White House Down (2013) User Reviews

Goofy, fun light popcorn flick

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 3 March 2016]

WHITE HOUSE DOWN is a film with myriad problems. It's directed by Roland Emmerich for once, a guy known for his less than stellar effects films like 2012 and GODZILLA, although once in a while he makes something like INDEPENDENCE DAY to make up for the bad stuff. It has some terrible CGI effects of helicopters in particular. It's a 12 certificate movie, which means that although violent it's not realistically violent. It's overlong. Channing Tatum, despite being a hot property in Hollywood, is wooden beyond belief. And, as with many Hollywood blockbusters, the writers have to shoehorn one of those annoying teenage characters into the storyline.

Despite all these flaws, I have to say I enjoyed WHITE HOUSE DOWN. It's no masterpiece, and it's not as good as the more serious OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN which came out at the same time. But it keeps your attention on it throughout, and it never fails to entertain. The various DIE HARD homages come thick and fast, and Jamie Foxx has never been so much fun as the Obama-style President who gets in on the action. The bad guys are suitably bad, James Woods acts up the screen, and there's a ton of explosive action to enjoy. You may want more, but this didn't disappoint as a light popcorn flick.

Olympus has Fallen or White House Down?

[paulclaassen · 6/10 · 14 March 2022]

Interestingly, in a space of just three months, 2013 saw the release of two films with the same premise: 'White House Down', and 'Olympus has Fallen'. Which one did you enjoy more?

I enjoyed both, for different reasons. 'Olympus has Fallen' was a more serious film, but it also had a much higher body count making it slightly more unrealistic. While dealing with a serious matter, 'White House Down' is unfortunately laden with annoying, unfunny humor which completely ruined any potential suspense.

My biggest issue with 'White House Down' was casting Jamie Foxx as President Sawyer. Foxx is so bad and unconvincing as the President, it quite frankly is the worst portrayal of a President I have ever seen. The script is also to blame, as the character doesn't act or reason the way a President would, with dialogue not suited for a high profile individual such as a President. He sounded immature and incompetent, at best.

There's plenty of action and firepower. The film is a bit cheesy at times, and a bit sentimental at times. Fortunately, it manages to remain interesting and always has some kind of hook to keep the viewer glued to the screen. The action sequences are very well done, fast-paced and thrilling. So, despite some issues, 'White House Down' is still an exciting movie.

Explosions, Gun Battles, and Channing's Biceps

[dglink · 6/10 · 23 October 2017]

Not since President Harrison Ford battled terrorists aboard "Air Force One" has a U.S. movie president faced the peril that challenges President Jamie Foxx in "White House Down." An unidentified group detonates a bomb in the U.S. Capitol Building, then takes hostages in the White House and shoots up the historic mansion, destroying priceless artifacts and paintings to the chagrin of a tour guide. Audiences know what they want from a Roland Emmerich movie, and "White House Down" delivers the goods; rapid cutting, action, explosions, gun battles, cheering onlookers, wise-ass heroes and bad-ass villains.

Clichés abound; from a troubled father-daughter relationship to an expository job interview that details the hero's past and a White House tour that fills in the history of the presidential mansion, the plot inches forward until the explosions literally begin. However, logic and plausibility also evaporate as the pace accelerates. While metal detectors screen visitors, the terrorists have an arsenal of automatic weapons already in the White House. While bullets fly and White House staff and visitors cower and flee, a young girl records everything on video for her on-line blog. Preposterous would come to mind, if the action allowed viewers to pause and think for a moment.

The cast of professionals is capable for this type of film. Headed by Channing Tatum, who sports a fetching sleeveless tunic to highlight his biceps, is the negligent father, caught in the dire White House situation with his blogger daughter. Jamie Foxx is fine as the President, while Maggie Gyllenhaal and Richard Jenkins both try to rise above the trite material, which was written by James Vanderbilt. Always fun to watch, James Woods manages to chew on the government-issue scenery in a showy role. The current resident of the White House, who claims ignorance of the 25th Amendment, should catch this film as that amendment is cited several times.

Audiences for a Roland Emmerich movie know what they want, and "White House Down" will deliver the goods for them. However, after two hours plus of mindless action, plot holes big enough to swallow a tank or a helicopter, and casual dialog between elected officials that propels the world towards Armageddon, some viewers may long for a slower paced film with a literate script and a plot based on logic. But then again, some may find Channing and his muscles more satisfying than either literacy or logic.

Great, silly, cheesy action fun - this movie should have been a hit!

[gogoschka-1 · 13 December 2013]

I'll never fully understand why people flock to films like "Iron Man I-III" and then completely ignore a fun action film like "White House Down". After reading so many bad reviews, I started watching Emmerich's latest noise-opera only because I wanted to get tired enough to go to bed. I had planned to watch the first 5 minutes and to then fast forward through the rest of the film and have a quick look at the expensive special effects. Never did I expect to actually enjoy myself - and yet I did. In fact, I enjoyed myself so much that I couldn't stop watching for the entire 2 hours, and I didn't even get up to go to the bathroom. Right from the start I realized that this movie doesn't take itself too seriously and that this is Emmerich having fun (destroying the White House - if you count freezing it - for the fourth time). But despite all the silliness and the tongue-in-cheek moments, this is a suspenseful ride which never lets up and kept me hooked the entire time. There are quite a few unexpected twists and turns along the way, and the wonderful supporting cast (James Woods, Richard Jenkins and Jason Clarke, to name a few) keep even the most clichéd characters fun and interesting. So my verdict: Great, silly, cheesy action film! Suspend your disbelief and you will have one hell of a good time. I rate it 7 out of 10.

Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Not as bad as everybody told me !

[mpflipper-459-115255 · 7/10 · 9 September 2013]

I wasn't that eager to watch this movie, because I had seen some clips on TV shows reviewing it, and read reviews in newspapers...and none of them were very positive.

But on a rainy Sunday night, nothing else to do...i thought to myself...why not !? Have an open mind and go and see it.

And i must say I was pleasantly surprised !!! YES every normal thinking adult must know that the things you see in this movie are outrageous and simply couldn't ever happen that way. But so is most of what happens in any Bond movie ! So just forget about that part of it all...and decide if the movie is entertaining, and i thought it was !

Channing Tatum, James Woods, Maggie Gyllenhaal and little Joey King did really good work ! The only negative for me in this movie was Jamie Foxx, and I don't even know what it was that bothered me about him in this movie, but I just didn't think he was the best choice for that part !

Entertaining! But that's it.

[gkc-kelvin · 7/10 · 2 July 2013]

Let me just begin by saying, this movie was worth the price of my ticket. But that might just be because I got my ticket at 50% off.

The world has seen millions of movies where USA comes under attack. This was probably just a rehash of every single one of those movies. There was nothing fresh, or new; there was no wow factor. Simply put, the producers probably just took a bunch of pre-molded "Lego blocks" that had already been overused in every other action movie, threw them all together, made a new movie, and called it "White House Down".

But that's not to say this movie was all bad. The undeniable chemistry between Tatum and Foxx was like a consolation for a 99.9% cliché storyline. The light humor between the two might have just given the audience a couple of time-outs from the heart-thumping moments during the movie's intense sequences, making the somewhat draggy, long-winded two-hour film a little easier to sit through. But as mentioned, a million clichés thrown together made the storyline absolutely predictable, so don't expect any twists.

In a nutshell, it's just a mashup of a whole series of music hits, in movie form. But oh well, at least the mashup was decently done.

There's better there's worse

[MAYESY-44 · 7/10 · 5 June 2020]

Decent action movie but not as good as Olympus has fallen which is similar and came out around the same time. The problem with this is not the story it is the acting which is not the best and a bit cheesy at times but if you are looking for a decent action movie it is not bad to watch.

Puff and Fluff

[LeonLouisRicci · 4/10 · 21 November 2013]

There won't be any "check your brain at the door", or "get the big bucket of popcorn" Clichés here. Speaking of Clichés, is it possible that a Movie can be nothing but a Cliché? Anything Goes in the World of "Summer Blockbusters".

It is Curious that this one would come so Soon after the Virtually same Scenario of Olympus Has Fallen (2013), but that may be Thinking too Much. Speaking of Thinking. Is it Possible that a Movie can be made Without Thinking? Anything is Possible in the World of Hollywood Hacks.

Listing the Clownish and Clonish Aspects of this Featherweight Failure would be a Taxing Exercise for Everyone Concerned. But Suffice to say that this Movie is so Light and Airy that it will Float from the Memory Immediately upon the Onset of the Ten Minutes of Credits. Speaking of Credit. Is it Possible that a Movie can be a Credit to its Artform with Absolutely Nothing Artistic to Offer. Anything is Possible in the World of Puff and Fluff Films.

Overall this is a Waste of Time and mostly Painful to Watch. It Owes more to the Keystone Cops and Bad Sitcoms then to the Action Genre it so Shamefully Copies. The Best that can be said is Check Your Brain at the Door and Buy a Big Bucket of Popcorn and...Oops!

It's called entertainment people

[shane-may · 8/10 · 7 July 2013]

This is the first review I've ever written ever. I don't subscribe to movie reviews--at all. I actually enjoy movies. It seems to me that by in large reviewers just don't like movies. Not the intelligent reviewers anyway. They seem to be more concerned with how they look to their readers, pretending they know something about film. Reviewers are writers who want to be something else, filmmakers perhaps, and find it incredibly trendy and smart to disassemble and deconstruct the hard work of others; and to hate entertainment. They all seem to have this idea that they know better and I have little time for their self righteous, self important, pretentious bullshit thinly disguised as some sort of public service. Heads up: it does no one a service to be condescending or insulting.

With that said I will now step off of MY self righteous soap box and say that White House Down is a damned good time time with excellent shots of DC (making it look like an attractive, interesting place to be as opposed to the hot and smelly dumpster it actually is...seriously, the place smells like a dumpster), in your face action, fine performances-- Jamie Foxx is pretty cool as the leader of the free world--a bad guy who you just can't wait to watch die (there are several bad guys in this movie, so I'm not counting that as a spoiler), and pretty awesome hero in John Kale.

Now the movie gets a little long which is only an issue if you're a smoker like me, by the middle of the third act I was craving pretty hard, and there's some dumb lines of dialogue during one of the action sequences that didn't seem to fit the characters, but whatever.

White House Down is a fun and intense action movie that I would gladly see again. 8 out of 10!

And the Search for the New Bruce Willis Continues...

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 7 July 2013]

Lets tell a story. IN THE BEGINNING there was a fairly unique TV show called Moonlighting directed by a maverick director who used a lot of strange cuts and spent a lot of time on the chemistry between the two stars. The female star was an ageing blonde bombshell and the male star was a relative unknown named Bruce Willis. The show was a hit. When it ended, both tried to move into features, but only Willis succeeded. His breakout role was an adaptation of a novel by (then) bestselling writer Roderick Thorpe and it was called Die Hard. It was brilliant. One of the best films of its kind ever done. And Willis was brilliant, showing a knack for action and pathos at the same time. The movie (DIE HARD) was so good it became a franchise although the quality of the sequels was very uneven (and the last entry was an abomination). But Hollywood is nothing if not repetitive, and as it becomes clear that Willis is too old to continue, the HUNT FOR A NEW BRUCE WILLIS CONTINUES. In one corner we have Gerard Butler who, to be fair, does a brilliant job in a movie (OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN) that lacks good writing, good direction, and a good supporting cast. And now (because, as noted, Hollywood is repetitive) we have WHITE HOUSE DOWN, where the versatile Channing Tatum gives it a go. Here the writing direction and supporting cast are a bit better than OLYMPUS but the net effect is to make Tatum part of an ensemble cast and that of course is the absolutely wrong thing you want to do in this kind of picture. It is somewhat entertaining and (as said) a heck of a lot better than anything Willis himself has done lately. BUT DIE HARD IT Ain't.

Way too stupid and overlong

[preppy-3 · 5/10 · 4 July 2013]

A bunch of terrorists attack and (way too easily) occupy the White House. Cale (Channing Tatum) is there with his 11 year old daughter Emily (Joey King). Through circumstances Cale saves President Sawyer (Jamie Foxx) from being killed and they try to figure a way to beat the terrorists and save the White House.

This starts out badly. The first half hour deals with character development. Nothing wrong with that--but it's so DULL! Then the action starts up and it picks up. There's plenty of violence--LOTS of shootings but no blood (hence the PG-13 rating). Still it isn't that good. The action is strong and violent but not enough to carry the movie. Also it's far too long and gets stupider as it goes along. Seriously--by the end I was getting insulted as how moronic the film was getting. Also Emily (an 11 year old) is slapped around, threatened and (more than once) has a gun held to her head! That's going too far. Even worse is Tatum's acting. He was blank-faced throughout. On the plus side the special effects were great, Foxx was good as the president, and Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Woods were great in supporting roles. So it was loud and violent but too long and too stupid.

Very entertaining with action and comedy!

[yankeefan533 · 9/10 · 1 July 2013]

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen! I loved every part of it with its twists in the story you never see coming, the action filled moments and the comedy. I didn't think this movie would be this good from what the trailer showed us but it surprised me a lot. Jamie Fox and Channing Tatum make a good pair for the main roles of the movie but I know there could be a better pair but they were still good. Now if you saw the movie with a similar plot called, Olympus has Fallen, and you liked it you'll like this too. I've seen a large amount of movies and this one is definitely in the top 10 best movies I've ever seen. I don't get why a lot of people thought this was stupid but they must look at movies in a different way. All in all this movie was memorable one for me.

Settle in for a pleasant surprise

[Mr-Fusion · 7/10 · 1 July 2018]

"White House Down" promises slick action and lots of malicious property destruction. On that basis, it's an enjoyable summer diversion, but it's what Roland Emmerich manages to do with it that's really surprising.

It's a Die Hard movie. Not even really a clone, but an actual, honest-to-god, best-we've-gotten-since-1995 Die Hard movie. It blows the last two sequels out of the water and fills in the whole checklist:

Down-on-his-luck protagonist (check) Confined space (check) Loved one in danger (check) Black sidekick (check) Outside support (check) (the list goes on)

Make no mistake, I don't go into these action movies with an actual checklist. But this was a wholly enjoyable curveball.

Seriously, did any of us see this movie coming? It looked terrible!

If you think "White House Down" is going to be about an attack on the WH

[gunn-wrights · 6/10 · 5 December 2021]

If you think "White House Down" is going to be about an attack on the WH..... you'd be correct!

It's slightly above average - mostly because the great acting, and a pretty decent story. I mean, who doesn't like a good gun, Javelin, helicopter, fighter jet, etc. Military shoot 'em up movie ? Nonetheless, it's a story that's been done over and over - there are only so many unique situations you can think of involving 1 house and the people who live in it. With that said - it's still quite good.

RECOMMENDATION: Not the best, but, still worth a watch - especially if you're looking for a movie to play in the background, while doing laundry etc.

Just enjoy the over the top ride

[juneebuggy · 6/10 · 3 April 2020]

Policeman Channing Tatum is a devoted father who is at the white house for a job interview with the secret service when a ruthless paramilitary group seize control. In a very Die Hard scenario sort of way 'Cale' must now fight to protect the president, find his daughter, figure out who the bad guys are, stop nuclear weapons from bring launched and drive in circles around the white house lawn while firing a rocket launcher.

This is an over the top action extravaganza that for me quickly crossed over into the so-bad-it's-good department. If you just go along for the ride its a ton of fun watching the White House get destroyed and Channing kick butt trying to protect goofy president Jamie Foxx. Some twists along the way and a decent supporting cast with Maggie Gyllenhaal, James Woods, Richard Jenkins and Jason Clarke as the bad guy.

A lighter version of Olympus Has Fallen.

Déjà vu?

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 17 November 2013]

The North-American President James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx) proposes a global peace plan frustrating the arms industry. Meanwhile the Capitol security agent John Cale (Channing Tatum) had made an application for the secret service to protect the president and travels for an interview with Agent Finnerty (Maggie Gyllenhaal) in Washington with his eleven year-old daughter Emily (Joey King). Cale is not accepted and he goes with Emily on a tour in the White House. Out of the blue, the White House is invaded and overtaken by a terrorist group led by Stenz (Jason Clarke) and Cale fights against the paramilitary group to save his daughter and the president while discloses high treason and coup d'état sponsored by the arms industry.

"White House Down" is a kind of déjà vu of "Olympus Has Fallen" that is a rip-off "Die Hard". The lack of originality is impressive associated to a dull, predictable, boasting of patriotism and unbelievable story and an annoying teenager. However the result is funny and entertains with the absurd. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Ataque" ("The Attack")

White House Propaganda

[sycodon · 2/10 · 28 June 2013]

It is inevitable that White House Down be compared to Olympus Has Fallen. Unfortunately, it compares poorly from the title on down.

The special effects lack the realism of OHF.

The action sequences are disjointed and downright goofy at times.

The bad guys are cartoonish and you get no sense of satisfaction when they are put down.

The plot is too complicated by half and really is not relevant to the action.

The movie ends with a whimper and a SNL quality perp walk of the character who is ultimately responsible for all the carnage.

But the worst thing is the crude, amateurish and transparent Left vs. Right political message in which it drapes all the other sub par elements. It is a Progressive's wet dream that really couldn't be any more wacko if you gathered 100 of Huffington Posts's top Super Users in a room festooned pictures of Dick Cheney and GWB, fed them mushrooms, and asked them to come up with the motivation for the bad guys.

But Good Guys shooting bad guys is always good and so are explosions. If you ignore the channeling of Nancy Pelosi, then you might get your money's worth at a matinée showing.

to break the chain of cynical "wannabe critics"

[a_ko17 · 10/10 · 6 July 2013]

is it just me or has ALL the movies out lately for the past few years since the internet was made available to cynical people who hates every little thing receive only 3 out of 5 stars in IMDb and other "movie- rating" sites ?

it seems nothing is good enough for these "wannabe critics", and just like any wannabe critic who want to feel important, would only have praises for "timeless classics" made in the early to mid 1900s, of course, no "critic" would dare bash on these "timeless classics" no matter how uninteresting they may be to certain individuals given their difference in taste and interest, it's because they're afraid to be bashed themselves by other "critics" for not following the golden rule of being a "movie critic"

"thou shall only have praises for classic films, any film made after the 70s is nonsensical, dumb, loud, poorly acted, poorly produced, poorly directed and other infraction we might or might not see but will mention anyway"

if the internet already existed when these "timeless classics" were shown, i bet all of my life savings that these "critics" would the first ones to insult every little detail of the movie from the entire production set to the punctuality of the person delivering the donuts to the director

The second best "White House has been captured" movie of 2013.

[slicedbread117 · 6/10 · 16 December 2013]

If you couldn't tell by my title, there was another movie released in 2013 before White House Down with the exact same premise as this film. Being the second best movie of two with the same super-clichéd plot doesn't fare well for any film, including White House Down.

There is arguably no bigger cliché than the most secure building on Earth being overrun, so a movie that adapts this premise needs to make sure they know what they're doing and unfortunately, WHD does not. The plot never makes itself clear, at least in terms of the bad guys and there are twists that overall make the film a sometimes puzzling piece of work. I believe that it is the script itself that has too many holes thus creating a movie with several holes as well. The overall concept behind this film is pretty dull to say the least.

Obviously a movie like this is going to have a plethora of action, and there is plenty of it here. The action can be viewed in two ways: if you try to take the movie seriously, then the action is painfully dull and clichéd, to a point where it leaves the "it's so bad it's good" realm. However, if you end up watching the film with the notion in mind that this is one big dumb action movie that you can laugh at, then sure, it could have a lot of entertainment value. I love a good action movie that turns clichés into awesome, bad ass moments, but WHD fails to deliver that with poorly edited action all around.

Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx give the film a couple high profile names, but the chemistry just isn't there to provide the movie with any extra sense of emotion or depth. Tatum's character is sometimes just not the action hero you want to see, but also can be a pleasant surprise and show some entertainment. As the President of the United States, Jamie Foxx also does a okay job, providing some laughs but overall not very interesting.

It's not easy to compete head-to-head with another similarly themed movie in the same year, with White House Down having to go up against "Olympus Has Fallen". While there might be some flashes of solid entertainment value, White House Down's poor script, undeveloped and uninteresting characters and action that overall isn't that great gives Olympus the edge in the year's "which White House movie is better?" debate.

6/10

A True Action Movie Fan's Wet Dream

[DareDevilKid · 8/10 · 11 July 2013]

Rating: 3.7/5 stars Reviewed by: Dare Devil Kid (DDK)

Loved every minute of it. To hell with all the naysayers and the (obvious) comparisons with "Olympus has fallen" and the PG-13 rating gripe. Like me, if you enjoyed "Olympus Has Fallen", you'll definitely relish this action bonanza too. In fact, I'll go even further and state that it's even better and slightly more coherent, if not realistic, than the former.

Tatum as usual is cool and breezy like in all his action roles and together with Foxx, makes for an entertaining combo. The direction does admittedly get a tad clichéd at times and might venture into overtly patriotic territory. But then, with a title that screams: "White House Down", this was naturally expected, and those who aren't pleased are either completely delusional or else they have seen way too few action movies. Boasting of pulsating action sequences, brilliant set designs, witty one liners, decent comic relief, a plausible plot, believable plot narration, and one of the most outrageous car chase scenes to boot, this movie has got it all.

Sci-fi and action movie Director Roland Emerich might never be regarded in the same breath as similar genre auteurs like Spielberg, Cameron, Nolan, John McTiernan, or Richard Donner, and for good measure. But nobody can deny one thing, the man knows how to create an entertaining and adrenaline-pumping blockbuster, unlike some hacks (ref., Bay).

Ultimately, "White House Down" delivers everything you can hope for in an exciting action movie. So sit your butt down, strap up, and enjoy this no-holds-barred action fiesta.

Potential Not Realized

[tabuno · 6/10 · 16 January 2019]

14 September 2013. White House Down starts with a lofty humanistic developing story that has substantive drama, but unlike its contemporary cousin Olympus Has Fallen (2013) becomes more a derivative of John McTiernan's action thriller Die Hard (1988). The result is an uneasy attempt at light humor along with a more darker plot that literally destroys a national American symbol. The plot elements in this deliberately twisting action thriller sometimes fails logic and later descends into a more chaotic and at times manipulative story.

Even with a rather ingenious double, double cross there is the over simplified demise of one of the more colorful villain, action scenes that seem to become more cluttered confusion and literally driving around in strange circles that defies believability. Even with the sincere and poignant if not manipulative scene with the daughter towards the climax of the movie, there are just too many moments where escape plans are abruptly and conveniently and contortedly altered.

While the beginning of the movie offered a polished and genuinely felt corridors of high power well folded as a solid backdrop to the humanity of the developing characters and an interesting liberal conspiracy theory embraced by the President himself, the tone of the movie becomes uneasy. Unlike Olympus Has Fallen which takes itself more thoughtfully seriously both the take over of the White House, the rebellious counter measures, and the consistent appealing emotive tone, White House Down just can't bring the same level of dry humor and entertainment as Die Hard.

I Spent How Much on This?

[melvisu-724-177682 · 4/10 · 28 June 2013]

I will start with the pros. This movie is packed with excitement, action, and CGI effects - almost start to finish. Now the cons: a blatant ripoff of both Die Hard and Olympus Has Fallen (which was a blatant ripoff of Die Hard); the most implausible story EVER; the absolute worst acting EVER with Jamie Foxx taking the lead. This movie should be reason enough to finally burn that guy's SAG card once and for all. And Channing Tatum, whom I normally like, was a close second. In fact, the only actor to give a good performance was the little girl who played Tatum's daughter.

Believe the reviews you read here. They are not exaggerations. If you must watch this, wait for Redbox!

a convoluted mess that's joyless and flat out dumb

[wingnut9 · 26 June 2013]

White House Down offers very little that's new or interesting. It's a convoluted mess that's caught in no man's land. It takes itself far too seriously yet offers ridiculous action (ridiculous as in dumb, not as in wild or fun) and even more ridiculous characters. It wants to be taken seriously but functions in bizarre surroundings with a foolish plot. A calamity of underdeveloped ideas, half the film is flat out brain damaged and the other half is pure schlock. Do yourself a favor and avoid this dumb and actually boring farce.

This movie simply can't stand on its own as a film. Does often joyless, dark and dumb appeal to even the popcorn crowds? The rest of us want way more in our summer movies.

An entertaining action movie

[Cinemaniac1984 · 7/10 · 17 January 2015]

It was a shame White House Down didn't do too well at the box office, considering the fact Olympus Has Fallen which was released earlier in the year has a similar plot: Die Hard in the White House. Perhaps if White House Down was released earlier, it may have done better. If Olympus Has Fallen was brutally violent, White House Down may have watered down the violence but does it bigger and better with a touch of humour especially with Ronald Emmerich (Independence Day, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow) at the helm.

Taking on the blueprint role of Die Hard's John McClane, Channing Tatum is Police Officer John Cale who takes his young daughter Emily (Joey King) on a tour across the White House while he applies for a job as a Secret Service Agent. While at the White House they meet the President of the United States James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx). During the tour the White House is taken over by a group of ex-Military fundamentalists led by Stenz (Jason Clarke) who is also aided by disgruntled Head of the Secret Service Walker (James Woods). While John Cale is able to slip away, he must work to save President Sawyer and the many hostages including Cale's daughter Emily.

I liked Channing Tatum as the hero John Cale. There are numerous homages to Bruce Willis as John McClane in Die Hard (white singlet, one liners and all) and I felt that this may be the passing of the torch. Channing Tatum shows he can easily do comedy (21 Jump Street and 22 Jump Street) and also action. Unfortunately I could not take Jamie Foxx seriously as the President of the United States of America. Jason Clarke is great as Stenz and it's always good to see James Woods chew every scene as Walker.

Unfortunately after a while it felt like a buddy movie not too dissimilar from Lethal Weapon and 48 Hrs with John Cale and President Sawyer taking on the terrorists. That aside I found White House Down to be more enjoyable and I felt it was better than Olympus Has Fallen. Another movie you can just sit back and watch it for what it is.

7/10

400th Review: High-Octane Entertainer, If We Don't Concentrate On The Logics. ♦ 84%

[nairtejas · 6/10 · 23 October 2013]

"Logic" cannot be pluralized, you say. Well, White House Down does the impossible, too.

With a story-line so uncanny with that of the previously released film, Olympus Has Fallen earlier this year, it goes on to show real references. I am not gonna compare them and bore you, but if I were to choose, I'd play a diplomat & choose both.

You know the story, the music, the cinematography, the patriotism, the performances, the CGI (oh, my) are top-notch and no critic can bias his review negating these points. All these gives the 2 hour long film an impetus and I am sure it will hook you up, that is you do what I suggested in the summary above.

Jamie Foxx & Channing Tatum are good, but the timing of their dialogs were simply the reason the film lost 2 stars from me. Their airs are appreciable even Maggie G was good enough. With surprises all over the narration up till the end, I enjoyed the movie with total concentration. Maybe because I am not an American, I agree to state my experience.

Also, a special mention for the lady who played Channing's daughter and a special smack below the ear for the guy who wrote all the scenes related to her. Just why the terrorists show extra sympathy? God, I hate not to spill spoilers at this point. Humor is very good, so is the action. But the timing of the former is what is illogical.

BOTTOM LINE: Trust me, you won't be disappointed. If you enjoyed Olympus, you surely will love this. Highly Recommended!

Can be watched with a typical Indian family? YES

Profanity/Vulgarity: No | Sex/Foreplay: No | Violence/Gore: Very Critical | Smoking/Alcohol/Drugs: No