MovieChat Forums > London Has Fallen (2016) Discussion > How are the Americans "good guys" in thi...

How are the Americans "good guys" in this movie?


In the very first scenes of the movie the Americans bombed a wedding or a party, killing 100+ people to take out one guy. Now I do realize that this is a movie and I won't claim that these things happen in real life all the time, even though I am sure it has happened. Anyways if they do it in the movie once like they did I am sure that in the movie they have done it before and after.
And then they are the bad guys for wanting to take revenge? Really?

If this was a movie where the roles were switched and the terrorists planted a bomb somewhere in the US, killing 100+ people than revenge would be justified. Anything the Americans do to the government of the country responsible would be ok and justified. Hypocritical much?

Now I don't mean to make a movie like this political. It's not really suppose to be that. It's just suppose to be a fun action movie. I get that. But it's hard when you see this propaganda movie where Americans rock and the UK can't even assemble their army for some reason.

reply

Well lets see:

1. They have killed a known arms dealer that is 6th most wanted person in the world.

2. They have stopped at least in part a terrorist plot to kill US president.

3. They have eliminated the terrorists with some help from British secret service (though if you look at the action scene closely the secret service mostly rush in and die rather than be effective).

4. They have killed that arms dealer AGAIN.

Now to adress your concerns. The wedding party was held by a family that openly supported and protected an international arms dealer wanted by western world. They were hardly innocent. Though in reality the missile would not have caused anywhere near that kind of damage (explosion CGI was vastly exaggerated throughout the whole movie)

If the terrorists only plotted to kill the person that authorized the strike - sure i could understand your point. but they decided to take revenge on the leaders of entire western world, most of whom had nothing to do with it and even do not participate in the war on terror at all.



------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.

reply

Though in reality the missile would not have caused anywhere near that kind of damage (explosion CGI was vastly exaggerated throughout the whole movie)


I would also argue, that the guy who spotted the arms dealer would have send in, that the attack would not be safe.

They droned a hospital by mistake and it was press for a week. Imagine the press if they did this really. And no, I'm not talking western press. The foreign press would eat this up.

reply

Well the guy who spotted it did not in fact notify them it was not safe. Also like i argued in the beginning, the family supported the arms dealer and were hardly innocent bystanders being hit. This is some rich folks harboring prisoners, not a hospital being bombed type of situation. The press would have been far less severe (especially since this was supposed to be a secret operation, so most things wont even be known by the press) than the hospital case. And even in the hospital case the press droned for a week and nothing changed.

------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.

reply

December 29, 2001,Paktia Province, Afghanistan (more than 100 revelers die in a village in Eastern Afghanistan after an attack by B-52 and B-1B bombers);

May 17, 2002, Khost Province, Afghanistan (at least ten Afghans in a wedding celebration die when US helicopters and planes attack a village);

July 1, 2002, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan (at least thirty, and possibly forty, celebrants die when attacked by a B-52 bomber and an AC-130 helicopter);

May 20, 2004, Mukaradeeb, Iraq (at least forty-two dead, including “27 members of the [family hosting the wedding ceremony], their wedding guests, and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony” in an attack by American jets);

July 6, 2008, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (at least forty-seven dead, thirty-nine of them women and children, including the bride, among a party escorting that bride to the groom’s house—from a missile attack by jet aircraft);

August 2008, Laghman Province, Afghanistan (sixteen killed, including twelve members of the family hosting the wedding, in an attack by “American bombers”);

June 8, 2012, Logar Province, Afghanistan (eighteen killed, half of them children, when Taliban fighters take shelter amid a wedding party. This was perhaps the only case among the eight wedding incidents in which the United States offered an apology).]

reply

These facts are awful. No two ways about it. Awful.
And it's no cliche that war is hell. 'War' in this context is what this whole debate really revolves around.
I was very surprised this film flirted with the 'collateral damage' of drone strikes. It was like the film wanted to make a point about them but, actually, didn't really want to stand up and be counted by condemning them. In this fiction it got a WHOLE HEAP of World Leaders (come on Japan, you can't get a police escort so your PM doesn't get stuck in traffic!??!) and a lot of innocents killed... By killing innocents...
The World Leader were what during 'The Troubles' here in Northern Ireland some groups called 'Legitimate Targets'. But the innocents.......? Well war, violence and hatred is cyclical and illogical.... And 'London Has Fallen' seemed like it wanted to explore that. Then M. Freeman droned the 'bad guy' at the end. This time I'm fairly sure the dialogue read as 'no civilians present' or similar but still. The Genova Convention rules that any sanction killing of a non-combatant is a crime against humanity. This film basked it those crimes. On both sides.
It flirted with making a point. A liberal point certainly. But a point nonetheless. Then it decided to be mindless action.

PS The SAS should have stormed the building as a distraction and killed tonnes of bad guys.

reply

Now let's list all the victims of the terrorists supported by these "innocent" people.

reply

Yeah, because people who hang out with terrorists are completely innocent. The Americans didn't intend to kill innocent bystanders when they tried to eliminate a terrorist who intentionally would've murdered hundreds of innocent people in the name of some dumbass religion. See the nuance???

reply

I agree. It wasn't as good as the first Olympus is fallen. It was rushed and not thought out.

reply