White House Down

In 1993 and 1994, it was Tombstone and Wyatt Earp. In 1998, it was Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. In 2011, it was Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached. All similar movies released in a tight window, forcing audiences to choose which one (because who sees both?!?) to go see. Well, 2013 had its own deja vu entries, Olympus Has Fallen, and now, White House Down.

A veteran of the war in Afghanistan, a highly decorated one at that, John Cale (Channing Tatum) is now a Capitol Police officer assigned to the Speaker of the House, Eli Raphelson (Richard Jenkins). It's pretty straightforward, even boring, duty, John aspiring to be a Secret Service agent even though his credentials aren't quite there. He's also a divorced father, and he's managed to secure two passes for a White House tour, bringing his daughter, Emily (Joey King), to the President's home. While on the tour, John and Emily even meet the President, James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx), who even speaks briefly with the politically-obsessed Emily. Only minutes later though, a bomb goes off in the Capitol Building, and soon the shooting starts in the White House. A group of gunmen are trying to take the President hostage. Separated from his daughter, John must now try and find her and make sure she's safe while also doing his damnedest to save the President.

This action-heavy political thriller from director Roland Emmerich hit theaters last summer, just months after the similarly-themed Olympus Has Fallen. It did all right in theaters, struggling some in the U.S. but making over $200 million internationally. Why did it struggle? Was it released too close to 'Olympus'? My money is on 'no.' I saw Olympus, liked it a lot, admitting it was cheesy, pretty dumb, predictable, obvious and a hell of a lot of fun. 'White House' is all of those things except....well....it's awful. It isn't fun. It's stupid, mind-numbingly stupid. I guess I shouldn't be completely surprised. Emmerich is the master of the big, overblown but ultimately entertaining blockbusters -- Independence Day, 2012, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow -- but that trend seems on the downhill. 'Tomorrow' was just dumb, I didn't see 2008's 10,000 B.C., and 2012 was laughable. 'White House' most definitely continues that downhill trend.

Yes, I know this is a movie that's supposed to be fun and dumb and entertaining. It isn't meant to rewrite Film as an entire entity. But does it have to be so cliche-ridden? So forced? Much like 'Olympus,' the premise certainly has some promise. What's protocol when the President of the United States' home comes under attack, a house that is heavily fortified and seemingly impregnable? That's cool. The action is cool. A shootout on the White House lawn, a fortified limo being chased by armored and heavily armed SUVs? Yeah, I can get on board with that. But that's it. These really cool moments, some potentially great action scenes get shot right in the foot because of a script that absolutely refuses to try anything even remotely unique? Sorry, screenwriter James Vanderbilt, this script was the biggest reason this movie flops. Disappointing when I realized Vanderbilt wrote The Losers, Zodiac, Basic, all movies I really liked. Cliches in an action movie are one thing, but this tested me. Late in the movie, repetitive at 131 minutes, I only stuck with it for the sake of a review. Yeah, I'm pretty honorable like that.

I've come around on Channing Tatum. With the right movie, the guy can act. He's likable on-screen, is a solid presence and can more than carry his own in action sequence. I still don't think he's a great actor (potentially, he could be), leaning more toward the movie star angle. This is a mixed part for him. Again, the script does him no favors. He's a divorced father, his busy schedule making it hard to be a good parent for Emily (King is a solid, young actress), pissing off his ex-wife (Rachelle Lefevre). Oh, and he's kinda absent-minded, not detail-oriented, but aw shucks, he's an American hero and really, really wants to be a Secret Service agent!!! Wouldn't you know it? The Secret Service agent (Maggie Gyllenhaal) in charge of hiring agents is an ex-girlfriend! Trapped inside the White House, he's also the only trained personnel that thinks to dodge gunfire, the Secret Service agents just standing there and getting shot. Tatum is okay -- not great, not bad -- and is clearly doing his best to have some fun.

The rest of the cast comes from Stock Characters 101. Jamie Foxx is okay as President Barack Obama, um, I mean President James Sawyer, but I don't know if he was a great casting choice to begin with. James Woods is the bad guy because what else would James Woods be doing in this movie? He's okay, a little overdone, as Martin Walker, the treacherous head of the Secret Service. His small army of gunmen/terrorists are led by Jason Clarke's Stenz, a mercenary with vengeance on his mind. Clarke is over the top but at least interesting in the villain department. His fellow gunmen are pretty faceless, Jimmi Simpson providing some odd comedic relief as the hacker, Kevin Rankin the right wing nut, Killick, who's crazy because he has a thin mustache, doesn't wear a shirt, just body armor, and screams a lot. As for the assorted political types to go with Jenkins and Gyllenhaal (legitimate actors legitimizing the movie...to a point), also look for Michael Murphy and Lance Reddick.

There's just too many painful moments here, too much to prevent it from being tolerable. When you think you're safe, the ending feels like a Scooby Doo ending. "If it wasn't for you meddling Capitol police, I would have got away with it!" At one point, Woods asks Clark "Want some cake?" to which Clark answers "No!.....I've got diabetes!!!" What?!? Later, Foxx's President Sawyer, having opted for some Air Jordans for his getaway, kicks a terrorist trying to hold him down and yells "Don't....touch...my....Air....Jordans!" The attempts at catchy, fun lines are awful, especially Tatum's one-liner when he dukes it out with Clarke, as is the solution to the White House coming under attack. It's certainly one I questioned, but then again, by then, I was questioning a lot of things. I don't want to give away too much of the awesomeness. Feel the pain yourself.

This one stunk.

White House Down (2013): */****

The Dark Knight

Why are people so excited for this weekend's The Dark Knight Rises? Because Batman Begins was good, and 2008's The Dark Knight was great, setting the bar about as high as a movie can possibly go. The rare sequel that improves on the original, it is everything you would hope for in a superhero movie and much, much more. Just a little more timely reviewing today, and I hope to see 'Rises' Sunday so expect a review soon.

Helping clean up Gotham City and all its crime, the very mention of the name 'Batman' sends shivers up the spines of Gotham's criminal underworld. But for all Batman (Christian Bale) has done, he's never fought a criminal quite like this one, the Joker (Heath Ledger), a deranged murderer who wears faded, unkempt make-up and favors knives. The Joker has offered his services to the all the different heads of the criminal underworld, offering to kill the Batman and make their lives infinitely easier. The Caped Crusader might finally have some help though in Gotham's hierarchy as crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) vows to help Batman however he can. With a nut like the Joker around, nothing happens as expected.  

It's hard -- and probably not very fair -- to compare this second Batman movie from director Christopher Nolan to its predecessor. 'Begins' is an above average, highly enjoyable movie on its own, but it is merely one that opens the door for all that Nolan had planned with this sequel. 'Begins' introduces the Batman lore, the characters, the situations, laying the groundwork. 'Knight' takes the jumping off point and sprints with it. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score is again booming and epic and just right. Almost the entire film was filmed in Chicago, and the movie looks AMAZING. Talk about a director utilizing his locations, Nolan knocks that one out of the park. It's the little things that start things rolling, and the movie never looks back.

But what really sets Nolan's movies apart from even the high quality superhero movies -- The Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America -- is the inherent darkness involved with the characters and story. There is no camp quality to the proceedings, no tongue in cheek humor. This is a cutthroat world where anyone and everyone is potentially dead in a flash. The word that comes to mind watching this movie was 'brutal.' More on this later, but much of that comes from the performance of Heath Ledger. His Joker is a villain described by Michael Caine's Alfred as someone "who wants to watch the world burn." There is no rhyme or reason to the Joker's brutality. He encourages murder (and handles a couple of his own), mayhem and chaos and doesn't care who gets caught up in the maelstrom that ensues. As a fan of a darker, graphic novel look at a "comic book" world, that darkness and brutality appeals to me in movies. Nolan commits to that deep-seeded darkness and never lets up.

Now onto Heath Ledger as the Joker. This movie was in the news prior to its release (more in the news at least) because Ledger died six months before the film's release. Before it had even been seen, buzz was generated about Ledger's amazingly memorable performance as the Joker, and when audiences finally saw this movie in the summer of 2008, they weren't disappointed. In a performance that won him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, Ledger delivers a performance that is terrifying, supremely dark, oddly charming and unlike any other villainous role ever. It's his voice, his speech, his peculiar mannerisms, his maniacal laughing, the distinctly iconic look with the faded, dreary make-up and purple suit, all these specific things that make this such a memorable and ultimately tragic performance.

Because Ledger's part was rightly given so much attention upon release, the rest of the cast doesn't always get the recognition they deserve. Other than developing that overly deep "I'm BATMAN!" voice since 'Begins,' Bale tweaks the character for the positive. He begins to question what he's taken upon his shoulder. He begins to doubt if he can actually win in the end, especially with a counter like the Joker. Eckhart too is a scene-stealer as Harvey Dent, the crusading district attorney who takes a no-nonsense approach to everything about his job. An idealist who wants the best, he's also a frustrated realist kept in check to a point by the system. Caine again is perfect as Alfred, Morgan Freeman returns as Wayne Enterprises resident genius Lucius Fox, and Gary Oldman gets much more to do as Lt. Gordon. Even Cillian Murphy makes a one-scene appearance as the Scarecrow. Additions include Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes (an improvement over Katie Holmes), Eric Roberts as Maroni, a powerful Gotham mobster, and Nestor Carbonell as the mayor of Gotham.

Like any classic, something has to set a movie apart from the average. The Chicago locations help that cause, especially an epic action sequence on La Salle Street and Lower Wacker Drive as Batman -- on a Bat-cycle of sorts -- does battle with the Joker who at different points has an automatic machine gun, bazooka and out of control semi trucks as weapons. There are the smaller but equally memorable moments, especially the Joker's infamous "pencil disappearing trick." The finale is the best though as the Joker's chaotic plan is revealed in all its cynical, brutal qualities. The final scene propels this 2008 movie into the trilogy wrap-up, Oldman's Lt. (now Commissioner as we all know him) Gordon delivering a monologue that is perfect in its simple, straightforward, forthrightness. Is that even a word? Eh. The movie is great, one all other superhero movies must measure themselves against. As for me, I'm counting down the hours until The Dark Knight Rises.

The Dark Knight <---trailer (2008): ****/****