MovieChat Forums > Olympus Has Fallen (2013) Discussion > "A disgraced Secret Service agent ..." ...

"A disgraced Secret Service agent ..." ??

posted 9 years ago by puirt-a-beul
3 replies | jump to latest

I've just watched this ... yeah, it's not great. There are some huge illogicalities, but this is another one hit me first:

a) How is he "disgraced"? I can't see that he could have done anything differently to prevent the death of the First Lady or the other agents. (i.e. it wasn't his fault)

b) I can understand that we're supposed to accept that he blames himself. And if he's no longer suitable for the detail to cover the President, then I can understand that too. But he seems to be moping around the White House doing nothing. Why would that be tolerated? If he can't do his job, wouldn't he have been pensioned off?

c) What was it that hit the car anyway? It didn't look like an animal (a deer or the like); it seemed to come from above, not in front. At first I thought it might have been something dropped from an overpass, but there wasn't one. It was a bit distracting that they just left that hanging -- even a passing comment in the following scene(s) would have taken care of it.

I know; he had to be there so he could save the day; and he had to be "bruised" so he could be driven to redeem himself and we could all cheer for him at the end. But really, it was all a bit mechanical, wasn't it?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] samhmd-7489 9 years ago

a) He feels disgraced, no one blames him for anything. It's just how he feels.

b) He's doing his job at the Treasury, he was reassigned there. He does a good job and the Secret Service Director says so. He just doesn't like the desk work.

c) A big branch. The storm knocked it off a tree and it hit the windshield.

I guess the real one at fault was the driver, but he was dead and no one could blame him for anything.

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

Thanks for the reply. 

I didn't make the "disgraced" term up -- it's how he's described in the official blurb for the film -- "A disgraced Secret Service agent", not "A Secret Service agent who feels he failed" or whatever. And the film itself makes it clear in the dialogue he was reassigned because he was seen as disgraced -- in the eyes of others, not just his own -- and no-one wanted to work with him any more. Hence my questions, posted straight after having watched it; I know the "disgraced" bit was purely posturing for the dramatics, and probably floated past most people unquestioned, but it really didn't make a lot of sense.

I guess, more fool me, for expecting sense out of this paint-by-numbers flick. I came within an inch of seeing the sequel -- I was actually in the cue for tickets, because I just wanted to see an action flick -- and then I remembered how dumb this one was, and the reviews I'd seen that said the sequel was even dumber. So I went and sat by the harbour instead. Not so much action -- no-one blew up a ferry, or whatever -- but a whole lot more sense.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] samhmd-7489 9 years ago

I know the synopsis says so, I'm guessing that also just refers to his personal feelings.

The movie says that no one blamed him, even the President. If he had been blamed, he'd have been dismissed rather than reassigned (a lot of people don't know this, but the Secret Service was first formed to protect the Treasury. Later they were Presidential Bodyguards).

The director of the Secret Service says he was reassigned rather than fired because the President just felt like seeing him was a reminder of his dead wife.

London has fallen wasn't that good.