He Who Dares: Downing Street Siege (2014) User Reviews

More research needed by this production team

[geoff_rose · 2/10 · 7 April 2015]

I have to say that, as ex-forces myself, I spotted so many 'howlers' in this movie that these inaccuracies quite spoiled it for me. Not least of these was the uniform worn by "Major" Lowe - he's shown wearing corporal's stripes for goodness sake! A Major wears a crown on each epaulette - not ruddy stripes on his arm! Another anomaly which reared its ugly head in the prequel to this movie was the irritating use of the title "Detective", when addressing a DI or DS. I was amazed to learn that both Paul Tanter and Simon Philips (Director and Script Writer respectively) are British, as the use of "Detective" on its own is a distinct Americanism.

I've given this movie two stars because the plot and its action are quite good.

Oh dear oh dear....

[skinhead-5 · 2/10 · 7 January 2015]

Utterly appalling film with the effects of a Christmas toy thrown in. Not only has "No 10 has Fallen", but the cast, the acting and production has fallen! There is something about English films that we just call pull off like the Yanks. The wooden acting for starters and the stereotyping of English government official and the army. All the entire budget went into the odd bang, bit of tomato ketchup for blood and some real poor portrayal of the SAS. I ain't no SAS specialist but I was in the army and it's all just so badly put together. Scenes were badly constructed, dialogue was awful and those crap camera shake effects.

It would of been better if they waited for a few months to save up a bit more money for the budget!

Lets look at the positives

[markjtilbury · 2/10 · 20 May 2015]

Simon Phillips acting was very good along with a future star in Marissa Porter. In deed they looked to have stepped off a higher value movie.

I remember the Exploding downing street door from a vine on the internet some time ago related to safety in film production. But it did look bloody good.

Some of the writing was clever but it looked like a first draft not much research done.

if the production team read this. please don't make a third we don't need a British die hard trilogy set at these values.

If there is a next time please make sure you have a military consultant, there are plenty out there.

Terrible

[mal-durbin · 1/10 · 7 December 2014]

What a load of **** Terrible cinematography, acting and generally a waste of time The person who directed it does not have a clue about the SAS or security procedures and protocols in the UK. The ranks are all to pot as well. The hero "Lowe" is called major yet wears a rank of sergeant just gives you an idea of how terrible this really is. The filming of the choreography (Fighting scenes you can actually see that they did not make contact). was terrible. Don't waste your time watching it. The same goes for the prequel to this film. Effects used just gave me a headache is there really any need to zoom in an out as if it was video for a pop song badly edited. Terrible!

90 minutes of my life stolen from me!!

[harry5450 · 1/10 · 19 December 2014]

I would have given this film less if I could have! This is without a doubt the worst film I've ever seen. The acting in this film makes a Steve Segal movie look like an Oscar winner!!

Being ex-Forces I try not to pick out things that are incorrect in films however I couldn't stop myself on this occasion. They even got the most basic of things wrong, RANKS ffs you can google it in about 30 seconds. However the one of my biggest bugbears is COBRA! Why oh why use a picture of a cobra on the briefing screen??

Save yourself do not watch this film!!! You've already wasted too much time by reading this review!!

Avoid

[djmmccorkell · 1/10 · 29 December 2014]

Ever been sat at a bar and struck up a conversation with some social reject who swears he used to be in the SAS? When most likely the closest he ever got to the SAS was listening to an audiobook of an Andy McNab novel.

This is a film made by that guy, and it's about as believable as his barfly stories. Every single aspect of this is woeful.

The first 20-30 mins are nothing but a muddled recap of the previous film in the series, which I've had the good fortune of not seeing. Once the story finally begins, it's just one wooden scene after another with jarring video effects thrown in, trying (and failing) to make the on-screen action remotely interesting.

If you're even contemplating this as a dumb-but-fun action film -- don't. There's maybe 10 mins of action in the whole thing, and it's appallingly bad.

Walk away and go see a documentary on the Iranian Embassy siege, or many of the other fine drama-docs on the SAS that portray them as they are, and not this insult to their name.

Seriously? lol

[parodyreviews · 1/10 · 7 December 2014]

I can't believe how terrible this film is. The first "He Who Dares" was bad enough, then this filmmaker makes a follow up like this?! This is all about cashing in $$ and nothing else.

In the trailer they make out the SAS are in the film. They so ain't! This one dude, can't remember his name, was in the toilet when the goon squad arrive. HE was an ex SAS guy. But that was it.

Then we Salmon Flips (the pretend actor), who plays the lead character. He looks and sounds as if he's had a few lines too many of Lou Reed. What was that all about?!

The writing was atrocious. I've seen a few films now by Paul Talentless and Salmon Flips but this one could well be the worse riting one I hav seen in a real long time.

Not be missed ... NOT!

Bilge of the highest order

[truthspeaker-17825 · 17 May 2015]

More in the style to which we've become accustomed from Press On Features - a production company that sounds more like an attribute for a sanitary towel than a purveyor of cinematic works o' fart.

Many people criticise this film and its equally dire predecessor for their inaccurate representations of the SAS, but I say why stop there? These films have an entire cast of inaccurate representations of human beings.

The producers must be geniuses as they are constantly finding the cash (and, in parallel, hacking away at the integrity of British Independent film) to create a production line of the worst films the UK has ever shipped out.

Seriously, the script sounds like it was written by a teenage boy as a last-minute homework assignment. If any script consultants are ever used by this "writer/director" I would be astounded.

Every scene is packed with atrocious dialogue and it's patently obvious that the "writer/director" has stuffed words in the mouths of the characters in an attempt to justify how they are behaving rather than do a crumb of research. Unfortunately for him, nobody with even vague brain activity will buy how these characters behave.

This is a film that wants you to believe that eight armed people in fancy dress police uniforms can jump over the back wall of 10 Downing Street, indiscriminately shoot people and hold the PM hostage without being challenged.

The 1-dimensional villain is played by Simon Phillips - some guy who wants to be an actor and so produces films and puts himself in starring roles. His spectrum of characters vary from being a fat bloke with a beard to a bearded bloke who is fat.

The abysmally unimaginative direction attempts, and sorely fails, to be saved by an editor who has just discovered the effects panel in Final Cut Pro. Either that or he fell asleep on the keyboard. Constantly.

The action sequences are rubbish. The humour is poor. Quality is non-existent.

Even the wardrobe for every actor looks one size too big.

Oh, and one more thing - if you are trying to get us to believe that you're shooting outside 10 Downing Street, then at least get the right style of numerals on the door.

What a joke

[joey_joe_joe-34277 · 1/10 · 8 May 2015]

The worst film i've watched, the acting was horrendous, the story line was copied from other films, the entire film was packed with inaccuracies and the set looked more like Downton Abbey that 10 Downing Street. Don't waste your time on this film at all, it was frustrating to watch and a complete embarrassment for everyone involved. I'm surprised to learn that the film had a budget of £3million to be honest, it looked like it was made by a sixth form media student with no knowledge of the military in the UK at all. There were moments in the film where i found myself laughing at the awful quality of production and i can't imagine the actors and actresses in this movie will be successful in the future if this is the best they can do! What an absolute joke!

Wow - Can a movie be this bad

[kkinyua · 1/10 · 28 December 2014]

Never thought a movie could be this bad.Actually the worst movie that i have ever seen. I sure hope that this movie is nominated for the Rasberry awards - it would clean up at the awards. Worst acting, worst scenes, worst screen play, worst plot. The only upside is that you have to keep watching as you don't believe how bad the acting is.The filming of the choreography (Fighting scenes you can actually see that they did not make contact). was terrible. Don't waste your time watching it. The same goes for the prequel to this film. Effects used just gave me a headache is there really any need to zoom in an out as if it was video for a pop song badly edited. Terrible!

Simon F*cking Philips

[aamongman · 1/10 · 12 November 2015]

I don't usually write reviews, but for this very special film I'm going to make an exception.

'He Who Dares: Downing Street' is by far one of the most awful films I have ever seen. It has superseded many other terrible, terrible films because it is truly, genuinely dreadful. Most bad supposedly adrenaline-fuelling, action/crime films have some redeeming features but not this one (save a few glorious seconds towards the end I will elaborate upon), some actual entertainment value, even if it's just funny to laugh at.

It is no surprise that the plot is inconceivably bad, full of plot-holes and makes little sense throughout. The special effects are cringe-inducing - especially the blood whenever someone is shot, which is not infrequent in this horribly unoriginal shoot'em up - and the direction (combined with cinematography and plot) feels as if a particularly stupid 15 year old has just watched 'Die Hard' for the first time and written his own version set in Downing Street.

The acting deserves particular recognition. The almost universally miscast actors are reliably wooden, irritating and make already poorly written characters even more unlikeable than they already were. From the (obviously) Conservative MP whose last words are to call the main villain a 'Pleb' to the main villain himself; Simon F*cking Phillips.

Simon Phillips, who I last had the displeasure of watching in 'Meet the Firm: Revenge in Rio' is wholly awful. In-between bouts of not being very scary whilst threatening and murdering people he sometimes switches into 'comedian' mode, joking and wise-cracking (badly) whilst threatening and murdering people. Those few seconds of glory I mentioned before come when we witness Simon Phillips shot, not just once, but twice!!

Unoriginal, awful, just bad, 1/10

I WOULD KILL FOR A BANANA MILKSHAKE

[nogodnomasters · 9/10 · 9 September 2018]

Don't let my 9 stars fool you. I loved the film, most people won't like it as much as I do, considering the response from the first feature. The film opens with heavy flashbacks and news reports from the first film to help your memory, or in case you missed it. Our personable bad guy Alexander Holt (Simon Phillips) survives a bullet wound to the shoulder quiet well and is involved in an improbable rescue.

Meanwhile our hero Chris Lowe (Tom Benedict Knight) is drummed out of the service for acting without authority. Now if you peaked at the title of the film, you know we are in for a remake, an English version of "Die Harder" and we know the outcome. What I loved about this hack formula film is Simon Phillips who kills like a sociopath. Without him, this is a basic 3 star action film.

Guide: F-bomb. Stripper nudity

Please note that security passes are deactivated when it is reported that the holder dies.

Under Siege lives again in a quintessentially British setting

[phil-176-815591 · 7/10 · 3 December 2014]

Steven Seagal would be right at home when a crack SAS officer finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street (official residence of the UK Prime Minister) just as it is being stormed by a gang of ruthless and heavily armed bad guys.

Though it is suspenseful and action packed, it is really a spoof of the action genre. Funny and ridiculous it pokes fun at the stuffy political elite and even the hero, ably portrayed by Tom Benedict Knight, is shown to be a clown. Simon Phillips as Holt, the dastardly leader of the baddies in the mold of the Joker, takes his role well.

Clearly not a movie to be taken seriously it is nonetheless enjoyable and I managed to get all the way to the end without skipping forward hardly at all!

Waste of Time

[white-viper46 · 1/10 · 15 January 2015]

Well that's 90 minutes of my life I won't get back again. Good grief I have seen some crap films before but this tops the list, as has been said by others I will echo it, wooden acting, horrendous fight scenes, special effects that really need work.

The Army ranks that are used are so wrong, the "hero" is a Major in the SAS and is wearing the rank of a Corporal, he is not wearing anything to denote he is a member of the SAS, Medals are wrong, not mounted right, saluting like an American and without Headdress off, doesn't happen. The Chief of the General Staff, where to start with that t**t, and the same with the "Lieutenant General" (Major) in the COBRA room. with a little bit more research and time spent this could have been a really good film, however this was a car crash on top of a train wreck flattened by a plane and then battered by a nuke just for good measure.

As a side note, if the writer had bothered to ask either serving military or even ex-military he could have got that bit right (maybe), the same goes for the police side of things, I know it is supposed to be fiction, but at least try to make an effort to get things correct.

This film is shocking

[daniel-ballinger1508 · 1/10 · 9 January 2015]

This is the worst film I have ever seen, it is absolutely shocking, the filmography is terrible and so are the effects. The language is bad and excessive and the plot is appalling. I had to pay £5.50 to watch this, biggest waste of money in my entire life. All of the characters are unconvincing, the villain is a chubby loser who is about as threatening as a Mr blobby, and the hero is an unshaven numpty. The villain seems to be a mixture of the Michelin man and sad unfunny failing comedian. The fight scenes in this film look like something a 6 year old child could put together in a stop motion project. The blood effects are worse than anything I have ever seen before. It is so unbelievably bad, I don't know who let this film get published but the people who put it together are a bunch of clowns. Do not watch this film

If I could rate this 1 star I would

[jimsaf-346-520057 · 1/10 · 22 May 2015]

Not sure if this movie was just simply made to launder drug money. Or maybe someone quit their job as an accountant at Tesco's because they thought they had the making of a great screen writer.

The script - appalling

The acting - my god; surely none of the people in this call themselves actors. The person playing the lead (I cant even be bothered to look him up on a separate tab) didn't even bother to research his own part or any background to it - obviously hoped the director would tell him everything he needed to do. The rank is wrong (he wears a Corporals rank rather than Major - Not easily confused). The salute is worse than Basil Fawlty/Gordon Brittas. Did he grow crap facial hair for the role.

Do not waste the click of looking at the synopsis on Netflix.

The cast and crew should be 'put down'.

--- By the way this parody has better acting and a more solid script https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K72-9oXsG30

~Complete waste of time >> Worst movie ever

[layda7 · 1/10 · 4 December 2014]

For a budget movie, I find this movie to be extremely boring - the story line completely doesn't make sense. The character is way too arrogant and one of the worst acting I have ever seen. Throughout the movie, he is behaving in a way as if he is aware that there's a camera following and watching him. The CG is an overkill for even a budget movie. This is completely visible in all action scene. It's almost no different from Sharaksaurus Vs. MegaCroc movies. About 101 things in the movie makes no sense. i.e. Cops being shot at in public and the public just watch and stares. Normal people would run in panic after the first gunshot.

Conclusion: Avoid if you have other movies to watch. If this is the only movie you have, go to sleep. Better to spend your time taking a nap that watching this. I am giving this movie a 1. Worst movie ever.

Please don't watch this - HORRIFIC

[thurstanjohnston · 1/10 · 9 May 2015]

I don't know where to begin. The worst film I have ever seen. The acting, the story, the plot, the cinematography, the constant camera zoom ins and the characters are the most awful, amateurish things I have ever seen. They shoot everyone they see and not one person shoots back at them. The special effects are really poor.

It really is cringe worthy at every opportunity. Uwe Boll directing Steven Seagal would be better than this.

I had hoped it would be so bad it's good, but it doesn't even manage that.

I feel broken and empty inside.

Please don't watch

[dmalcolmmpd · 1/10 · 19 May 2015]

Awful. Shockingly bad. I'm embarrassed to give it 1/10 but 0/10 wasn't an option. Anybody associated with this movie should hang their head in shame and choose a different career. I've never tried to make a movie but after watching 45 minutes of this guff (I had to switch it off) I may give it a go. If there are idiots out there willing to fund such bilge then I'm sure I could make a movie about a subject I know nothing about too! There are movies out there that are so bad you need to keep watching, this isn't one of them. Just don't bother. Seriously. Jeez, my eyes and ears are still bleeding from this movie (the use of the word "movie" has been used in the loosest possible terms known to man)

What a load of rubbish! Awful movie!

[fbedford_visser · 1/10 · 1 June 2015]

He Who Dares: Downing Street Siege - One would have thought that when making a movie with the main character allegedly being a "Major" in the SAS, that Paul Tanter would have ensured that at the very least he got the uniform correct! Not only does "Major" Lowe appear wearing the uniform of a corporal, whilst all and sundry address him as major, the medals on his uniform are completely incorrect as well. And then, to top it all, the so-called "Lieutenant-General" in the Cobra room is wearing the rank markings of a major, and just to be sure, he's wearing them as collar dogs as well! Poor plot, poor directing, and generally as waste of time to watch.

Awful

[UrbanKhoja · 1/10 · 24 May 2015]

I had high hopes of the film having read the description, what could be better than a film showing the British SAS in all their glory? It was frankly and utterly awful; to start the Police uniforms were wrong, the acting was awful, key details were wrong and whomever wrote it clearly hadn't bothered to research the UK Security Services or related protocols.

It's a shame, having seen White House Down and Olympus has Fallen I had high hopes of this being on par or even better given the SAS twist.

Words cannot explain the travesty that is this film, I feel anyone unfortunate enough who watches this should receive an apology from the writers!

Dire, don't bother wasting even a moment of your life

[mail-227-157857 · 1/10 · 31 January 2015]

What can I say other than this is probably the worst film I'm seen, ever!

You may feel you could ignore that it's full of inaccuracies which any decent film maker would have done something about - since when has the Prime Minister travelled in a London minicab / private hire car?! Why does a major wear a corporal's uniform? They couldn't even get the front door of Downing Street to look right!

But even if you could overlook that then you'd have to cope with some of the worst script writing and awful acting which doubles the pain.

I stopped watching it after 20-25 minutes and I'm now going to watch paint dry to attempt to salvage my evening.

Maybe worse than the first

[thepickles101 · 6 February 2015]

The first was bad but has some redeemable qualities. It would be more excusable if it would have been a debut director from people that claim to have done lots of previous films, it was bad! I gave the 2nd one a chance after seeing some hype around it. oh dear, was i disappointed. Shoddy directing, terrible acting (simon phillips trying to be tough again) and that constant tough guy talk that is as if its written by a 14 year old! With the white collar movies that became laughable after the first, i will be praying these guys don't make another 'heist' movie, if you'd even call it that! i think these producers, writers, directors need to watch some movies before to make anymore. and maybe cast someone other than simon phillips to play the lead.

You must be kidding........

[greygoose-15393 · 1/10 · 25 April 2017]

.....after the first 'He who Dares', who in the name of all that's fair and decent was stupid enough to give the shockingly talent-less Paul Tanter more money to make more of this relentless stupidity.

I watched this primarily out of pure morbid curiosity to see if it could actually be worse than the prequel and from that point of view alone it didn't disappoint.

The lead character alone is a disaster, he has way too many 'Ricky Gervais in doco mode' style character traits to be taken seriously and is about as menacing as Julian Cleary.

This sequel shares it's predecessors style of relentless, pointless and futile killing in a bid to cover up the absurd and utterly pointless story line, the story (if you can call it that) is a 'whose who' of cinematic clichés, you would have thought that after the slagging Tanter got in reviews for the original movie he might have done some technical research before writing/filming another, but no.

Example - In one scene the good guy SAS MAJOR strolls into the room in a a uniform with two stripes on the sleeve, REALLY??? Surely someone in a film crew of this size must have known that this is the rank insignia of a corporal, SURELY??? I could ramble on about how utterly f**king dire this movie is but you get the idea.

In the interests of fairness the scene outside No.10 where the door gets blown off is f**king great, but a few seconds excitement is not enough to warrant given this utterly awful movie more than 1.

If you feel the need to kill yourself after watching this movie simply climb Paul Tanters ego and jump to his IQ.

Truly Awful

[richard-bond2 · 1/10 · 1 April 2016]

From the start my suspicions were that it was not going to be what I had hoped. The moment the SAS trooper turned and knocked on the door of No10 I was reaching for the off button. "Major" Lowe (?) turned up in a Corporals uniform from what looked the Medical Corps (the RAMC serving or veterans Will be mortified) he was immediately referred to as Major despite his shiny white two stripes on his arm, he strode into meeting of some dodgy characters reading their lines from hidden notes and cast up a salute while his cap was under his arm. To make matters worse the salute, if it could be called that was rather like one made by John Wayne about the US Cavalry! This film is a travesty, it lack authenticity, a script or even a shred of credibility. Avoids it at all costs before the SAS come calling which they may do when searching fir the director and script writers.