There are so many reasons not to like this film. It has a very simple plot, a wooden, under-developed lead character and barely credible one-man-versus-hundreds action sequences. Nevertheless, I enjoy it. The action is blood pumping, and when Keanu Reeves shot his last enemy I was sad that he couldn't carry on killing. Roll on the sequel!
The supporting cast were pretty good. The action mostly quite good. But I didn't want to watch my DVD in one go. So about a 3 star rating from me.
ReplyDeleteThe film doesn't have much of a plot. It's all about the action, and the action is good. That's why I've rated it so highly. In my rating methodology there's a big distance between 3 stars and 4 stars. In my description above I write
Delete5 Stars: Great, must be watched
4 Stars: Good, worth checking out
3 Stars: Okay, matter of taste
2 Stars: Poor, not worth watching
1 Star: Awful, avoid at all costs
To explain that in more detail, 4 stars means that I'm recommending it to the reader as something he ought to watch. 3 stars means I'm not recommending it, even though I think it does have some merit. 2 stars is a film that I don't think should have been made at all. 1 star means a film is so dreadful that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I reserve 5 star ratings for films that I think are so fantastic that I'll kick anyone who doesn't want to watch them. They're essential viewing, in my opinion. I think that I've given too many 5-star ratings in the past and I keep telling myself to cut down on them, giving 4½ stars instead, but nothing has changed so far.
In retrospect, maybe I rated "London has fallen" too highly. Maybe it should only have had 4½ Stars. But it's my principle that I never change a rating after I've written a post. The only way I'll change a rating is by watching a film again and giving it a different rating. "John Wick" is actually an example of this. I gave it 4½ stars in my first review, but only 4 stars this time.
Delete