White House Down Blows Up the Building and Nothing Else

The White House gets blown apart in “White House Down,” and that destruction happens within the first ten minutes. What follows is a movie about a man who wants to protect his daughter and a group of people trying to save the president, and it mostly works as pure action spectacle. It does not work as drama. It is loud, fast, and often thrilling, but it is also thin, repetitive, and built around set pieces that are clever in the moment and forgettable once the credits roll.

The premise is simple. Cale Cosgrove (Channing Tatum) is a Secret Service agent whose daughter Sasha (Joey King) is trapped in the White House during an attack led by a group of terrorists. The attackers, led by the ruthless Connor Rhodes (Jason Clarke), have taken over the building and are holding the president hostage. Cale, who has been dismissed from the Secret Service, is forced to break back into the White House to rescue his daughter and the president. The film is directed by Roland Emmerich, who co-wrote the script with Harald Kreutzberger.

Trailer, via Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Channing Tatum and the Father-Daughter Line

Channing Tatum plays Cale as a man who is grieving and angry. He lost his wife, and he is trying to be a father to his daughter while also being a protector. That tension is the emotional core of the film, and Tatum commits to it fully. He is physical and determined, and there is a real sense of stakes in his performance. The scenes where he is protecting Sasha from the attackers feel genuine, even when the action around them is absurd.

Joey King plays Sasha, and she is surprisingly effective. She is not a damsel in distress, and she holds her own in the face of danger. Her relationship with her father is the emotional spine of the film, and the scenes between them are the best moments in the movie. The film leans on this relationship to ground its action, and it mostly succeeds.

Jason Clarke plays Connor Rhodes as a cold, calculating terrorist leader. He is not a cartoon villain, and he has a plan that is almost plausible. His attack on the White House is not random violence, but a calculated attempt to take down the government. That makes him more threatening than the typical action-film bad guy, even if his methods are still over-the-top.

Roland Emmerich’s Style

Roland Emmerich has made a career out of blowing things up, and “White House Down” is no exception. The destruction of the White House is spectacular, and the film uses practical effects and CGI to create a sense of scale. The attack on the building is chaotic and exciting, and it sets the tone for the rest of the film. The film is at its best when it is moving quickly and the action is focused.

The problem is that the film does not know when to slow down. There are stretches where the plot stalls, and the film spends too much time on characters talking instead of doing. The pacing is uneven, and the middle section drags. The film is over two hours long, and it feels longer than that.

The Action Set Pieces

The action sequences are the reason to see “White House Down.” They are well-choreographed, and they are full of practical stunts. The film uses wire work and real explosions, and the result is kinetic and exciting. The car chase through Washington D.C. is a highlight, and the final sequence in the White House is tense. These moments are the film’s strengths, and they are the reason the film is worth watching.

But the set pieces are also repetitive. The film keeps returning to the same ideas: a helicopter flying low over the White House, a car chase through the streets, a fight in a corridor. The film is not inventive, and it relies on familiar tropes to keep the audience engaged. That is a problem, because the film is not subtle enough to hide its repetition.

The Script’s Weaknesses

The script is the weakest part of “White House Down.” It is full of clichés, and it is not interested in character development beyond the father-daughter relationship. The other characters are mostly one-dimensional, and they exist to fill roles in the plot. The dialogue is functional, but it is not memorable. The film is more interested in showing off its action than in telling a coherent story.

There are also continuity issues. The film changes direction mid-way through, and the ending does not resolve everything. It is a cliffhanger, but it is not a satisfying one. The film leaves threads dangling without tying them off, and that leaves the audience feeling unsatisfied.

Comparing “White House Down” to Other Films

“White House Down” shares DNA with other films about attacks on the White House. It borrows from “Independence Day,” “Olympus Has Fallen,” and “National Treasure,” among others. The film is clearly influenced by those movies, and it borrows their visual language and their plotting. It is not a copy, but it is similar enough that it feels like a cousin to those films.

The film is better than some of its predecessors, but it is not a great film. It is a solid, entertaining action movie that is not particularly original. It is not a failure, but it is not a success either. It is a film that is easy to watch and hard to recommend.

The Final Word

“White House Down” is a film that is best enjoyed as a spectacle. It is not a deep film, but it is an entertaining one. The action is fun, and the performances are committed. It is a film that is worth seeing once, but it is not a film that demands repeat viewings. It is a film that is best remembered for its set pieces, not its story.

The film’s score reflects this. It is a middle-of-the-road score that acknowledges the film’s strengths while noting its weaknesses. It is not a masterpiece, but it is not a failure either. It is a film that is easy to watch and hard to recommend.

“White House Down” is a film that is best enjoyed as a spectacle. It is not a deep film, but it is an entertaining one. The action is fun, and the performances are committed. It is a film that is worth seeing once, but it is not a film that demands repeat viewings. It is a film that is best remembered for its set pieces, not its story.

• The destruction of the White House is spectacular
• The father-daughter relationship is the film’s emotional anchor
• The action sequences are well-choreographed
• The script is full of clichés
• The film drags in the middle
• The ending leaves threads unresolved

The film is a mixed bag, and it is a film that is best enjoyed as a spectacle. It is not a great film, but it is not a failure either. It is a film that is easy to watch and hard to recommend. It is a film that is best remembered for its set pieces, not its story.

The final score for “White House Down” is 5.2 out of 10.

action thriller · Channing Tatum · movie review · Roland Emmerich · White House Down