Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just saw White House Down recently when it was released on video. Did anyone else get turned off by the fact that the villains were the left's stereotypical version of racist, militaristic right-wingers? If they wanted to make a good Die Hard-esque movie, which I felt was what they were going for, why on earth would they want to make the villains represent their misguided version of half the country instead of a foreign country? I get an overtly political movie portraying one side like certain movies about the process (Ides of March, etc.), but people on the right typically are a large part of the action movie audience. Why alienate them?
You're gonna alienate any group of people in a movie like that. I think it was an interesting plot twist. Let's be honest, how stereotypical would it have been if the enemy was North Korea or Afghanistan? It wasn't talking about the right in general. Just militant racists.
I just saw White House Down recently when it was released on video. Did anyone else get turned off by the fact that the villains were the left's stereotypical version of racist, militaristic right-wingers? If they wanted to make a good Die Hard-esque movie, which I felt was what they were going for, why on earth would they want to make the villains represent their misguided version of half the country instead of a foreign country? I get an overtly political movie portraying one side like certain movies about the process (Ides of March, etc.), but people on the right typically are a large part of the action movie audience. Why alienate them?
All I saw was the trailer. I was turned off by a film that looked about as deep as a Scooby-Doo episode. What did you expect other than one caricature, trope and cliche after another?
All I saw was the trailer. I was turned off by a film that looked about as deep as a Scooby-Doo episode. What did you expect other than one caricature, trope and cliche after another?
Same here. When I saw Jamie Foxx kicking somebody and telling them to let go of his Jordan's I knew it wasn't a movie I was going to be interested in seeing.
I think the more interesting political/social factoid is that there have recently been two movies about aterrorist takeover of the White House -- White House Down And Olympus Has Fallen -- and both have occurred during the term of the only U.S. African-American president. Hmmmmmmm...
I didn't expect the movie to be great, which is why I didn't see it in the theater. Jamie Foxx as the President? Just not believable.
I just feel that if they had made the enemy a foreign group, or even one not so stereotypically racist as if all people on the right are racist, I could have enjoyed it more. I could buy the military-industrial complex as the villain, just not the overtly racist idiots that fit every MSNBC talking point about the right. It seems that some Hollywood producers don't want a larger audience or a franchise that can go on for several movies, like Die Hard.
I think the more interesting political/social factoid is that there have recently been two movies about aterrorist takeover of the White House -- White House Down And Olympus Has Fallen -- and both have occurred during the term of the only U.S. African-American president. Hmmmmmmm...
Coinkydink? I think not.
I agree! It seemed quite peculiar that they made not one but two movies out of the blue! Somebody thought it would be such a hot plot? Why? Both movies were lame, especially the one with Jamie Foxx (how many Xs does it really have?)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
I didn't expect the movie to be great, which is why I didn't see it in the theater. Jamie Foxx as the President? Just not believable.
The only the worse than Channing's acting and the dialogs between him and the President (Jamie Foxx) was casting Jamie Foxxx for the role of President! Who was the genius behind that?
I thought Olympus, as crappy as it was, was still wayyyyyy better than WHD.
I think the more interesting political/social factoid is that there have recently been two movies about aterrorist takeover of the White House -- White House Down And Olympus Has Fallen -- and both have occurred during the term of the only U.S. African-American president. Hmmmmmmm...
Coinkydink? I think not.
I doubt it had anything to do with the race of the current POTUS. DC is a spot that directors like to blow up and shoot at. I think it was just a matter of time before we saw a full blown attack on the white house vs an alien attack (Independence Day) or natural disaster. I think one of the Die Hards toyed with the idea of the government being shut down by terrorists...I kinda feel like White House Down was really just Die Hard in the WH.
I doubt it had anything to do with the race of the current POTUS. DC is a spot that directors like to blow up and shoot at. I think it was just a matter of time before we saw a full blown attack on the white house vs an alien attack (Independence Day) or natural disaster. I think one of the Die Hards toyed with the idea of the government being shut down by terrorists...I kinda feel like White House Down was really just Die Hard in the WH.
I feel like that's what the producers were going for, but (a) Channing Tatum is no Bruce Willis, and (b) they potentially offended half their audience for the reasons stated above.
Saw it on BluRay the other night. It was an ok leave your brain at the door popcorn action flick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.