Détournement du bus CX-17

Oh man. I've seen some half-cocked attempts at a TV movie before, but this really takes the biscuit, and anything else that happens to be around. I don't have the time or the space to list out all the faults with this, so I'll skip to the best/worst parts.

For a start, the title should be had up for flagrant mis-advertising. 'Sudden'- yeah right. This film accelerates to the action at the same speed as the bus. 'Terror'- where exactly? I've been more scared watching an ice cube melt. The terror of not knowing if that ice will drip on your clean jeans. The horror, the horror!

For 99% of the film's running time, nothing happens. Except it gets worse, of course. This film starts badly, and digs itself into a hole from then on. After this, instead of stopping digging, it takes a pneumatic jack-hammer and seems determined to dig itself right to the centre of the earth.

Acting. Acting. Yep, this film had it I'm sure, but not in the bits I saw. You could go see a group of 5 year olds do a play and be blown away by the acting after having watched this. The scripting flowed like set cement.

After having sat through most of the film, I then saw the SRT (Special Rescue Team) kick into action. Now we're getting somewhere I thought. But obviously it was the real SRT's day off, so instead we had the Sort-of Ready Team 'in charge'. You would think that they've never seen a gun before the way they acted. I'm just glad someone told them which end of the gun is the dangerous one, or we would have a very messy situation on our hands. They also seemed to lack any training in explosives. Having found out that there was C4 on board, the SRT thought they had a useful bit of info. But no, no-one around seemed to be trained properly in explosives. At one point, the bus was going down hill fast (much like the film itself) and over bumps. Seeing this, the SRT ran around for cover, thinking the bus would explode. So now I sat there, screaming at the screen, 'Fools! C4 needs an electrical charge to detonate! Going bumpy bump ain't gonna do it! Fools!'

Having lost faith in the SRT now, I wasn't that surprised when the commander didn't give the order to fire to the snipers when they had a clean shot. Typical. So what was her plan exactly? Ask him if he wanted to discuss this over coffee? I don't condone unnecessary killing, but for geezes sake, he had a bomb on a bus full of kids. This bomb was supposedly going to make Oklahoma look like a sneeze. In that case, why did they let the madman drive this bus through the centre of a massive city? Is it cheaper to blow up buildings (with people in) than knock them down? That must be it. The SRT were getting back-handers from a property developer. It all makes sense now.

So the end of the film came. The SRT snipers shot the bad guy. They were pretty lucky actually. You see, the bad guy got shot once, then twice more, but never showed any signs of bullet wounds, or any wounds at all. The shock must have killed him then. Bless.

Conclusion? You already know. I hope that they keep this film in an archive so that directors of the future have a way of making a good film. I can just picture the scene:

FILM ENDS: Media/Film Teacher: 'You see that film we just watched. What I want you to do when you make your film is to do exactly the opposite of everything you just saw. You'll thank me oneday.'

I was sitting there thinking this was a really bad movie. And, then, I see Welton Barker's comments. Out of the blue, it hits me. Well, actually that was the remote being hurled at me by my wife as she yelled for me to change the channel. I would have done just that had I not been mesmerized by Barker's stunningly in-depth critique. With tears in my eyes, I watched the rest of the movie. Every time I thought I was getting bored, I reread Barker's comments. I can tell you that it changed my life in such a profound way, that I am now able to use the word "profundity" with pride. Thank you Welton Barker, and, of course, thank you IMDb for making this whole thing possible.

I'm surprised that any of the other reviewers actually watched the whole movie, given their extreme dislike of it. I found it perfectly in keeping with the general style of such movies. Yes, there IS a lot of emphasis on sentimentality in the face of danger, but that's exactly what people look for in a Lifetime movie and, don't forget, this actually happened to real people, so I doubt it was completely unrealistic. What impressed me was the spirit of the bus driver in the face of extreme stress. There is no parent alive who would not wish for someone of her character and strength to be the one to protect their child in such an ordeal, were they not there to do it for themselves.

i watched this movie last night and I love it because it had a good plot,great cast,and great skills.I am a disablitly child and this would be a good flim to teach childern who have specail needs what to do in a dangerous situation like the one in the flim.

Occasionally, one is blessed with the opportunity to witness a legendary event, some freak of circumstance and Providence that will live on in one's memory long after the dross of day to day life has faded into blackness. The October 1996 world premiere of SUDDEN TERROR was just such an event.

This film was finely constructed, with profound philosophical underpinnings. Maria Conchita Alonso plays a bus driver whose charges consist of a handful of "special" children. The film quickly establishes her deep, abiding concern and outright love for these children, through a series of broad strokes in the form of conversational breakfast sallies between her and her character's husband, played with sensitivity and majesty by Dennis Boutsikaris.

Then, without warning, comes the first surprise of the night (but by no means the last). It seems that, despite the fact that Maria obviously loves children and desperately wants one, she is unable to have one!

Without a pause to let the audience recover from this staggering revelation, the film's pace picks up even more. After a brilliant and tantalizingly brief interlude at the bus company (spiced by the salty humor which in other films seemed so cliched, but here radiates energy like fissionable material), we see Maria and her aide going to get her passengers. Her fierce caring is evident in every gesture and word as she straps each child into his/her seat, and then sits beside the newest addition, playfully chatting with both the child and parent. While, of course, in reality such attention to each child would result in a bus trip of several hours duration, we are caught up in the aura of warmth and love so carefully established.

While bathing in the glow thus created, the audience is subjected to yet another shock. A madman (who we saw briefly in a short previous scene, where he is conversing with a priest, thus quickly and efficiently establishing his insanity) gets on the bus, and lets Maria know that his bag is full of explosives, which he will set off with a detonator in his breast pocket, unless she does exactly as he tells her. When we find out that Maria's aide has diabetes, after being cruelly accused of drug abuse by the madman, pathos is thrown into the mix, sparking a conflagration on the screen.

To try to synopsize the film would be pointless, and, besides, would destroy the fun of each breathless chase and climax. However, there are other levels worth looking into here.

The film's symbolism was extremely subtle.

One of the children who is especially important in this regard is Benito. Obviously a reference to Mussolini, this child's preoccupation with progress has led him to playfully refer to the school to which he is being driven as "the moon." The film's clear delineation of the dangers posed to a peaceful fascism (Benito) by a dangerous and unregulated imperialist freedom (Michael Paul Chan's madman, complete with Napoleonic hand over left breast) is brilliant. And it is only through the careful ministrations of the patient Maria that a resolution can be reached and total calamity avoided.

In her noble efforts, Maria is aided by the brilliant maneuverings of the Dade County SWAT team, headed by Marcy Walker. Walker's characterization of the hard-bitten commander powered by a woman's heart was breathtaking in its simplicity and elegance. Using a swish of her long, blonde ponytail to punctuate her commands to her troops was a touch so authentic that one felt as though one had suddenly switched to a documentary. The realism just oozed from such riveting scenes as commander Marcy asking Maria's husband for background on Maria. She was speaking on a cellular phone from the back seat of a car packed with fellow SWATers and her negotiator, while speeding along in hot pursuit of the hijacked school bus. We cut to Maria's husband as his eyes unfocus and he looks nobly into the distance, saying, "Let me tell you a story about her..." The story he tells, heart-rending and tender, was sure to leave a tear in every eye, and even the determined SWAT commander Marcy is visibly moved, listening eagerly to what a less trained mind might regard as a rambling and inappropriate anecdote, given the fact that it is told in the midst of a harrowing chase.

But it is exactly this emphasis on the contradictions inherent in the most stressful situations that rings so true. Bruce Weitz's shattering portrayal of the negotiator shows more of this imbalance come to life, with his slow, patient delivery in crisis situations, and his surprise and dismay (and even bruised emotions) at the repeated abrupt terminations of his phone talks with the madman.

I don't have room here to do justice to the profundity of the film, nor to the philosophical paradoxes which are so adroitly weaved in and out of the story, creating a kaleidoscope of ethical warp and moral woof that, in the end, we recognize as being the reality surrounding us all.

Suffice to say, SUDDEN TERROR is a film which goes far beyond the expectations of any committed television viewer, and is a towering example of just exactly what made-for-TV movies are good for.