Sous haute tension

The movie is not bad. Which ought to tell the discerning movie watcher quite a bit. One serious problem, with 500,000 actors in the world the best they can come up with for a Kiefer Sutherland type role is David Arquette? Not a single comedic moment, unless you find humor in mass murder. I can't see or hear Arquette without thinking ditsy lame comedy. The movie is part Sum of all fears and part Die Hard part 3, and part Sudden Death.

We've all seen the generic terrorist movie with minor variances, and this one is a cut above most made for TV movies. If there's nothing else on, watch a half hour and if it catches your interest, stay with it.....it does get better.

First this TV effort has three of my favs, David Arquette, Richard T Jones and the great Angela Bassett. Sadly they are not enough to save this odd fast paced terrorist adventure flick. The movie starts fast and you hardly have enough time to get to know anyone. It also has one of the most annoying filming gimmicks. The moving camera and fast shots of scenes and voice overs during fast shots. Its enough to give you a headache and you can see the same annoying gimmick in past disaster flicks like "10.5" and "The end of the world films" that have been on TV as of late. The story itself is a contradiction to its own purpose. Terrorist plant bombs in a football stadium and kidnap the family of one of the homeland security people played by Arguette. They warn the agents to stay away and not let anyone else know and not to move people out of the stadium. OK...so why then do they move security people in knowing the terrorists are watching them...and if they are being watched why don't the terrorists just tell the agents to leave. I mean they see them when they find the bombs and....unless I missing something....why don't they just threatened to blow up the place if the agents don't exit the arena?....To many questions like these had me rolling my eyes....the only good thing....was the final act when suspicions make for a guessing game of who's in on the threat...but again its not enough to save this frenzy of a movie that half the time looks like its being filmed by someones camcorder....Arguette has the chops to play serious but he dangles on the over the top...as does Angela...but she has it down to an art form and it works for her....Richard's laid back performance is best here. The reasons for all this drama and whats behind the threat will make your eyes roll all the way back and pop out from the absurdity...and again it finishes the same way it started fast and quick and your left feeling like you just ate your food real fast and didn't have time to enjoy it....

Poor, unconvincing and weak are the only words I can say for Time Bomb. There was no Time Bomb, from beginning to end the so called terrorists gave Home Land Security all the time to diffuse the situation "bombs" at their leisure. The acting was so poor and unconvincing I pitied and loathed the entire cast, from the protagonist to villain. David Arquette's emotions were as bad as Will Smith's in Seven Pounds. How this movie got the rating baffles me. Arquettes's wife and child have been kidnapped as leverage on the 65,000 people's lives, so what! Who is he that his family should come first before thousands? My 3 year old could have written a better screen play, and his reaction is so, so... unconvincing it's like he's had his neighbours' pet parrot taken for ransom. You can actually see him forcing to feel a connection to these 2 people (wife and son) when called by the so claimed "terrorist". This plot is becoming so generic that I can now almost guess the bad guy won't be the Arab, foreign type but the patriotic money hungry/warlord (weapons dealer) American. 24 has done all the foreign and internal terrorists scenario and pulled them off but the rest are like a fumbling copy cat serial murderer without the murderer's secret signature. Watch it if you've seen everything else on telly but otherwise wait till you're hospitalised (on you death bed) and can't change the channels.

Where does one begin? Horrible acting, horrible over-acting, no suspense, full of stereotypes, choppy story line, and poor casting. Apparently the only lines David Arquette had were "what are the codes!!" and "where's my wife and son!!!" Repeat these many, many times in a loud, over-excited, daytime soapy manner and get the picture of this movie's dialog. If this isn't Mystery Science Theater material, I don't know what would be. The best line (sports arena maintenance guy to federal agents about to cloister him for security reasons): "I'm a veteran of Desert Storm and I can keep my mouth shut!" Ugh. Remember the old CBS late night movies? Prime candidate...definitely.

Department of Homeland Security agent Mike Bookman is on his way to meet his wife and son at an American football game in Washington when he gets divert to a bomb planted in a crowded bar in Washington. The bomb disposal experts cannot even get close to diffusing it and, with everyone evacuated, it detonates. Almost instantly another call comes in that this attack was just a show of strength and that the real bomb is the Washington stadium. It will collapse the whole stadium on the 65000 people inside if anyone is evacuated and a high profile terrorist prisoner is not released. With the pressure already on him, Bookman gets another very personal motivator.

From the very start this 24 wannabe seems happy to do the basics on the cheap but by learning from that show in regards what works. Hence we get the ticking clock situation, the constantly moving cameras, the Muslim terrorists, torture and the power of technology. So far so genre but ultimately it is weak in key areas that does undercut the film as a whole. The plot is generic but relies too heavily on weak devices and twists to keep it moving – even 24 struggles to do this but it does have a whole season to sustain. The use of Bookman's family and the many twists just reduce tension rather than increase it. Unlike some I did like the use of DV because it presents the illusion of action and realism when used with restraint, however other than this there is not a lot that Gyllenhaal's direction has to recommend it for.

The biggest weakness is the casting of David Arquette. He is far too weak to convince and I cannot believe that he was the first choice for this role. He is a light comedy actor and not suited or the Sutherland role. To be honest Jones would have been better in the main role as he has more presence and urgency about him in his turn, which is not brilliant but is definitely effective within the demands of the film. The main reason I checked this out was the presence of Bassett, because I was curious to see what she was up to recently – not only do I think she is talented but she is stunning even as she turns 50 this year. Here all she does is a few days worth of work, remote from the action and has more "reaction" shots than dialogue scenes. 24's Caro Rota turns up briefly (and uncredited) as a terrorist but other than that the cast are mostly TVM standard.

Time Bomb is not great, even by genre standards but it is just about clichéd enough to allow the undemanding viewer to watch, safe in the knowledge that thinking or caring is not required. The script is weak, the twists weak and the whole delivery is derivative. It might just about have been fun if it had had a stronger lead actor but, as it is, Arquette is so badly cast that he doesn't even convince once.