Eh, more critical tripe. It sounds like people were expecting more out of Olympus has Fallen and now this one, than should be expected from an action film. It was a fine movie that Butler more than carries to be honest. The first movie, which was not very noteworthy, wasn't bad in my opinion. The action was stupid good, it had a decent amount of suspense, and some of the scenes were truly brutal and believable. I find certain criticisms very strange. The generic John McClain remark, for example. Action movies where the "hero" is a little whiny neckbeard just don't make sense. Action movies with this type of characterization are meant to be a fantasy, a fantasy just about every reviewer misses the point on entirely. It's meant to feel good when the good guy wins at the level the good guys win at in these movies. The fantasy is that we could all step up like they did in that same situation and be the pivotal character of change in a dire situation. That is why they make the characters somewhat simple but ultimately likable.
Also, White House Down was a completely different animal, the two are actually hardly comparable if you are speaking about anything beyond the basic plot. I know, progressives loved that movie because it offered a fantasy about a person of essentially weak character actually doing something that wasn't crying. That said, I enjoyed both movies but for clearly different reasons. One is essentially an a strict action movie, while the other is a comedy with a bit of drama thrown in. Both good for completely different reasons. But I would expect a critic to not actually see the broad differences in favor a specious, out of place comparison.
PS. I enjoying being a person critic over a movie critic, in case no one could tell.