Asesinato en la Casa Blanca

Wesley Snipes is his reliably charismatic self in this average crime thriller set around a murder in the White House. I feel like this had more potential, but unfortunately it settles for being being just okay. It has its moments, but is for the most part a pretty cliched and formulaic thriller.

When it comes to thrillers I usually find that smaller is better. I almost always enjoy the small independent films with the second- and third-levels stars rather than the big Hollywood productions made with the A-team that cater to a broader public taste. But when your thriller is set at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia, it's awfully hard for a low-budget production to pull it off credibly. Besides, I'm interested in the presidency and like films that purport to give you a behind-the-scenes look, even if it is fictional, so I gave 'Murder at 1600' a chance.

Of course, if the movie is going to be longer than 15 minutes, you have to allow it some license. A lot of its success is based on how much you're willing to let go without saying, "Wait a minute!" A lot, too, depends on the cast and Wesley Snipes is a likable enough actor. Diane Lane is a big plus here as the Secret Service agent who works with him. They have a typical rocky relationship, but it's enjoyable. Daniel Benzali is ominous as the head of Secret Service. Snipes asks him what it would take for him to see some White House records and Benzali dryly answers, "Oh, not much. Just an act of Congress." Other veterans in the cast include Alan Alda, Ronny Cox and Harris Yulin. Bigger wasn't necessarily better this time but it was good enough.

Murder at 1600 is an enjoyable thriller. There are some formula aspects as other reviewers have mentioned, but on the whole the plot – a murder within 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – leaves the viewer in some suspense. As a "whodunnit", the movie succeeds, and as for this reviewer, the murderer and the actual conspiracy isn't evident till near the end. Wayne Beach and the late David Hodgin create enough plot twists to keep most viewers guessing. Director Dwight Little keeps things tight and well-paced. There is a good sense of logic to Murder at 1600's execution.

It's arguably one of the best films Snipes has starred in. Known more for his tough-guy roles in Passenger 57 and Demolition Man, it's refreshing to see Snipes as a detective who relies more on thinking than weaponry. Revelations keep Snipes' character, Det Harlan Regis, pursuing new leads – just as any logical audience member would. Regis, a history buff who has recreated battles with miniature models in his living room and a well-respected detective, puts both his police training and interests to use. Beach and Hodgin have also humanized Regis: he is about to be evicted – a fact that is quickly introduced in the film's opening sequence – and he and his fellow tenants' problem is solved in a refreshing way.

Diane Lane plays a Secret Service agent, Nina Chance, who begins to suspect a cover-up at the White House and assists Regis. It's established early on that she brought home the gold in sharpshooting at the 1988 Olympics – and her skills are put to good use in several action scenes. Unlike most TV heroines, her aim doesn't get better as the ending nears. There's a welcome consistency that's seldom seen from Hollywood, where the hero often loses a fight at the beginning yet miraculously triumphs at the end. It's a real pleasure to see Lane back in a high-calibre film; for too long we've seen her in forgettable fare such as Judge Dredd and Knight Moves. Lane's acting ability should keep her in the limelight, one hopes – she is an actress who doesn't deserve to fade in her 40s. This will depend on whether the establishment will come to its senses about its ageist attitude toward actresses.

The cast is ably supported by the menacing Daniel Benzali; Alan Alda comes to Snipes's aid as the National Security Adviser to the President; Ronny Cox is a president in crisis as American troops are held hostage in North Korea; Tate Donovan as the president's playboy son. Every character, with the exception of Snipes's sidekick played by Dennis Miller, has a part to play in the plot; thanks to a better-than-usual casting job by the duo of Amanda Johnson and Cathy Sandrich (often good with mysteries) the roles are very well filled.

And refreshingly for Hollywood, we do not have a male European-American hero saving the day with his African-American sidekick. There have been enough biases against minorities in casting films. And there have also been enough films that take things too far the other way. The race issue is never played in this film: director Dwight Little treats each character as a regular person, just like in real life where the majority of us don't give an iota what colour or creed someone is.

Some parts of Christopher Young's score are not terribly fitting although on the whole he does a good job. Sound effects are well handled in this film as is the editing; both contribute well to the suspense and the mood. Steven Bernstein's photography cuts between the real and created White Houses well, and contributes well to the film's overall effect.

This is one of the best and most logical films that has come out of Hollywood for some time. It will not insult many viewers' intelligence for starters. While not 100 per cent original, it is a very well-made film that rests on a solid plot and direction.

At least the whodunit puzzle left me guessing. But that's the only redeeming quality of this pretentious mystery, set at the White House. A lone, good guy cop (played by Wesley Snipes) goes up against the rich and powerful. Our hero fights the bullies and the bad guys with courage and daring. It's a tired, stale concept.

The story is chock-full of pretentious, self-important, irritatingly hip characters, most of them conveniently photogenic. The plot contains lots of chases and some fight scenes. It also contains the obligatory in-your-face news media frenzy, and other tiresome film clichés. The dialogue is banal. Example: "Section 6 secure"; "Go. Freeze!". The film's ending is unimaginative and trite.

Color cinematography is adequate, if conventional. Production design is detailed and quite convincing. Acting is average. The nondescript background music is very manipulative.

"Murder At 1600" comes across as your typical big-budget, high profile film right off the Hollywood assembly line. It's got visual pizazz and lots of "action". But the story lacks substance and depth, the characters are stereotyped, and the dialogue is vapid. It's just one more example of how Hollywood throws production megabucks as substandard screenplays.

Murder at 1600 is playing with a lot of familiar tropes from action-thrillers of the late 90s, and I don't mind one bit. This was the kind of stuff I loved when I was just getting into action films, and I still find such joy from watching them now. Sure, there is a formula at play here, and there are often things that don't make a ton of sense. In fact, more than once my logical brain would think "that's not how that would really happen," but I was able to get over the nonsense and enjoy the ride. It's fun to think of the different ways that an investigation might be influenced by federal agencies if there was a chance it could incriminate certain people in power. I like that they bring in an unbiased homicide detective to oversee the case, and we get to see how he is manipulated by the system. It gives a nice David-vs-Goliath feel to the case and makes the tension greater. They also put plenty of bureaucratic roadblocks in the way that help intensify the drama.

I love Wesley Snipes in this role, because I often forget he is so charming. Some of the character stuff they give him doesn't work well, and seems tacked on for no good reason, but I still like him as the lead. It's also hard to criticize anything that Diane Lane does in the supporting role. She plays a character who is tough as nails, one who holds her own with all the men around her, and never once does she feel like a lame damsel in distress that our hero has to save. The mystery in Murder at 1600 is not bad at all, because we are tricked into suspecting a number of different people. However, it's not exactly one where we are given all the important evidence up front so we can deduce the truth before it is revealed. But just like the far-fetched nature of certain things that happen in Murder at 1600, I simply don't care about that. I have a fun time watching it, and that's really all that matters to me.