- Directed by Patricia Riggen
- April 10, 2025
- Prime Video
The president must use her military skills to fight terrorists that have taken over a G20 conference. I think they expected a different outcome for the ’24 election.
Sometimes you watch a movie knowing it might be a little rough but still hoping for a worthwhile experience. I do that often and this time it was G20-a 2025 film starring Viola Davis as President Danielle Sutton who at 59 might be a bit old to finally start being the protagonist in action movies.
Viola Davis is better than this movie gives her. She’s a fantastic actress but not every actress can be an action star. While fine as an authority figure she lacks the skill to be convincing in fight scenes. In the first real moment of action for the character, Sutton is getting strangled and largely engages in a slap fight while on her back (no joke) with the attacker as her primary Secret Service agent Manny Ruiz (Ramón Rodríguez) has an exciting fistfight with another attacker. This is one of many moments where the lead should have been doing something but those duties were handed off often to Ruiz.
Sutton is supposed to be the hero but those around her do far more to save the day than she does. Her presence inspires others? Maybe that is the implication. Even the third tier character of the wife of the Korean president helps more than Sutton does despite her screen time. If this were more of an ensemble piece that would be acceptable but those taking action are barely defined.
Sutton is meant to be a strong female character, but director Patricia Riggen and company accomplish that by having all others be inferior to her. Some (mostly men) by leaps and bounds while the women slightly less but never failing to find a way to point out that Sutton is great and right. Making a character strong-be them male or female, young or old-does not mean you make everyone around weaker. You make them the equivalent of the characters around them.
A lot of the plot involves jerky men or just plain misogyny. Take your pick. Both would be valid. I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist, but the level of sexism we see here feels almost cartoonish. Heck the British Prime Minister (Douglas Hodge) before we even see him on the screen is stated as hating strong women. I’m left with the distinct impression that those behind G20 expected a very different outcome for the most recent election in the US. I see this in the same vein as when Jamie Foxx played the president in White House Down while Obama was in office.
This promises an action film/thriller but what G20 delivers is a lot of talking and two-dimensional political posturing by the villains. In the beginning the baddie Ruttledge (Anthony Starr) comes off as a well-armed version of your know nothing relative or blow hard coworker than he does an individual capable of taking hostage a group of world leaders at a G20 summit. Weirdly as the story goes on he starts making some sense.
His stance against a government controlled crypto and that it would allow governments more control and the individual less freedom has merit. If you can prevent someone from spending with the press of a button how is that not giving government greater control? We’ve seen governments freezing the assets of individual citizens when they protest. Looking at you Canada. That’s a lot of power to lay in the hands of individuals who may not always have your best interests or sustaining of personal freedoms in mind.
Rutledge also plans to crash the dollar in favor of crypto. He’s a mix of bitter former soldier and cartoonish right-wing terrorist with a dash of Hans Gruber’s brother seeking to make a buck. He didn’t have one driving force making his villain feel unfocused. Ruttledge was just kind of all over the place. Is his goal financial or political?
One of the bigger issues is that Rutledge livestreams the whole thing. Think about it. Why? He is putting his face out there and letting it be known exactly what the person that’s committing this terrorist act looks like. He may end up rich by the end of it but where is he going to go spend that money?
He doesn’t have any bigger dreams having multiple world leaders under his control than crypto? Did nobody give any real thought to this? I have said here plenty of times (as have others elsewhere) that characters are only as smart as those writing them and I don’t think the people that wrote this were very smart. They tossed together a couple of cool sounding or trendy ideas with a strong message but gave a little thought to how things would play out. ‘Crypto,’ ‘deepfake,’ and ‘misinformation’ get dropped like confetti.
Both Ruttledge and the inside person view Sutton as having been handed the presidency undeservedly over a picture that was misrepresented in the media. A whole fiction seems to have been built up around this picture that got Sutton into one of the most powerful offices in the world. Sutton admits to not being tough but should probably admit to being a fraud though never does. That is the important aspect.
Inside person Treasury Secretary Joanna Worth (Elizabeth Marvel) felt the presidency should have been hers. There is the implication the campaign between the two was quite bitter. Her villain speech had all the strength of a teenager throwing a tantrum because she thought she should have been prom queen. Secret Service agent Darden (John Hoogenakker) joins Ruttledge because of Sutton’s plan to help African farmers. That seems a bit much. I’m just not sure how that would drive someone to do what he did. In other words all the evil people are just not convincing in their motivation.
Precocious kids can be the worst character type. In the opening of G20 Sutton’s daughter Serena (Marsai Martin) is being brought back to the White House after sneaking out. She was able to hack into the White House computer systems and pretty much leave the grounds when she wanted. If you don’t think that plays into the film’s resolution then think again. She is smart and capable while those around her look like special needs in comparison.
G20 uses some realism to explain away some things not occurring like what would happen in other action films but that logic doesn’t extend to Ruiz consistently wearing a bulletproof vest. He gets wounded. Just because it’s the G20 doesn’t mean you take off your body armor. Then he has it on without a bullet hole in it. What’s the point? And why was it not on Sutton? She’s the president and has nothing.
After the day is saved G20 finishes with the leaders of the world signing the agreement to help the African farmers and other things that Sutton supported amongst a montage of people looking on at her in..pride? Awe? So the only way to get them to support this was after a moment of intense emotion when they may not have been thinking that clearly? I know I am reading a bit into this but it’s clear they’re trying to make some kind of commentary.
Even though this is derivative of the likes of Airforce One I don’t necessarily consider that a strike against it. The problem is this derivative movie does nothing with the main character. She gets a lot of Steven Seagal speeches about how awesome she is but does little to actually demonstrate that. There are one too many villains with nothing convincing. G20 was more for the purposes of background noise than sitting down and actual watching. Even a casual viewing brings so much into question.
I was significantly underwhelmed by G20. In a word it was cringe. Unintentionally so but still cringe. If your home is too quiet turn it on for sound but do not actually watch.
Warren Watched A Movie 