Anti-enjoyment
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs
Dr Richard Gaynes (Lance Henriksen) is a bomb disposal expert for the FBI.That is,until a terrible mistake forces him to resign his post and a few years later,he becomes a surveillance man.When a team of terrorists seize control of a building,a shoot out ensues and the head man is shot.However,medics must battle to keep him alive,as he has placed a detonating device inside himself that,should he die,will cause a massive explosion.The renowned Dr Theodore Bichall (Valizer Binev) has a secret underground science lab where he is working on a revolutionary new technology that will allow Gaynes and a team of scientists lead by Dr Rachel Saverini (Robin Givens) to enter the terrorist's body by means of a small ship and deactivate the detonating device.With time running out,Gaynes and his team must battle to deactivate the device before it's too late.
This film originally caught my eye in the video store.I checked the back,and the concept sounded very intriguing,especially being one for a straight-to-video movie.I can't remember exactly how recently this was,but it certainly arrived on these shores a fair while after it's original year of release,2002.However,upon starting to watch it,I was able to pick something up very quickly.Aside from dealing with the bomb,somewhere another agent who is in close contact with Gaynes must deal with an Islamic man who is waving a gun in the air and singing something that sounds like a religious hymn (well,it don't sound like The Fast Food Song,that's for sure).There is talk that the man might have a detonating device of his own implanted in his body that will cause the present bomb to go off.And from here on in,the hidden symbolism becomes very clear.This is very September 11th themed,right down to the idea of suicide bombers and the general threat of terrorism that had become very present in the world.It would be easy to say that the main plot of the movie has notable plot holes,but then it could be making a point of how true it is in the world today,like,of course terrorists would be able to sneak in to an important venue where an important speech is about to be delivered disguised as video equiptment installer men.Er,yeah maybe they would.It seems like not a day goes by where the tabloids don't feature stories of lax security at important venues and undercover reporters getting in as such and such (the British tabloids,anyway.)It kind of feels like the film jumped on the backwagon of the public conscious and the fears of the public one year after those terrible events and seems to be engaging in a spot of the IL' cynical exploitation.
Aside from this,much of the film just ends up lost anyway.It appears very cheaply filmed,and full of no-name Russian actors with funny sounding names on account of the barely there budget.They're very bad no-name actors too (well,there you go) and they turn in some very bad,blank acting.Throw into that a patchy,ineffective script and an increasingly far-fetched,ridiculous plot and the only thing the movie ultimately leaves you with is perhaps a desire for a remedy against any future bad films.**
Dr Richard Gaynes (Lance Henriksen) is a bomb disposal expert for the FBI.That is,until a terrible mistake forces him to resign his post and a few years later,he becomes a surveillance man.When a team of terrorists seize control of a building,a shoot out ensues and the head man is shot.However,medics must battle to keep him alive,as he has placed a detonating device inside himself that,should he die,will cause a massive explosion.The renowned Dr Theodore Bichall (Valizer Binev) has a secret underground science lab where he is working on a revolutionary new technology that will allow Gaynes and a team of scientists lead by Dr Rachel Saverini (Robin Givens) to enter the terrorist's body by means of a small ship and deactivate the detonating device.With time running out,Gaynes and his team must battle to deactivate the device before it's too late.
This film originally caught my eye in the video store.I checked the back,and the concept sounded very intriguing,especially being one for a straight-to-video movie.I can't remember exactly how recently this was,but it certainly arrived on these shores a fair while after it's original year of release,2002.However,upon starting to watch it,I was able to pick something up very quickly.Aside from dealing with the bomb,somewhere another agent who is in close contact with Gaynes must deal with an Islamic man who is waving a gun in the air and singing something that sounds like a religious hymn (well,it don't sound like The Fast Food Song,that's for sure).There is talk that the man might have a detonating device of his own implanted in his body that will cause the present bomb to go off.And from here on in,the hidden symbolism becomes very clear.This is very September 11th themed,right down to the idea of suicide bombers and the general threat of terrorism that had become very present in the world.It would be easy to say that the main plot of the movie has notable plot holes,but then it could be making a point of how true it is in the world today,like,of course terrorists would be able to sneak in to an important venue where an important speech is about to be delivered disguised as video equiptment installer men.Er,yeah maybe they would.It seems like not a day goes by where the tabloids don't feature stories of lax security at important venues and undercover reporters getting in as such and such (the British tabloids,anyway.)It kind of feels like the film jumped on the backwagon of the public conscious and the fears of the public one year after those terrible events and seems to be engaging in a spot of the IL' cynical exploitation.
Aside from this,much of the film just ends up lost anyway.It appears very cheaply filmed,and full of no-name Russian actors with funny sounding names on account of the barely there budget.They're very bad no-name actors too (well,there you go) and they turn in some very bad,blank acting.Throw into that a patchy,ineffective script and an increasingly far-fetched,ridiculous plot and the only thing the movie ultimately leaves you with is perhaps a desire for a remedy against any future bad films.**
- wellthatswhatithinkanyway
- Sep 8, 2004