An Exercise In Nonsense

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Potatoes or Stove Top Stuffing? Either way, this one was a turkey! Actually, it DOES provide an evening of entertainment for someone exhausted and brain dead, after a long day's work. There IS lots of action and some decent chemistry between Nick (Craig Sheffer) and Susan (Andrea Roth). For anyone still alert enough to possess any mental faculties at ALL, though, the movie is one for the Thanksgiving dinner table.Sheffer plays a former presidential aid, who leaves the administration after the accidental, but quite unseemly death of a presidential play thing in the Oval Office. Two or three years later, his former partner, Greg Monroe (Doug Steindorff) urgently requests him to investigate the mysterious death of the only witness to the earlier deed, other than the two of them and the President.(CONTAINS SPOILERS) As his investigation unfolds, Nick tries to protect Susan (Roth), a TV news anchor, and (Who would ever guess?) falls for her. When Greg suddenly calls off the investigation, Nick keeps on, since attempts on his and Susan's life are increasing. The whole plot becomes convoluted and confusing, with the power-hungry, manipulative First Lady (Joanna Cassidy) becomes involved in the investigation. In the end, it turns out she was having an affair with the murdered aid (her husband's Chief of Staff at one time) and is determined to see Susan dead, after retrieving a secret video of her and the dead man in bed. Everyone is convinced Susan knows of its existence and whereabouts – although she doesn't until near the end.Worse than the convoluted plot line is the ridiculous shoot-‘em-up action. If this were a comedic SPOOF of espionage/secret agent films, like Austin Powers or the Get Smart series, that would be one thing. But director David L. Corley is obviously TRYING to be serious. Several times, professional assassins have Susan in their gun sights, from well-hidden positions in dense undergrowth, etc. Every time, Nick somehow KNOWS they are there and manages to sneak up behind them and overpower them. Plus, time after time, Nick, with only a hand gun (and sometimes one for Susan) fights his way out of gangs of heavily-armed professional killers, unscathed. At one point he appears to take at least two bullets. Susan manages to get him to a motel room. There, apparently, the sheer affection she is beginning to feel for him, coupled with the power of her good looks, somehow heels his wounds with no other medical assistance needed! The next day he is back on his feet, as good as new! THEN, when it's apparently Nick's time to die, just the opposite is true! After fighting their way out of absolutely ridiculous situations the entire film, the couple finds themselves standing in a dark alley, with a middle-aged crime boss standing on a platform in the dark, some 20 feet up. The man has probably not had to do his own shooting for 25 years and probably not much of a marksman by now. Now, ever, Nick's seemingly inexhaustible supply of bullets has run out. `Gee, I'm out of bullets,' (or something akin to that) he says sheepishly, almost shrugging, as if acknowledging that he has reached Corley's exit scene. Susan, though, standing about six inches away, has a fully loaded gun. The fiftyish crime boss leisurely draws his gun and fires through the darkness, at Susan. Nick jumps in front of her as he shoots. This time the bullet hits just right and Nick dies almost immediately. Susan calmly shoots back, dropping the crime boss with two shots. So why the heck didn't she just plug the old fart to START with??? Or why didn't she simply trade guns with Nick? Arrrrrrrgh!Also, in the end, the First Lady's trusted aid is blown away by a rifle blast THROUGH THE WINDOW of her White House living quarters, after proving to be treacherous! Good grief, Mr. Corley! With a string of bodies already mounting, one would think this polished and highly ambitious First Lady could have disposed of her sneaky aid in about a MILLION better ways (i.e., food poisoning, a set-up car crash, alleged botched assassination attempt on HER, faked mugging/rape attempt, private plane crash, etc.) than being blown away with a rifle, through a White House window!Plot holes the size of the White House itself keep this from being enjoyable for anyone not too tired to reason. It's not quite bad enough to be MST3000 fodder, but it might be useful as a film to show aspiring film makers – as an example of how NOT to make an action/suspense flick! Now, pass the sweet potatoes, please!

While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.

The banner says it all, this is one really bad movie, which is sad because I normally like Sheffer, and I have been impressed with Andrea Roth in other roles. This, however, is terrible. I wont waste any more time...its just that bad.

This movie was OK - the typical suspense thriller that you watch on cable. It's not worth going to the theater for, but it's not so bad that you'd be compelled to channel surf in the middle. I must admit the only reason I watched it was to see Craig Sheffer. He was great, as usual.The thing I found most striking about this film was the volume of common grammatical errors. It was appalling. I will never understand why these types of errors aren't corrected during a screenplay's revision and a film's production.