The Worst Film Ever

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

**SPOILERS** It's when accountant Terry Allen, Peter Krause, was laid off his job that he became influenced by the no-stop bombardment of cable news networks in how dangerous the world is.Not being able to get a job and with prices, of gas food as well as rent, going sky high Terry started to slowly focus his hatred and frustration on those whom the news outlet for the most part blamed most of his problems on! Those, like Terry called them, middle-eastern looking guys who want to do him and his fellow American in; In every way they possibly can including killing themselves in order to do it!It's one day when Terry noticed his new next neighbor-a middle-eastern looking guy-that his paranoia of whats been happening in the world, in regards to 9/11 like terrorism, shot to the roof! The middle-eastern looking guy turned out to be a Arab exchange student Gabe Hassan, Khaled Abol Naga, who had a strange habit of dumping his garbage at odd times at night, like between 2 and 3 AM. Hassan also had his friends scuzzy and shifty eyed looking fellow Arab, or middle eastern looking guys, show up at his place with all kinds of strange packages for reasons other then just plain partying or shooting the breeze!Peeking into the dumpster and checking out Hassan' garbage Terry notices a letter from the "Sons of Benevolance" that he received that looked like some kind of Islamic terrorist front organization! Meanwhile back home Terry's wife Marla, Kari Matchett, starts to get very concerned and worried about her husbands strange behavior to the point when later in the film where she leaves him because he refuses to seek help for it! Knowing he's on to something and refusing to let go of it Terry gets in touch with the local FBI office in the person of FBI Agent Tom Hilary-Richard Schiff-who, to his shock and surprise, tells Terry to lay off Hassan if he doesn't went to end up behind bars in a federal prison!Feeling more like a criminal, or even terrorist, then a concerned citizen doing his civic duty to prevent another 9/11 by how he's treated by Agent Hilary Terry goes out on his own to stop Hassan, who's experimenting with chemical agents in his kitchen, from pulling off, in Terry's mind, a major terrorist attack! It's then that Marla now back home, from her sisters, again gets into the act by going to the local police in order to have them stop her by now emotionally deranged husband from doing something that he'll end up regretting for the rest of his life!***SPOILERS*** There's really no heroes or villains in "Civic Duty" but only victims. You can't dislike Terry for what he does because he's become a victim of the news media that has been proved, at least since the run up to Iraq War, to be wrong far more times that it's right! In its at times hysterical and unprofessional way of informing the American pubic about what's happening in the both Middle and Near East as well as the world at large! As for Gabe Hassan-the middle-eastern looking guy-he in fact came across as being the most honest and decent person in the entire movie! It's also Hassan who really gives a shocked and totally befuddled Terry, as well as the audience, the reasons what motivates middle-eastern looking guys like himself to do the horrible things that they do! There's also in a small but important role in the film Police Let. Randell Llyod played by a Charles Bronson-without his famous mustache-looking Ian Tracy. It's Let. Llyod who, unlike the insensitive FBI Agent Hilary, tries to get Terry to give himself up and release his hostage promising him help, not jail, if he does.**MAJOR SPOILER** Really shocking ending that will blow you, like it did Terry, away in that we learn that not everything that was going on in the film was as clear cut as we were made to think that it was. But by then the damage was already done due to the paranoid climate that kept those who should have known better, in the Government, from thinking straight and realizing that they in their mindless self serving and self righteous actions were ultimately the cause of it!

"Civic Duty" is like "Rear Window" for the post-9/11 age. Terry Allen is a recently laid-off accountant who, thanks in large part to an ubiquitous, sensation-seeking news media, has become increasingly obsessed with the "terrorist threat" plaguing the Western world. When a young Middle Eastern man moves into an apartment across the way, Terry immediately goes into surveillance mode, spying on his every move, following him around town, breaking into his home, and even reporting him to what Terry quickly learns, much to his dismay, is a decidedly uninterested and unconcerned FBI. Soon, his life and marriage are falling apart as he plunges ever deeper into his paranoia-driven madness."Civic Duty" starts off as a reasonably compelling psychological thriller, but the longer the movie goes on the more far-fetched and heavy-handed it becomes. Peter Krause, who was so subtle and effective as the star of "Six Feet Under," is forced to go so over-the-top in his performance here that we begin to fear he'll burst a blood vessel long before the movie is over. The underlining doesn't stop there, however, for Jeff Renfroe"s direction is filled with any number of hokey touches, including panning wildly or having the camera do virtual somersaults anytime anything even remotely sinister or suspenseful is about to take place.The movie first points out how the media, obsessed with profits and ratings, finds it necessary to bombard us with a steady stream of potential terror threats, both real and manufactured, on an around-the-clock basis - and then questions what kind of effect such sensory overload might have on an already unstable personality. And, beyond that, might the media and the political class it serves be turning all of us, to some degree or another, into raging paranoiacs, ready to pry into our neighbors' private business in the cause of national security? Unfortunately, this provocative theme gets buried under a truckload of paranoid-thriller clichés.Kari Matchett, Khaled Abol Naga and Richard Schiff ("The West Wing") do well in their various roles, but the movie, well intentioned though it is, falls far short of its potential.

Pros: Great acting throughout; Peter Krause is incredible. All extras fill their respective roles convincingly, as well. Directer put great emphasis on the details, which, in this movie, is important. Story/Plot is simple due to its symbolic nature, making it easy to follow. Awesome camera work lends to the unsettling nature of the film. Great cultural/stereotype contrasts, displayed with perfection.Cons: Message is too heavy-handed, taking away some realism. Film tends to be dramatically claustrophobic. It does not matter if it was intended, it still needed air.Where They Went Wrong: There is an anti-American diatribe against American Foreign Policy to rebut the cruel treatment of women in certain Middle-Eastern countries. This did nothing to lend to the films credibility and came off as ridiculous and unfair. Conflicts (wars) are completely different than inhumane domestic policy. Even if those conflicts are wrong. The whole screed was a misnomer.Where They Went Right: The symbolism of Krause's angry disposition serving as Americas general hostility, fed by media hype and propaganda. The predisposition made the whole chaotic scenario almost believable.This film was enjoyable, just wish it would have been well rounded. Also, we could've used this film 2-3 years ago. But, whatever.Rent It.

The best thing I can say about 'Civic Duty' is that it makes me want to move out to Hollyland and get a job. They obviously need help.The problem with this film isn't just that it's not a good film (though, truly, it isn't very good); its problem is that it should probably never have been made. Here's why: The basic conflict in this kind of movie, by definition, is between paranoia and reality. Krause's character, however, is set up to be obviously paranoid. In any suspense thriller, a filmmaker must work *against* expectations. And in a *really* good suspense thriller, the filmmaker should even work against the expectation that he or she will be working against expectation. And in a truly *exceptional* film of this kind, you can repeat this process and flip reality several times.'Civic Duty' takes no such steps. Terry is suspicious about his neighbor from the first time he sees him, though for no real reason except overexposure to news media. There is very little effort (indeed, perhaps none at all) made to make the viewer suspect that perhaps the neighbor is, in fact, nefarious. We're simply waiting around to see how badly Krause will unravel.But that *still* doesn't address the heart of this movie's problem, which is that in the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry, it would be all but impossible to make a movie in which a character is paranoid about a mysterious Middle Eastern neighbor, only to find that said neighbor *is* in fact a "terrorist." It would be somewhat gutsy film-making, in fact, to make such a movie. And since Terry is riddled with paranoia, the filmmakers spoon-feeding us with several minutes of news footage and Bushspeak before the movie even gets underway, the movie simply has nowhere to go.And that's what it does. It goes nowhere.It would have worked better if it had been done the opposite way. Perhaps Terry could have a long-time friend or co-worker who's Middle Eastern. Perhaps a third party, an FBI agent or even his wife, could voice suspicions. Terry would defend his friend right to the end, only to end up going down in flames with him when the truth was finally revealed. That would have at least loaned a touch of dramatic irony. Or perhaps the FBI agent, or lead investigating character, could have himself been Middle Eastern, and the film could have shown that character's inner struggle: not wanting to believe that this hard-working master's candidate had something to hide vs. doing his duty to protect the American public, frustrated by always being required to investigate people of his own ethnic background. Of course, that would require the absence of Richard Schiff, who in my opinion was the movie's only saving grace (man, do I miss 'The West Wing'). Here's an even better scenario. Terry could have come to his senses about his paranoia toward the end of the second act. Amidst his embarrassment, he could have become reluctant friends with Gabe. Then he could discover that, not Gabe himself, but Gabe's associates at the copy shop were part of a terrorist cell and were 'using' Gabe as an unwitting 'mule' (or whatever). This would then provide motivation for Terry to again take action. His reluctance to end up looking foolish again would be outweighed by a sense of duty (nay, 'civic' duty) to Gabe, whom he is now motivated to protect since he put him through such an ordeal to begin with. Of course, Gabe would be reluctant to believe this. And perhaps the audience would again suspect that Gabe himself is knowingly involved. But in the end, it would be Gabe who would give his life to destroy the cell, thereby becoming a hero and doing his 'civic duty.' And there you have it: You could have had a good movie, and still been politically correct. Hell, the 'bad guys' don't even have to end up being Middle Eastern. They could have been pale white corporate crooks, perhaps selling information or materials to "terrorists" who themselves are never seen. The only Middle Easterner in the film would turn out to be the hero. Then you could have your movie and still be *completely* politically correct. But as it stands, 'Civic Duty' goes exactly where you think it's going to go the moment you see the photo on the DVD box and read the description. Because it has nowhere else to go. Which brings me back to my original point: Who the heck greenlights such projects?? How can you set out to make a suspense thriller when the outcome, for largely political reasons, is practically a foregone conclusion. I'm really not trying to advance my own ideology here. I'm just demonstrating how politics has gotten in the way of good entertainment and quality storytelling.