Homeland Security

Yes it's true, I worked 45 minutes outside Hollywood to shoot this awful movie. I don't know what was worse... 1) being used a dead body on the field with the red ants... 2) All the scenes we had to do 20 takes for but never saw in the film. The plot has holes big enough to drive trucks through and the use of racial stereo-types are truly what makes this film a laugh. Perhaps someday we will see the scenes from the big battle with Scott Glen. Maybe we will see the more of the interrogation scenes. Or just maybe they will finally show us the second part to the movie that was never shown. But I guess there is no need to complain about a film that was poorly funded by Paramount Pictures.

I went into this expecting a dramatization of the events. I am not a big fan of that type of film so I was not expecting much. I was surprised to discover it was not. What I found was a plotline surrounding the creation of some new secret agency, foreshadowing of enemy intentions, and a cliffhanger ending. Acting and technical aspects are excellent for a tv movie. Some plot elements are very cliched but it flows and is very watchable. Skerrit portrays an admiral quite ably but I find my self curious about the backstory of many of the main characters.

I hope someday to see an unbiased documentary about the attack, but I expect many important things will remain classified till long after my lifetime.

6/10

Being among the first to contribute to the user comments, I feel somewhat on thin ice on this one.

I noticed on the comments threads that several viewers thought the timing was wrong for this subject, and that it was a Republican billboard during an election year. All that aside, I did watch the complete movie, despite the many commercial interruptions. Flow and continuity is important to any pseudo documentary (which is how I would classify this work), documentary, or docudrama. It was difficult enough following the many different locations and mini-plots. To accurately depict the depth and scope of this topic, much more time is needed, and the many commercial breaks would have to be eliminated, which obviously won't happen on a network movie. All of the historical events visited, although based in fact, were given only a token presentation, and were intertwined with fictional characters and plots.

It is entirely possible that the writers of this movie were attempting to accurately show the progression of the Middle East terrorism threat from the early 90's through post 9/11. Unfortunately, the span of this topic just can't be fit into the traditional movie length. Think about doing justice to War And Peace or The Godfather in 90 minutes.

The single redeeming part of this movie might be a rather corny and feeble attempt at showing all of us how the Department of Homeland Security was formed, it's makeup, and it's function. However, one would do better to pick up a copy of last week's Newsweek for a more fulfilling explanation.



Reflecting back on this movie, I feel like I watched 7 years of history on a fast-forward videotape. We all know the historical facts quite well, and most of this was a review of the high and low points, spiced up (or down) with soap opera style emotional tidbits.

Yes, if the purpose of this presentation is strictly entertainment, the timing is wrong (and always will be). If enlightenment is the target, it missed the mark and might stand accused of being sloppy historical revisionism. Politically, it did lean rather heavily toward the right. The historical time line is full of holes, which were plugged with emotional sugar lumps. Technically fairly well written, acted, and directed.

I was comfortable with this movie right after watching it, but having written the preceding, I now am not very pleased with it. There's a bit too much of an Oliver Stone undercurrent. Take it with a grain of salt, and don't expect too much.

Why must every network jump the gun in releasing tv-movies based on recent events. First there was the DC sniper movie. Then you have the Lacy Peterson movie. Both of which came out BEFORE the trials had been completed. And now, barely two years after 9/11, we have a 9/11 movie. Before the (un-necessary) War in Iraq and the abandoned War on Terror (or, according to our esteemed Mr. Bush, "War on Terra") have even accomplished their goals, before the investigation of the government's mess-ups has been completed, and long before the conspirators behind the attacks have been brought to justice (I'm even starting to doubt they'll ever be brought to justice).

Anyway, network greed and my own personal opinions on the events don't have any bearing on this movie. So, I digress and must comment on the movie.

All things considered, the plot of the movie goes all over the place. The direction and writing is short-sighted at best. We're given various twisting plotlines, that, by the end of the movie, leave tons of loose ends with no real solution (maybe its because the real-life plotlines haven't found a solution either...).

We're presented with Scott Glenn, a veteran FBI or CIA or something agent, who's on the border of retirement. Following 9/11 those plans go out the window (obviously). We're also shown another CIA agent, Marisol Nichols (most notably the scatter brained Griswold daughter in 'Vegas Vacation'), who's on stake-out outside a terrorist hide out. Needless to say, the FBI rains on her parade and kills one of her suspects. But, she takes the other one, giving the FBI a friendly greeting as she goes. Then we have Beth Broderick (the aunt of MJH in 'Sabrina: The Teenage Witch') and Tom Skerritt, who's daughter almost gets on one of the doomed planes. We are also shown various scenes from Afghanistan, which contribute almost nothing to the failing plot. Thankfully NBC didn't completely sell their soul to the devil. They didn't actually show planes crashing into buildings... just news footage of smoking buildings.

Overall, this is a short-signed, quickly done, low budget movie that tries to capitalize on fear and headlines: stock footage, low grade actors, and all. I guess I could've forgiven the greedy pigs at NBC, had they not further trivialized the events by including product placement (don't we all want to chug Minute Maid Orange juice when we find out girlfriend might be dead?).

I doubt NBC, or any other network, will re-air this turkey. But, if by chance they do, skip this. Well, unless you do want to see your two/three-year old nightmares interpreted by a bunch of greedy network execs and thrown back at you.

Rating: 3/10

The only success of this film is its consistency in failure to ask questions regarding the events it appears to portray. Watch this film for a one-dimensional, pro-American, anti-historical and completely illogical portrayal of the events surrounding 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. The disgusting thing is that, now in 2007, this film is still shown (I had the displeasure to watch this film today June 2007 on Britain's Sky Movies) despite its huge flaws and inaccuracies. Watch this film, but only if you do not cherish your knowledge and education. Films such as this should be scrapped.

I gave this film a 1 simply because I cannot give it a zero, which it truly deserves.