London has Fallen (5 Stars)

Take a look at the film poster above. Can you see something wrong with it? It might not be obvious at first, so look for a while.

It's one of my pet hates with film posters. It's a mistake made so often that everyone has got used to it. Everyone except me. Most film posters put the faces of the film's biggest stars next to one another. That's good marketing. A lot of people go to see films based on the actors, not the director. They also print the names of the actors on the poster. And that's where the errors creep in. The names don't match the actors. Look at the poster again. Do you see what I mean? "It doesn't matter", you might say. "We know who they are anyway". If it's that trivial, think how easy it would be to put it right. The faces could be rearranged, or the text could be rearranged.

This is a sequel to "Olympus has fallen", which I watched yesterday. It's unclear how much time has passed between the films. The sequel was released three years later, but evidently more time has passed in world. In the first film the president's son Connor was 10 years old. In this film we don't see him, but we're told that he's about to go on his first date. Maybe, just maybe, he's a young starter and is going on a date at 13, but I doubt it.

The film starts with news reports of a major terrorist attack in the Philippines, with hundreds dead and wounded. The mastermind behind the attack is the Pakistani arms dealer Aamir Barkawi. America retaliates with a rocket attack on his private residence. His daughter is getting married, so there are many people present. Aamir survives, but his daughter is killed, as well as many of the guests. He swears revenge.

Seriously, what does Aamir expect? "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). This very wise Bible verse is just a different way of describing the law of Karma, which is found in many religions. If Aamir kills innocent civilians, he shouldn't be surprised if the ones he loves also die as collateral damage.

Aamir's revenge is spectacular. Two years later the British prime minister dies. World leaders gather in London for his funeral. Aamir's son leads a paramilitary force that attacks the politicians, killing many of them. However, his main target is the American president. He wants to capture him alive, so that he can execute him in a live broadcast.

Many innocent people are killed in the attack on London, but this film is less explicit than "Olympus has fallen". In the first film we see civilians being gunned down in the street, but in this film we just see the police and the terrorists shooting one another.

Once more, the president's personal bodyguard, Mike Banning, saves him. This time it's slightly more realistic. Instead of acting alone, he's backed up by an SAS squadron, in the last half hour at least.

"London has fallen" is another excellent film. It has the feeling of a disaster film, even though the destruction is man made. We never get to know the bad guys. We don't need to. They're like a force of nature. We're not intended to sympathise with them, we're intended to hate them and cheer when they get killed.

Success Rate:  + 1.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Olympus has Fallen (5 Stars)

The word Olympus in the film's title refers to the White House. Supposedly it's the American secret service's codename for the White House. I wasn't aware of it before seeing this film.

The film is shockingly realistic in the way it shows how terrorists storm the White House and capture the president. The attack is expertly planned by a paramilitary force. They begin by attacking random civilians as a distraction. That's the way terrorists work. Innocent people are killed. Then the White House itself is attacked.

What's less realistic is that one man, the secret service agent Mike Banning, is able to single-handedly overpower the terrorist group. That's the main criticism of the film by the serious film critics. It's not a problem for me. Every film needs a hero. We cheer for the underdog.

Could something like this really happen? It's possible. The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center proved that America is vulnerable. It was the element of surprise. A future attack that involves crashing passenger aircraft wouldn't work again. There are now procedures in place to stop it happening. But attacks of a different type are still possible.

America is a controversial country. Some people think of it as the land of liberty, others think of it as an evil country. It depends where you're coming from. Most people are biased in their judgement of America, one way or the other. People who are opposed to democracy hate America. I should say, people whose leaders are opposed to democracy hate America. I've discovered that friends of mine from Middle Eastern countries have twisted views of America, because they believe what their leaders tell them. Today everyone has access to the Internet, so they should be able to tell right from wrong, but the standard line is that the western media outlets publish fake news; i.e. "Our news is correct, everything from the West is false". Let's not be too harsh on them for being so easily brainwashed. If I lived in a country like that, would I think any differently? Probably not.

As for the people who live in America, their patriotism blinds them to the faults of their country. I'm generalising, of course, but generalisations are generally true, which is why they're called generalisations. There's nothing wrong with being patriotic. Everyone can love his country. It's one of the most natural things in the world. I love England. I say England deliberately, because I consider myself English first and British second. However, I wouldn't say that England is better than every other country. I've lived abroad for so many years that I can appreciate the advantages of other countries. Germany definitely has a better political system than Britain. (Britain has a united government, so it wouldn't be correct to say England in this case). Germany has better health care than Britain overall, although Britain has better dental care. And Germany has better wine.

When I lived in America I worked for a German company, Siemens. Only about 200 of the 600 employees were American citizens; the rest were Germans and French. I was the only Englishman. I noticed something about my American colleagues. When the Americans sat together they moaned about their president. (It was Bill Clinton at the time). But as soon as the foreigners joined in the conversation they went on the defensive. They said that foreigners have no right to criticise the American president. They're wrong. A foreigner in America is more capable of seeing things neutrally.

Nevertheless, I try to avoid discussing politics with Americans. Sometimes I'm drawn into it, but I try not to go too far. Recently I met an American in Stuttgart, a member of my film group. He started a discussion about politics, and I let him know that I disagreed. That was a mistake. He wouldn't drop the subject, and he kept going on about it, making everyone around us feel uncomfortable. Next time I'll bite my tongue.

There's one thing I love about America. It's the country where my favourite films are made. In my list of my top 100 films, 58 of them are American. That's something which will always make America special in my heart.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Tomb Raider 2 (2003) (4 Stars)

That's a terrific film poster. Angelina Jolie's pose, the upward angle, the dramatic text in the background. Everything is perfect. If I were ever bored enough to put together a list of the best film posters, this would be in the top 10.

I should have watched the two Tomb Raider films back to back, so that I could judge which one is better. After a two year gap I can't be 100% certain. I vaguely remember that the first film had more action, but the second film is visually more attractive. I'm sure I'll watch them again, eventually.

The film's premise is so infeasible that a good deal of suspension of disbelief is necessary, but once you've managed that step, the film is well written and ably performed by all the cast members. After an underwater earthquake, Lara Croft finds the sunken Luna Temple, which contained the greatest treasures of Alexander the Great. In the middle of the usual collection of of gold, silver and precious gems there's a glowing orb. This is snatched from her hands by Chinese bandits.

Back in England, MI6 agents tell her what the orb is about. It's a map with which to find the legendary Pandora's box. The box contains a deadly virus, for which there's no cure. A rogue scientist called Jonathan Reiss wants to unleash the virus on the world, after creating a vaccine that he'll only give to himself and a few dozen of those he considers worthy to survive. It'll be the start of a new world, with himself as the ruler. The box is hidden in a place called the Cradle of Life, where humanity was first created by the Gods.

It seems to me that the film is closely based on one of the Tomb Raider video games. It has the typical game strategy of having to solve one problem to advance to the next.

Lara Croft, played once more by Angelina Jolie, teams up with a former lover, Terry Sheridan (Gerard Butler). Their journey leads them across China, from Shanghai to Hong Kong, and then to the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro. There's even a gratuitous scene of the Great Wall of China. It's too short. It should have been extended. I've always been fascinated by the Great Wall of China.

An important feature of the film is Angelina Jolie herself. In the videogames Lara Croft was the archetypal busty videogame character. Thousands of teenage computer game nerds got off by playing with her.

This is what Lara Croft looked like on the box. Not too bad.

This is what she looked like on the computer screen. Ugh! Nerds got off on that?

Computer graphics have come a long way since 1995, but Angelina Jolie is what the nerds had been waiting for. A beautiful face, swollen lips and large breasts. I never played the computer game, so I don't have the same nerdy attachment to the character of Lara Croft, but I still find her attractive.

This is a good film, despite being savaged by critics. 

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Olympus Has Fallen (5 Stars)

Having more than 10,000 readers each month puts me under pressure. I feel I have to make an effort to write entertaining reviews to keep everyone happy. But today I refuse to be stressed. This isn't my job, it's my hobby. I'm not writing anything about "Olympus has fallen", except to say it's a great film. If that's not enough for you, go read one of my other reviews.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Angel Has Fallen (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the "Fallen" film series about Mike Banning, a secret service agent who works for President Trumbull of the USA. It's not the third part of a trilogy, just a second sequel, so it's open for a fourth part to be made if the studio and the actors wish to continue. That the studio will want to continue is obvious, because as long as the franchise makes money they won't stop. It's a cash cow that will be milked until it's dry. Gerard Butler is still fit enough for a few more years as an action hero, Morgan Freeman doesn't need to be young, and the supporting characters can be replaced as needed.

This film is about a supposed terrorist attack on the president while he's out fishing. Through careful planning Mike Banning is framed as the perpetrator, acting as a double agent for Russia. I call it a supposed terrorist attack, because the real attackers aren't foreigners or even politically motivated. They're Americans who are acting for financial gain.

Unlike the first two films, "Angel Has Fallen" has a comedy element. When he has nowhere else to go to, Mike Banning takes refuge with his father, an eccentric, paranoid war veteran. For most of the film Mike is on the run, being hunted by his own government. Rather than running away, he's running towards the president, because he knows there will be a new attempt on his life. Those of you who expect special effects and big explosions like in the first two films won't be disappointed.

Keepers (3½ Stars)

This is the seventh film in the Stuttgart White Nights Festival.

It's a Scottish film based on a story about three lighthouse keepers who mysteriously disappeared in 1900. The lighthouse was on the uninhabited Flannan Isle in the Outer Hebrides. It was manned by three men at a time, for shifts of six weeks. On 26th December 2000 the lighthouse was found empty, and there was no trace of the men. There were unfinished meals on the table, suggesting they had left their positions very hastily. The bodies of the men were never found, leading to legends like that of the Marie Celeste. Many songs have been written about this disappearance, but the most famous is the Ballad of Flannan Isle, written by Wilfrid Gibson in 1912.

---

The Ballad of Flannan Isle

Though three men dwell on Flannan Isle
To keep the lamp alight,
As we steered under the lee, we caught
No glimmer through the night!

A passing ship at dawn had brought
The news; and quickly we set sail,
To find out what strange thing might ail
The keepers of the deep-sea light.

The winter day broke blue and bright,
With glancing sun and glancing spray,
As o'er the swell our boat made way,
As gallant as a gull in flight.

But, as we neared the lonely Isle
And looked up at the naked height
And saw the lighthouse towering white,
With blinded lantern, that all night
Had never shot a spark
Of comfort through the dark,
So ghastly in the cold sunlight
It seemed, that we were struck the while
With wonder all too dread for words.

And, as into the tiny creek
We stole beneath the hanging crag,
We saw three queer, black, ugly birds –
Too big, by far, in my belief,
For guillemot or shag –
Like seamen sitting bold upright
Upon a half-tide reef;
But as we neared they plunged from sight,
Without a sound, or spurt of white.

And still too amazed to speak,
We landed and made fast the boat,
And climbed the track in single file,
Each wishing he was safe afloat,
On any sea, however far,
So it be far from Flannan Isle.
And still we seemed to climb and climb,
As though we'd lost all count of time,
And so must climb for evermore.
Yet, all too soon, we reached the door,
The black, sun-blistered lighthouse door,
That gaped for us ajar.

As, on the threshold, for a spell
We paused, we seemed to breathe the smell
Of limewash and of tar,
Familiar as our daily breath,
As though 'twere some strange scent of death;
And so, yet wondering, side by side,
We stood a moment, still tongue-tied,
And each with black foreboding eyed
The door, ere we should fling it wide,
To leave the sunlight for the gloom,
Till, plucking courage up, at last,
Hard on each other's heels we passed
Into the living-room.

Yet, as we crowded through the door,
We only saw a table, spread
For dinner, meat and cheese and bread,
But all untouched, and no one there,
As though, when they sat down to eat,
Ere they could even taste,
Alarm had come; and they in haste
Had risen and left the bread and meat,
For on the table-head a chair
Lay tumbled on the floor.
We listened, but we only heard
The feeble cheeping of a bird
That starved upon its perch,
And, listening still, without a word
We set about our hopeless search.

We hunted high, we hunted low,
And soon ransacked the empty house;
Then o'er the Island, to and fro,
We ranged, to listen and to look
In every cranny, cleft or nook
That might have hid a bird or mouse;
But, though we searched from shore to shore,
We found no sign in any place,
And soon again stood face to face
Before the gaping door,
And stole into the room once more
As frightened children steal.

Aye, though we hunted high and low,
And hunted everywhere,
Of the three men's fate we found no trace
Of any kind in any place,
But a door ajar, and an untouched meal,
And an overtoppled chair.

And, as we listened in the gloom
Of that forsaken living-room –
O chill clutch on our breath –
We thought how ill-chance came to all
Who kept the Flannan Light,
And how the rock had been the death
Of many a likely lad;
How six had come to a sudden end
And three had gone stark mad;
And one whom we'd all known as friend
Had leapt from the lantern one still night,
And fallen dead by the lighthouse wall;
And long we thought
On the three we sought,
And of what might yet befall.

Like curs a glance has brought to heel,
We listened, flinching there,
And looked, and looked on the untouched meal
And the overtoppled chair.

We seemed to stand for an endless while,
Though still no word was said,
Three men alive on Flannan Isle,
Who thought on three men dead.

---

Most of the legends about the lighthouse attribute the disappearance to supernatural causes, but "Keepers" presents a more logical theory, a tale of madness and greed. The film's plot is very close to that of "A Simple Plan", so close that I have to wonder if it was the main influence for the scriptwriters.

Three men, Thomas, James and Donald, named after the real life characters, travel to the lighthouse for their six-week shift. Thomas and James are experienced lighthouse keepers, but it's Donald's first time. Shortly after they arrive a small lifeboat is washed onto the rocks, containing a dead man and a locked wooden chest. They open the chest and find gold bars. They decide to sell the gold when they return to the mainland and split the money among themselves, but they haven't reckoned with obvious problems:

If something that valuable is lost, someone will come looking for it.

If something that valuable is found, the finders will become greedy and turn against one another.

This is a beautiful film, and the barren scenery lends to its beauty. It's all very believable. How would you react if you found treasure worth millions just lying there to be taken? This is probably the best performance I've ever seen from Gerard Butler.

London Has Fallen (5 Stars)

This 2016 film is a sequel to "Olympus has fallen", made in 2013. Once more the critics don't get it. It has a 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a site based on the opinions of critics. It has an A- rating on Cinemascore, a site based on the opinions of cinema audiences, which is the second highest rating. It was also a huge box office success. Critics rate films with their pens, while the public rates films with its cash. Who would you rather listen to?

Okay, I'm a critic as well. I'm sitting here pounding the keys of my computer, semi-anonymously, but I'm not a normal critic. In most cases I take the side of the public. That's what I'm doing today by giving "London has fallen" a five star rating, my highest rating. The film is full of fast paced action, first class acting and spectacular special effects.

But what does my nemesis Mark Kermode say? In an interview with BBC Radio 5 he says the film is "utterly terrible", "very boring" and "meat-headed rubbish". He says the special effects are "shriek-inducingly cheap", but by this point he's built up momentum and can't stop piling on the exaggerations. He tells the person interviewing him, "You have played Gameboys that have better special effects". Wow! Was he watching the same film as me? Maybe he had a beer too many in the cinema lounge and walked into the wrong film, so he's really talking about "Carry on Sergeant".

Mark Kermode criticises the script writers because a news report in the film says "Most of the known landmarks in London have been decimated", as if there are unknown landmarks and only a tenth of the known landmarks have been destroyed. Hold on there, Mr. Kermode. First of all, the word "decimate" is used as a synonym for "destroy" today, even though the Latin origin of the word means to destroy a tenth. Secondly, "most of the known landmarks" is a stupid expression, but that's exactly the sort of words used on American television. The script writers got it right.

Some reviewers have criticised the film for whipping up an anti-terrorism frenzy. They have called the film terrorsploitation. That's a beautiful word! All I can say is that if anyone walks out of the cinema and starts to be afraid of terror attacks from every corner, something was wrong with him already. It's a film! If I watch "Night of the Living Dead" I don't get so scared that I'm afraid to leave my house in case zombies are waiting in the garden.

After the big success of the first two films there will be a third film in the series, "Angel has fallen". Los Angeles? I don't know. Don't listen to Mark Kermode, listen to me. Go and see it. You'll enjoy it.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Olympus Has Fallen (5 Stars)

Sometimes I don't understand film critics. Why does this film have such a low rating? Judging by the box office figures the public loved it. So do I. It's heart pumping action from beginning to end, with hardly a pause for breath.

The White House comes under attack from North Korean terrorists. The first step is a low flying plane with automated machine guns that kill hundreds of innocent bystanders in the streets of Washington. That's the way terrorists work; they deliberately target civilians in order to provoke chaos. Then a concentrated attack on the White House itself is carried out. Within minutes most of the security and administrative personnel are dead, and the president and vice president are taken hostage.

The only person able to fight back is Secret Service agent Mike Banning, one man fighting against dozens of trained Korean commandos. Is it realistic? All I can say is that if Sylvester Stallone can do it, so can Gerard Butler.

The most gripping scenes are at the beginning. Gripping and disheartening. It's terrible to see how quickly the White House is taken and how many people die in the assault. It's so realistic that I have to ask myself whether Kim Jong-un has watched the film to find inspiration for his own attack.

Morgan Freeman stars as the Speaker of the House, who becomes the acting President of the USA when both the president and the vice president are captured. Recently I've become aware what a magnificent actor he is. Whatever role he plays he has a regal bearing that puts everyone else in the shadows.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Gods of Egypt (4 Stars)

How can the critics get things so wrong? This film was given advance reviews calling it a poor film, and yet I came out of the cinema today highly satisfied. Were the critics watching a different film to me? Or have they just lost track of what the general public likes? The job of a good film critic is to advise people whether to see a film or not. That's my opinion. Any praise or criticism of a film should relate to that. It shouldn't just be about telling the public whether a film is politically or socially relevant. The public goes to the cinema to be entertained.

Does "Gods of Egypt" entertain? The answer is a resounding Yes. The film has sword and fist fights. It has flying Gods. It has battles with giant monsters. I was thrilled from beginning to end. I expected nothing less. The film was directed by Alex Proyas, responsible for masterpieces like "Dark City" and "The Crow". He was justifiably annoyed at the critical reception of his film, calling the critics deranged idiots. He claims that they don't make up their own minds about films, they just look over the shoulders of the other critics, copying the opinions of one another.

A lot of criticism of the film when it was being made was that the majority of the actors chosen for the roles are white. In fact, all the film's major characters are white; only the supporting characters and the extras are black. I can understand the logic. "Egypt is in Africa. The people who live in Africa are black. So a film about Egypt should use black actors".

Unfortunately, this line of thought is based on ignorance of anthropology. The film's date isn't stated, but we can estimate that it takes place between 2500 B.C. and 2000 B.C. At that time the population of Egypt was Caucasian. It's unclear when dark skinned people (presumably invaders from central Africa) moved into Egypt, but some scholars put the date as late as 300 B.C., after the death of Alexander the Great.

There are three types of evidence we can use to determine the hair and skin colour of the ancient Egyptians: ancient paintings, mummified corpses and literary descriptions.

The drawings of people in the pyramids and tombs shows the skin varying from pale, to gold, to pink. No drawings show people with black skin. None at all. The hair colour varies from yellow, to brown, to black, but the majority of the drawings show people with red hair.

Recent DNA tests have shown that the majority of the mummified corpses had red hair. It's more difficult to determine the skin colour because of the decay of the flesh over time.

Combining the evidence of these two sources, we can deduce that the majority of the Egyptians from 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C. had pale skin and red hair. Light blond and dark blond hair existed, but it was less common.

The problem with the literary descriptions is that they're more recent, from 350 B.C. onwards. The descriptions of Egyptian statesmen are inconsistent. Some describe them as dark skinned, and others as having a ruddy complexion. This suggests that the population of Egypt was already a mix of various races by this time.

What happened to the red-haired people of Egypt? There are two possibilities. One is that the red-hair genes were weak, and they were wiped out by intermarriage with other races. The other possibility is that the people migrated northwards to Scandinavia and the British Isles. This could have been a speedy journey (like the current migration from Syria to Germany), or it could have been the slow drift of a migrant people over the course of hundreds of years. A third possibility is that the red-haired people were slaughtered as rebels or inferior during or after the rule of Alexander the Great, but there are no historical reports to support this.

In case all this talk about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is too complex for you to follow, what about the other features of the film? It shows Gods and men living side by side. Is that something you want to argue about? Not me. As far as I'm concerned it just shows that it's a fantasy film. We don't have to quarrel about details. Moreover, in a scene which takes place in space we see that the Earth is flat. Any critic who sits down and writes, "The film gets it wrong; the world isn't really flat" just doesn't get it. He really is a deranged idiot.

Tomorrow Never Dies (4½ Stars)

"Tomorrow never dies" is the 18th James Bond film, made in 1997. It's the second film to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. I was particularly excited when it was made because it starred Michelle Yeoh as the film's Bond girl, Wai Lin. Actually there are two Bond girls. In the photo above Teri Hatcher is shown on the left as Paris Carver, while Michelle Yeoh is shown on the right. There are frequently two good Bond girls, of whom one is killed early in the film. That's Paris Carver in "Tomorrow never dies". Wai Lin is the girl who survives to the end so that the film can close with her lying in Bond's arms.

So what's so exciting about Michelle Yeoh? From the first time I heard she would appear I knew she would be different to all the Bond girls before her. The Bond girls are eye candy for the viewer and sex toys for James Bond. Their sole purpose is to act as damsels in distress for the mighty hero to save, so that they can jump into his arms and his bed. That's not Michelle Yeoh. Ever since her early films, such as "Magnificent Warriors" and "The Heroic Trio", she was an action hero. It was expected that as a Bond girl she would be a martial artist on a par with Bond himself. This was the case. In the film it isn't just about James Bond saving her; they fight side by side and take turns saving one another.

In "Tomorrow Never Dies" there's a power-mad villain, as always, but in this film he isn't attempting to conquer the world. The villain is only the head of an international news corporation. He wants his newspapers to be the most read and his television stations to be the most watched, so he resorts to underhand tricks. He creates an international incident between China and Britain, threatening to make the two countries go to war. He does this so that he can be the first one to report the news. Step by step he causes the situation to escalate, always standing on the front line with his news report planned before the events have even occurred.

This is where Wai Lin fits in. The British secret service sends James Bond to investigate, and the Chinese secret service sends Wai Lin. The two agents each want to protect their own countries, but to do this they have to unite against their common enemy.

The public loved Michelle Yeoh. They were tired of James Bond's sexist attitudes and wanted a woman who could stand up to him. After the film there was talk of Michelle returning, making her the first Bond girl to return in a second film. I had mixed feelings. about it. On the one hand Michelle Yeoh was a fantastic actress that I wanted to see again. On the other hand, one of the key elements of the Bond formula was the appearance of a new girl in every film, showing that he had no interest in romance. As it was, the film studio decided not to bring her back. The next film returned to the usual damsel in distress girl. Almost. The next girl was actually a highly intelligent and independent scientist, but that's a topic for my next review.

London Has Fallen (5 Stars)

This is a film that pushes all the right buttons. A Pakistani arms dealer plans an intricate terror attack on London. He uses the funeral of England's prime minister to lure the world's top leaders to one place, intending to assassinate them all with a maximum of collateral damage. The American president is one of the few survivors, and he has to go underground, unable to turn to the police for help because the police have been infiltrated by traitors up to the highest levels. Only his personal bodyguard Mike Banning stands between him and the terrorists.

The special effects are awe-inspiring. The action is fast, hardly allowing a breather from beginning to end. In spite of a few attempts to demonise the USA's drone strikes, it's a clear us-versus-them scenario, in which the western powers are all good and the terrorists are all bad. In the cinema there were visitors who cheered whenever important terrorists were killed. Some people might criticise the film for its pro-western chest-beating rhetoric, but that's what makes it so good. Even since 9/11 there's been an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the West. This film tells us that whatever happens we shall win.

The film shares several of the main characters from "Olympus has fallen", made in 2013. "London has fallen" deals with similar themes, but there are no references to the previous film.

Law Abiding Citizen (4 Stars)

This film is a thrilling story with unusual character motivation. Clyde Shelton is a law abiding citizen. He's a family fan who never does wrong. One day two crooks break into his home. During the robbery one of them kills his wife and daughter. The evidence is too weak for a conviction, but one of the crooks, the one who committed the murder, cuts a deal with the prosecution and testifies against his partner. As a result the murderer gets a light sentence, while the other crook is given the death penalty.

Are you with me so far? Good.

Fast forward 10 years. Shelton is a changed man. Disgusted by his wife and daughter's killer walking around free, he decides to take the law into his own hands. He takes revenge not just on the killer, but on everyone who was involved in the trial. After confessing to a series of murders he's arrested, but he manages to continue his revenge plot while sitting in prison. Does he have a helper on the outside? That's the question the prosecution lawyer has to answer.

Gerard Butler delivers an excellent performance. Apart from the one incident where he stabs his fellow cellmate to death we have sympathy with him. Maybe that scene should have been omitted, because all his other victims were those who he considered to be guilty. The cellmate was an innocent bystander. Nevertheless, haven't we all felt that way at some time in our lives? We know who is guilty of crimes, but we see them walk free because the law doesn't have enough proof to convict them? Don't we feel frustrated and tell ourselves that we could do a better job than the police or the legal system? Clyde Shelton represents us as someone who feels wronged and tries to make a difference.

I might have given this film 5 stars, except for the bland performance of Jamie Foxx as the prosecution lawyer. Foxx has never been a good actor, in my eyes. I've never seen him play a role convincingly. There are a dozen other actors who could have played the part better. Nevertheless, this is a film worth watching.