination attempt. To African Americans Obama represented an almost unbelievable event: one of their own elected to the most powerful office in the nation. And there was a great deal of angst about losing him violently, the way a number of prominent black leaders had been lost in the past. I think that was the kernel that sparked the original screenplay; this clash of the old power base and the new one in the symbolic seat of national power.

To my mind, WHD was the liberal take on the idea while OHF was the conservative counter. WHD featured a charismatic black president clearly modeled after Obama, right down to his attempts to quit smoking. The villains are white supremacist types backed by the old-guard military industrial complex who are fearful of the changes the president was making to foreign policy. And the protagonist is a millennial trying to prove he was worthy of the responsibility of protecting the president, perhaps an analogy for the young political activists that brought new methods of campaigning to Obama's election.

OHF, by contrast, features a white male president with villains who were almost exclusively Asian, and rather than representing the supporters of the status quo they are actively looking to tear down American force abroad, suggesting that the bad guys can't stand how effective the traditional American foreign policy is. In other words, the message is "we are winning and they are getting desperate". Even the protagonist is more representative of the target audience: a middle-aged man with a penchant for defiantly vowing to destroy the villains and defend our way of life.

Neither movie is particularly deep; it's mostly about the action sequences. In other words, these are popcorn movies. But I do think it's interesting how two such similar base ideas can manifest such different messages. While WHD is about the (then) rising tide of the progressive political movement and the supposed fear within groups that traditionally held power in the US, OHF is all about the traditional conservative message of Jingoism and the need to protect ourselves from the parts of the world that don't share our values.

Whatever the case may be, OHF was successful enough to green light a second film 'London Has Fallen', which is a continuation of the themes, only with (primarily) middle-eastern villains instead of Asian ones, and an upcoming 'Angel Has Fallen'. Personally, I thought OHF was decent but unspectacular. I enjoyed it enough when I saw it on HBO or Netflix or wherever, but I probably wouldn't pay to see it in the theater.

We've asked for a real Die Hard movie, for a very long time.

We've asked for a real R rated action movie, for a while.

We've asked for a decent and crazy actioner for a long time.

There you have it. Olympus Has Fallen is the movie that has everything you were waiting to see. Thankfully, Bruce Willis is on vacation ( just like he claimed several times, in Die Hard 5). So, he is nowhere to be seen, thankfully. We have a good amount of violence, shootouts and action.

It's important and really honest if you like the movie for what it is, a fun, crazy and silly action movie with some good lines and some good acting. So, like it for what it is, but don't hate it for what it isn't. It's not meant to be a serious, edgy and visceral movie. It's Die Hard in White House, plain and simple.

You'll find the same old plot holes that similar movies had, but don't be scared. The flaws won't take away the fun you'll have with the flick.

The movie is not for kids or babies. It's very violent and they don't hold any punch regarding the display of violence and brutality on screen. Woman, men, that doesn't matter. Headshots, impalings, explosions and lots of deaths. That's about it.

Don't walk to the cinema, expecting to see a serious and complex thriller. This is a action movie that doesn't stop until its ending. You have 25 minutes of "building up" and after that, the action is pretty much nonstop.

Yeah, you'll see patriotism, but then again, a movie about the White Houlse wouldn't forget anything about it.

Finally: Go watch it for the action and some of the acting.

Review: I quite enjoyed this Die Hard in the White House type of movie, but it doesn't have the wit and cockiness of Bruce Willis. That not to say that Gerard Butler didn't do a bad job, and its good to see him taking a break from them annoying Rom-Com's. The storyline is quite good and there is loads of action from beginning to end, which makes it feel shorter than 2 hours. The ending is a bit corny, and I'm sure that the body count is more than Rambo, but that's what makes the movie enjoyable. You can definitely tell we're the $70 million budget went with all of the explosions and plane crashes which looked pretty impressive. Enjoyable!

Round-Up: After watching Morgan Freeman in Oblivion, the make up team obviously went for the old look because he looks like he needs to make another bucket list. Gerard Butler really did buff up for this film and he does pull off the whole action hero thing. I also liked the guy who played the villain because he was quite cool and collected and he never got excited, even tough he was going to blow up America. All of the other actors seemed to be dropping like flies throughout the movie but its a great watch.

Budget: $70million Worldwide Gross: $161million

I recommend this movie to people who like there political action movies with a Die Hard concept!. 7/10

Forget airs and graces here: OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN is a straightforward siege-based action flick, heavily indebted to DIE HARD and its ilk, offering maximum thrills and spills and little else besides. It's hardly a thinking man's movie but it does ably do what it sets out to do, which is to offer plenty of action, high stakes and suspense.

The story is, in essence, DIE HARD in the White House and there's no more or less to it than that. Gerard Butler is good value in the action stakes (as we already know from 300, so it's a shame he's been wasting away in dumb rom-coms ever since) and the intricate plot sees a huge squad of terrorists kidnapping the President (an unlikely Aaron Eckhart), leaving Butler the only man on the ground with the power to stop them.

The action consists of a handful of brutal hand-to-hand fights and shoot-outs augmented with some CGI stuff of plane attacks and missiles; the CGI isn't great but it's better than you'd find in a B-movie at least. Morgan Freeman shows up as one of those guys whose business it is is to offer sage advice and look worried in equal measure, while Rick Yune tackles the role of lead North Korean terrorist with relish.

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN isn't perfect by any means; it's occasionally cheesy, occasionally silly, and mostly far-fetched. It could also do with some more action, what there is is a little limited considering the running time of two hours. But it IS a perfect piece of action entertainment, the kind of switch-off-the-brain fun that I look out for in a movie.

I find it ironic that Gerard Butler, a Scotsman, as disgraced Secret Agent Mike Banning, embodies the spirit of John McClane much more than Bruce Willis did in that last dreadful outing. If anything, Butler has done nothing more than to cement his reputation as a bankable and likable action hero for the new generation in this old-school action movie. He has a commanding presence on-screen, quips wisecracks, bleeds when it's crucial, and dispatches the bad guys in a methodical cross between Jason Bourne and John Rambo. Not even the fine supporting cast (Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Angela Bassett, Robert Forster, Melissa Leo, Dylan McDermott) can take away Butler's limelight.

Indeed, Antoine Fuqua's "Olympus Has Fallen" is not only terrific entertainment but a terrific throwback to the pivotal 90's action movie, the Die Hard clone - and this film ("Die Hard" in the White House) is another reminder of why the trusted formula works, even if it has been dormant for nearly two decades (the last good big one being Peter Hyams' "Sudden Death").

From the moment the film's main action start, the film doesn't stop running. The bad guys, hoo boy do they mean business. Rarely, if at all, have I seen this much brutal collateral damage in an American action film. Americans citizens get mowed down by bullets from ground and air forces. The all-American (Scottish) hero represents freedom and justice, and the bad guys represent every American's worst nightmare. I haven't seen this much political incorrectness since "The Delta Force". Having said that, Rick Yune surprisingly makes for an effective and nasty villain, who is relentlessly cold, smug and procedural in his mission, following the formula perfectly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's fast, it's loud, it's preposterous, and yet I enjoyed every minute of it. The film is chock-full of sensational and well-shot action sequences/special effects, but its biggest strength is its cohesion. From start to finish the plot moves smoothly, and you can tell who the good guys and the bad guys are. The characters are established, their motives clear, and that's that. The action sequences do not simply skip to each other, they flow perfectly like a stream, thanks to crisp editing. Simplicity is key here, and convoluted plots do not fit in the formula (hear that, "Die Hard 5"?)

Fuqua is no stranger to action, having helmed the solid "Shooter" six years ago. Here he ratchets up the action up to a 10 (CGI is present but used reasonably), and he remarkably doesn't hold back on the tension. It's no "Training Day", but it more or less hearkens back to an Antoine Fuqua who made "The Replacement Killers". Just thrilling fun.

Of course the plot isn't original. It's a genre picture, and what I pay to see in a genre picture is its skillful craft and cohesive plot. This film has both, and resurrects the Die Hard clone from the grave. Here I thought I was getting bored of action movies. The genre is dying, you say? Here's a solid kicker.