Homeland Security

This TV movie (supposed to be a series) is nothing more than an attempt at propaganda fear-mongering. It is offensively stupid. I can't believe the network didn't pick it up, considering the subject matter, but the fact that no one watched it gives some glimmer of hope for American Television.

Avoid watching this 'movie' if at all possible. The poor excuse for a plot, the stilted acting, the lousy directing... they all add up to something as base as anything I've ever seen on television. It would be easy to believe the idea for this series came straight from the White House Press Office, and it's hard to conceive how anyone who was not a complete lackey to the current administration could sit though this.

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.

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.

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.