Reviews

This is the usual TV movie fluff obviously tossed together to cash in on a few of those old conspiracy ideas floating around forever about airlines, the military, and evil corporations. What really astounded me, though, is the director: T. J. Scott. If you look at his credits, he's clearly a TV director, but his credits include some really powerful stuff. He directed some of the best episodes of Andromeda and La Femme Nikita. He directed what are really the best of the best of Xena including the Callisto episodes. Surely, he knows better than this nonsense. He not only agreed to direct this slop, but also involved in the writing of it.

A sure sign of a bad adaptation of a novel: Nowhere in the credits do you see mention of Nelson DeMille or Thomas Block, the authors of the book this film is based on. Clearly, they asked that their names be removed from the resulting disaster.

This is a film that fails dismally by itself, but is redeemed by a truly great DVD special feature.

I truly love experimental movies and imports and this clearly falls into that category. But, the film is not at all well done. It's dull in many places and too often reduces to sex for the sake of prurient interested. The plot, or lack of plot, rambles about and is very confusing. Some of the symbolism is so obscure you won't know it until you listen to the director's commentary. You have trouble identifying with any of the characters because they are so unrealistic.

But, it is in the area of the DVD director's commentary that this film shines brightly. Just out of curiosity, I turned it on after watching the film and was surprised how much I learned about the film, the directing process, the actors, and the director's life. Interestingly enough, the commentary is far better than the actual film. Though the film is meant to be somewhat autobiographical, the real facts of Asia's life are far more interesting and make much more sense, though they be somewhat strange to those of us looking from the outside. So many commentaries tend to be just some trivia about the shoot. This one tells lots of great stories about the people and process. You'll learn so much about stolen shots and when the sex is real and when it's not. I wish more commentaries went out on a limb to tell of truth about what is going on in the creative process as she has done here.

One scene sums up the entire problem with this film. Near the end, Rush is portraying Sellers in "Being There", an excellent and often overlooked film.

If you've seen Being There, the parts reenacted in this film demonstrate the clear difference between the genius that was Peter Sellers and the poor performance of Geoffrey Rush in this film. Sellers was smooth and fit the role perfectly. Chauncey Gardiner was a very difficult role to play and Sellers fit is perfectly. Rush looks awful, jittering around and not at all bringing the character to life. They made Rush look like Sellers, but he hasn't the acting chops to hold up in this role.

Am I the only one getting tired of "flawed genius" films? Do we really need to trash the memory of every great actor?

I thought it rather ironic that the morning after watching Bowling for Columbine I received a call from the NRA. The call was a lobbying call trying to drum up opposition to Senate bill 1807, which the caller claimed was sponsored by John McCain and Hillary Clinton and would ban all gun shows. Of course, both of these statements are a lie. The irony here is that I got to hear both the anti-gun and pro-gun lobbies lie through their teeth in a single 24 hour period.

This movie is so loaded with falsehoods that it can never be taken seriously. I don't care what Michael Moores politics are, but if he can't make an argument without splicing speeches out of order and out of context, inventing statistics, lying about timelines, stating myths as fact, or any of the other stupidities in this film, he obviously has no argument to make and that puts him on the same level with the NRAs, Ann Coulters, and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

I'll not add to the bad comments about this movie, the movie speaks badly for itself quite enough. But, I was surprised to see some people comment on how realistic the newscast was. I think they should switch back and forth between this movie and CNN. The difference is astounding. Even the stupid commercial break gimmick is wrong; how many commercials did we see on the first day of the Iraq war? All of the news people look and sound like bad actors, not journalists.

I avoided watching Taken. I'm an avid SciFi fan and watch the SciFi network quite a bit. If you watched SciFi any in the month preceding Taken, you noticed something: an onslaught of Taken advertising on a Biblical scale! By the final week or so, you got two (2) Taken ads in every commercial break. I was so sick and tired of it that I just could not watch Taken when it came on. And, if you didn't watch Taken, you didn't watch SciFi. They removed all non-Taken programming from the schedule and ran the series many, many times.

But, I'm a SF fan and the lure of anything new in SF just got to me, so I slipped into a few of the early episodes. Well, I have to tell you, there's nothing you can do to make the 50's interesting. But, there were occasional moments of interest. When the marathon showing came on I watched much of the series (sorry, but who has 20 hours to spare?) I was not impressed.

Okay, I know what they wanted to do. They took all of the silly alien abduction stories and area 51 and all that nonsense and used that as a basis for the story. Given that, the show started as a cliche, but on purpose, which can be quite fun. However, they then proceeded to toss in every other stupid, overdone cliche they could think of. Vast Government Conspiracy#5, Alien Baby#2, there's an entire catalog. They created exciting scenes that meant nothing. Mary saw the horrible future? What horrible future? She never explained anything. Or, are they fishing for a series here? Plot holes abounded, and the end was standard Star Child plot #1. Is it coincidence that Encore has been running V quite a bit lately?

Boring, overly long, and cliche. Clearly not worth the advertising bombardment.

I'm waiting for the big movie: `Apollo 11', (with Tom Hanks, of course) about Bob `Skyman' William's historic landing on the moon. It's full of thrills and chills as they battle meteor storms and a Russian plot to destroy the craft on the ground which is averted at the last minute by a commando operation led by. Oh, come on, you say. They would never do something as stupid as rewriting the history of the Apollo moon landings, even changing the names, right? Actually, Hollywood has a habit of rewriting history all of the time. This movie is a good example of this (for the most egregious and ridiculous example, see Memphis Belle, which only resembles reality in the name of the aircraft). In `The Dish', all of the names are changed, the personnel are different, the structure of the project is different, and `exciting crisis' are added. So, you don't get to know what part of history is correct (the high winds) and what part is bogus (the power failure). You miss the idea of what part Parkes actually played and the technical achievement it took. You get the idea that this was some small operation that got `invited' to help, missing the huge infrastructure they had to build to support the operation. You don't see the incredible skill of the operators, some of whom did not get to see the very landing they were helping relay the video from because they had complex jobs to do. Truly fascinating stories, such as the inadvertent destruction of the scan converter and its rebuild using scavenged parts, are omitted in favor of things like the project director's `dead wife' plotline (also fiction; in reality, she was the one with the picnic baskets). This is a fun movie to watch, but imagine how much more significant it could have been if it had chosen to tell the real story.

This movie is best summarized by a conversation early in the movie between the Rob Lowe character and his wife. He's just told her that the ship is being taken over by terrorists, that the captain has been shot in the head, and that they have to get off the ship. She responds with a monologue about how she just wants a little excitement in her life and he should let her have it. From there it goes downhill.

Oh, and the props department really should have done some more work to make the statue that's so important in this film look like something more than paper mache.

This movie is a true story of a real airliner accident where a miscalculation causes the plane to run out of fuel during a flight. I found the cockpit scenes to be fascinating, but there were some really stupid mistakes that distracted from the film enough to annoy me. The most ridiculous of these was the behavior of the crew then the plane finally comes to a stop on the ground. Instead of immediately proceeding with the evacuation of the plane, they all just sit there, supposedly thanking their maker for surviving. Then, they open the front and rear exits and proceed to all exit from the rear of the plane. Not one person exits from the front, even though the slide is in place and the drop much less than in the back. Even the cockpit crew feels some need to work their way through the smoke to the back of the plane to exit. Why?

I was also annoyed with the endless boring background stories and thoughts. They actually have voiceovers at one point of what the passengers are thinking. It was very dull and filled a lot of time.

Time was a particular problem in this film. It really could have been a good hour story. The real action takes place in the last 35 miles of the flight, which does not take very long at over 200 knots. Instead, we had one fifteen minute period when they only went five miles. Then, in a matter of seconds, they jumped 10 miles. I think this would have been more powerful had they told the ending of the flight in real time.

The cockpit suspense was really good and I enjoyed it. The endless pouring over manuals and trying different thinks made the story more real. Had they been a bit more realistic about time and dropped the side stories, this could have been a really good TV movie (but not a "real" movie). I give it 5/10.

It has been many years since I saw this film on "USA Up All Night" (with Gilbert Gotfried at that time, I believe) and I would love to see it again. It's a moody SF show with some startling visuals (the plane wreckage), some cheesy effects (the planet control center and Einstein), and a plodding feel to it that elicits a strong feeling of tension. However, what I remember the most about it was that it moved back and forth between French and English very quickly and with no subtitles, but someone who only knows English could understand it just fine. This really contributed to the other-worldly feel of the movie.

I'm not sure how it got an 8.1 here, I would rate it more around the 5-6 range. But, I would like to see it again if I could.

I found Firebase Gloria to be a highly educational film. Yes, it's a somewhat patriotic view of the Vietnam war and the Tet offensive, though it has some clear criticisms of the American involvement in the war. I'm actually shocked that so many people see this as "gung-ho American". There is extensive criticism of the US involvement in the war, portrayals of barbarism by American's, and examples of ineptitude on the part of the military. But, that's been done. What this film did for me was teach me a lot of details about warfare that I never knew:

1. The M16 rifle is a miraculous weapon. It never needs reloading. You never once see a clip changed in this film. You will see continuous automatic fire for long periods of time. Unfortunately, the AK-15 has this same beneficial characteristic.

2. If you have to fall back or move forward in a battle situation, the proper technique is to do so slowly while standing splay legged perpendicular to the line of fire and shooting. All of that silly running and crawling you see on other shows must be nonsense. Clearly, it is your duty to make yourself the best possible target when moving during battle.

3. When VC troops are shot with that miraculous M16, they fly straight up into the air with a dramatic spreading of the arms and legs. Now, I would have thought that the momentum might knock them back or that the bullet wouldn't really move them that much, but that's clearly my mistake. If it's your last moment on earth, you might as well over-act.

4. Battles have clear "phases" that everyone agrees too. You do the mortars for a while, and then you do the mad rush by thousands of Filipinos. Do not mix the two. The idea of a coordinated attack using multiple munitions must be against the rules or something.

5. It's okay to shoot your buddy in the head when they are wounded with plenty of witnesses around, provided they ask you to do so. Don't worry; the nice doctor won't turn you in for murder. Be sure you do so with a revolver, even though you're not likely to have one around in Vietnam.

6. There is actually an actor named "Wings Hauser". Next thing someone's going to tell me there's a military reporter at CNN named "Wolf Blitzer".

Several people talk about how realistic this film is. I have no doubt that many elements do ring true. But, when I see a soldier in a defensive position stand up in a foxhole making as large a target as possible, I have to wonder what they were thinking.

First off, I should point out that I have not read the book, so I came at the movie with a very open mind. In contrast to many comments by people writing here, I had no problem following the story line and understanding the movie. Admittedly, there did seem to be a lot of plot elements that are just hinted at or lightly touched, but this is a movie that is very understandable, provided you are willing to "think". Yes, I know some people expect a movie to be passive entertainment where they just turn their brains off. But, they have plenty of movies to watch without having to see this one.

Overall, the story of Quoyle, his hard life and damaged daughter, are very strong. The tie-ins to the Quoyle past serve to reinforce the character and the story. The only thing wrong with this movie is the Quoyle/Prowse love story. It was just way too easy. They fell into each others arms with no tension, no effort. Given the tragic undertones of the movie, that contrast was just too much and did not work well at all. It probably works well in the book because the motivations can be developed better. But, on screen it was too much "they are written for each other" from the moment they catch each other's eyes. This really prevents any chemistry from developing between the characters.

Another complaint about this movie is the overuse of dream sequences and imagery. They come off as heavy handed and the "is it real or a dream" effect is very much a movie cliché.

Other than the seriously broken love subplot, this is a strong film with some interesting performances. Judi Dench as the elderly aunt returning the Quoyle name to Newfoundland was very good. Scott Glenn turns in a masterful performance. The accents are passable, and the scenery incredible. It's clearly not going to boost immigration to Newfoundland, though.

CSI has been praised for bringing science to the forefront in a prime-time television series. It was, by no means, the first show to do so. You may remember McGyver, the Richard Dean Anderson vehicle wherein he played the title role, a hero who saved the day with gadgets and scientific knowledge. But, McGyver failed dismally as a demonstration of science because they so often got it wrong. They used the excuse that they did not want to show correct ways to make explosives, etc., but that was only an excuse because so many shows were based on stupidities such as visible laser security systems, fixed a phonograph playback by tuning coils in the radio electronics, fixing a radiator that has bullet holes by dropping in an egg, etc.

The reason I think this is important is that CSI has shown a few times that it was willing to toss the science aside in favor of plot. The most egregious example was a story where a worker was electrocuted. The perp had cut the ground wire on the extension cable, thereby disabling the GFCI circuit breaker. Or, at least, that was what they said in the show. In reality, GFCI breakers work just fine even if the ground is non-existent, as is the case for most bathroom appliances such as curling irons and hair dryers, the main items GFCI breakers were designed to protect against. That episode had lots of dumb mistakes in it and I'm seeing more mistakes creeping in. The day they decide that accuracy does not matter is when this show is dead. Let's hope these were flukes and not representative of a trend.

If you ever get a chance to see an episode of Mannix, you'll see a picture of a car exploding in the opening sequence. The episode that is from is one of my favorite examples of stupidity in movies and television. Here's how the sequence begins:

Victim has brake lines cut in car. Of course, down shifting, shutting the engine off, or pulling the emergency brake are all way too obvious for our hero, who careens out of control and finally crashes through a fence and flies off the mountain. The car explodes into a fireball in mid-air. It doesn't have to hit anything, it just blows up.

Now, any poor quality director could have produced that sequence. It took real bottom-of-the-barrel power to add the next touch:

Mannix is sitting in his office reading the paper. On the cover is a picture of the exploding car IN MID-AIR. Not only did the car explode, there was a news photographer sitting around waiting for it to happen. What a scoop!

Mercury Rising is a very conventional "government bad guys" story about evil agents out to kill an autistic boy who can break their top code. Of course, the premise of the movie, that the government would rather kill someone who can break their code rather than fixing the problems with the code, is incredibly stupid. If one boy can break the code, isn't is reasonable that some other boy in Russia or wherever can also break it? If it has a flaw that allows the kid to find the pattern, doesn't it need to be fixed? Of course, not. We just kill the kid and pretend nothing ever happened.

But, what is really sad is that there is a grain of truth in this story. It is the policy of the US Government that TRYING to break codes is illegal. If you are smart enough to figure out that the DVD encryption has a major flaw, it's not the fault of the designers, it's your fault. Researchers who have discovered flaws in codes, watermarks, etc, have been arrested. This "head in the sand" policy has been around for a long time.

So, next time you see this movie, just think how easy it would be to combine this attitude with someone a bit too gung ho.

In the early 60's, a nun, calling herself The Singing Nun, released an album of musical hymns and religious songs that turned out to strike a chord with the public. Just about everyone alive in that era still can recognize the strains of Dominique. Naturally, Hollywood chose to make her story into a movie. What they actually did was make an idealized story into a movie, pretending it is the true story. As such, the story comes off as syrupy and too much everyone's fantasy of the perfect nun. She wants only to work with children; she thinks of nothing but her service to the church, she actually rails against abortion in the film. This makes the movie plodding and very boring in places. It also projects a too-virginal image that gets old very quickly. And, for some reason they felt the need to have an old flame to the pre-habit days around to spice things up just a bit, though she remains true to her faith throughout.

The true story is of Jeanine Deckers, known to the world mostly at Soeur Sourire ("Sister Smile"), who called the film "a film of fiction". In the convent she was known as Sister Luc-Gabrielle and did not like the Sister Smile moniker the record company came up with. In contrast to the perfection of the movie, Jeanine Deckers was a very conflicted personality who did not like the attention of the world and definitely did not hold an attraction to a male record producer as shown in the film. In fact, she left the order in 1965, accompanied by her lover, Annie Pescher, whom she stayed with until their mutual suicide pact in 1985. Gee, if you were an old Dominique fan, I probably burst a few bubbles there.

What I think is interesting is that the true story would probably be the Hollywood choice were it made today. The 1965 film portrayed perfection and idealism. I'm sure a 2002 film would search for the seediest of details and revel in her contradictions. What is sad is that neither version would make a very good film. The excessively sweet Debbie Reynolds/Recardo Montalban version is mostly pretty dull and the true story would undoubtedly resemble yet anther VH1 Behind the Music.

Watch for Katherine Ross in her first year as an actress as about the only real character in the film. The Ed Sullivan cameo is rather interesting as well.

The Seven Samurai is one of the greatest films ever made. It tells the story of seven warriors who take up the cause of protecting a village from bandits. This story has been adapted many times into movies that include the Magnificent Seven and A Bugs Life. Roger Corman so admired this movie that he decided to create a Sci Fi tribute to it, even adapting the directors name as a planet name. In keeping to this theme and in the same style as Battle Beyond the Stars, I have suggestions for additional movie tributes that Roger Corman may want to consider:

1. A tribute to the Godfather, wherein a character named Michael (played by Leo DeCaprio) drops a pizza on the ground and comments for an hour about the mess it makes.

2. A tribute to Gone with the Wind, with Cindy Lauper as Scarlett trying to keep her home together as the neighbors develop severe gas problems.

3. Richard Thomas as Citizen Cane, about a washed-up TV actor who travels to a small east-asian country, does something stupid, and gets the title treatment, forms a media empire on the Internet, builds a giant mansion with breasts, and dies with the words "Good night Mary Ellen" on his lips.

Sometimes you wish directors had the right of first refusal on tributes to their work. I'm sure this one would not have made it far

One thing I have never cared much for is the movie cliché. You know, evil twins and the like. You've seen them many, many times. And, horror movies have more than their fair share. Let's split up. Invincible monsters that cannot be destroyed. Just stick your head into that hole. The inevitable "bad guy who's only out for himself". Telegraphing the means of your salvation to the audience. "Nobody believes me!" The brilliant kid nobody will listen to. The rebellious daughter. Television series die from their inclusion. Movies such as Hollow Man resort to them because they have no original ideas. In general, they are a sign of awful film making.

Interestingly enough, Eight Legged Freaks appears to have spent considerable effort cataloging the horror/monster genre cliché's in an effort to get them into one film all at once, and that they do so admirably. No, the movie is not very good. The acting is awful, there is NOTHING you can't predict, the heroes can escape any hazard, and the extras are toast. But, just the amazing completeness of the cliché catalog makes this movie worth not only watching, but worthy of detailed study by a film researcher. They have them all, some more than once. Had I spent weeks working on a checklist, I could have checked them all off as present and accounted for during this film. So, be sure to see this film, though I don't recommend actually giving them money. Wait for it to be on cable TV. If Mystery Science Theatre ever returns, that would be the perfect forum for it.

This movie has another interesting characteristic that is worth pointing out. I first noticed this characteristic in the old Stephen King movie Maximum Overdrive. It's what I call the surrender to comedy trend. About half way through Eight Legged Freaks you can tell that the director has given up on making anything remotely resembling a horror movie. The rushes have demonstrated that attempts at fright are coming out dumb or humorous. So, they give up. It happened in Maximum Overdrive and it's happened here. They decided to make a comedy. They try to cover it up a bit, but it doesn't work very well. You know that they know they failed and are trying to salvage what they can.

I did expect one thing that would have been fun in this movie, but did not happen. I fully expected the ending (after everyone is happy) to exhibit the ominous shadow of a very large rabbit.

In 1980 I drove to the nearest city with a theatre to see some film I don't even remember. I arrived late and missed the film. Not wishing to go home, I went to another movie that was about to start called "Airplane". Now, Airplane had just opened and nobody knew anything about it. I had not heard of it and really didn't even know it was a comedy. Few today will ever get the experience I got that night, seeing one of the most brilliant slapstick comedies ever made. I was bowled over by the frantic pace and the brilliant irreverence.

Airplane is a great film. The genre is common today, but at that time it was not. Never had there been a film that toss puns, jokes, paradies, and everything else they could think of at you at such a frantic pace. The movie never slows, bombarding you with a level of silliness that must make the Pythons jealous.

Today, it's just one of a large number of the slapstick parody movies. But, I consider it great for two reasons. It was the root of the entire genre and proved to be a strong root on which to build. And, how many lines from this movie are know by everyone today? Don't call me Shirley. A hospital? It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now. What can you make of this? And, someone finally put the right image with "the s**t hits the fan".

Okay, everyone, let's say it together and hopefully a cliché cold war plot line can be finally put to rest:

Nuclear weapons do not go off accidentally!

Nuclear weapons do not go off accidentally!

Nuclear weapons do not go off accidentally!

During the cold war the Soviets lost 8 nuclear submarines, all armed with nuclear weapons. They had fires, explosions, collisions and all sorts of accidents. How many accidental nuclear explosions were there? NONE! The US lost submarines and crashed several bombers loaded with nuclear weapons. Once, an American nuclear missile exploded in its silo, blasting the hardened lid off the silo and sending the charred warhead crashing to the ground several hundred yards away. There wasn't even a radiation leak. The US actually put nuclear weapon prototypes on rocket sleds and in fires to ensure their safety. I'm sure the Russians did the same. Movies like K19 continue to rely on the myth that a fire or other accident might set off the nuclear weapons, thus triggering World War III. In reality, K19 might have caused an environmental disaster, but it would not have destroyed a NATO ship and base due to the fire or the radiation. Nuclear weapons are complex devices that require a specific set of actions to detonate them. Were it possible to set one off by accident, it would have happened by now.

Before you see this movie, be sure to check out the comments of the actual crew of K19, who all condemn the movie as stupid, inaccurate, and insulting. As an example, they never called the K19 "The Widowmaker". After all, the average crew member was 20 years old and for all who died only one widow was left behind. Why make a "historical" film if it's all fiction?

There are plenty of general comments about this lovely bit of work. I just wanted to make a few specific comments:

1. Rip Torn? Now, I can understand Julie Hagerty, she's not really done much of anything since Airplane. And, Drew Barrymore had the excuse that they were dating at the time, but Rip Torn? He's actually a talented actor. I think he should consider a new agent.

2. Right now, IMDB says "If you like this title, we also recommend... Natural Born Killers". Am I the only one who finds that hilarious?

3. This movie is so bad it bounced off the one all of the way back to two for me. If you realize what he's doing (kind of the same idea as Absolutely Fabulous, without as much any] talent), this show does have it's humorous moments. It's not Casablanca or Natural Born Killers, but it's not Plan 9 From Outer Space, either.

There is no doubt that this is a brilliant war film and probably the best submarine movie ever made (I also like Hunt for Red October, but they are not really comparable films). I saw this in the theatre with subtitles, then later in video, dubbed. However, recently, I got the chance to see a 4 hour 32 minute version on Starz Action. They are, in fact, currently running three versions of lengths 1:59, 2:36, and 4:32. The long version must be close to the original 6 hour mini-series. If it had commercials, it would probably be about 4.5 hours actual footage.

If you have seen shorter versions of this film, try to see the long version. Virtually all of the first half of the film is not in the shorter versions. We get to see much more of the Atlantic campaign and the sub doing what it is supposed to do, stalking and sinking the enemy. We also get a better feel for the long stretches of time, the sea as an enemy, and the frustration of not seeming to participate in the war. Overall, the longer version really changes the feel of the movie from an adventure to a mission.

This movie puts you in a submarine, warts and all. We see the filth, the horror, the beards, and everything. And, the cast pulls off the roles brilliantly. This is a great film and deserves repeated viewings. I'm particularly impressed with the level of detail.

There are some minor nits in the film. The long version has a very abrupt transition at one point which makes me think a portion of the film is missing. I also have my doubts about a submarine surviving some of what they did in this movie. Generally, once a sub was spotted it was dead. This is part of the reason for the 75% losses in the war. But, some license is due if you are going to create a really powerful movie that lets us see what the submariners saw.

I was particularly impressed that this is the war from the German side with no effort to sugarcoat it, other than some anti-Hitler sentiments among the crew.

Many of the comments here seem to want to review this movie as if it was a real major motion picture. In reality, this was very much a B movie and should be judged in the same class as movies with giant bunny rabbits and bug-eyed aliens. Not only is the story implausible, but they are adding this film to the definition of the word.

Like many B movies, this film has a few well-known actors who dropped in for the weekend to read it off of cue cards, were paid in cash, and somehow forget to list this film on their resume. Kevin Pollak and Timothy Hutton definitely had alimony payments coming due that weekend. Like all great B movies, the budget was miniscule. The movie takes place entirely in a diner, not because it was a good idea, but because they couldn't even afford decent stock footage. Beyond the few actors with names, the remaining cast was selected by who was in the commissary that day. What's really fun is how the set is obviously raided from scenery storerooms. What's with that British phone booth? And, B movies love to toss around the nukes, with no real thought to strategy, consequences, fallout, war powers act, or anything else at all. Last, but not least, we have the "surprise" ending, which even those who knew the surprise didn't seem to see coming.

There are clearly some fun things about this film. The Iraqi chemical and biological threat that gets sorta forgotten later in the film. The use of two different ocean nuclear detonations to make one supposed city detonation. The news network with more intelligence gathering capabilities than the US government (including their own spy satellite network), and yet having only one anchor and really crummy graphics. The pictures of F-117 fighters referred to as B2 bombers. The compressed time (just how fast were those missiles and bombers flying?), combined with "pacing by snail". The "don't mind us" attitude about random citizens sitting in on a war strategy meeting, occasionally butting in. Let's put the ultra top secret combination for the "football" on speakerphone so everyone can hear!

But, everyone has watched a lot of B movies and found them entertaining (or at least not too boring). I found this film entertaining and made it all of the way through it. It's worth a viewing just for fun (especially if you are not paying for it). After all, you know you saw "Night of the Lepus"!