Lancaster called the film "All the President's Men Part Two... a very powerful political piece couched in highly melodramatic terms."
I call it a laughable film, so unintentionally funny as to make it popcorn worthy. It's shot like an episode of ABC's old S. W. A. T. show from the 1970's. Beyond Lancaster and Charles Durning (as the President no less), it's cast not even like a 'movie of the week', but more like an episode of "The Love Boat". From Cliff Klavin, to Dr. Daystrom from the Star Trek TOS episode about the M-5 unit, it's a hodgepodge of B and C actors. The dialogue is cheesy, the performances hilarious, including the Lieutenant from "THE ROOKIES", the concepts are absurd, the processes are ludicrous, and the ending is eye rolling. You could EASILY cut it down by 45 minutes. The characters are cardboard cutout clichés. And from the start you're left with questions like "How did they ever even get this 'plan' off the ground??"
Back to the dialogue. They use profanity as if it were a new found toy. This was still in an era where the use of profanity in films was rather new. Here it seems forced and shoe horned into the script. The deliveries are awful.
Look for the scene where the President fawns of a painting his wife did. The painting looks a step above a 'Paint by Numbers" beginner project. This film is ABSOLUTELY "Ghoul" worthy. I read the Paul Newman turned down the role of the President. He made a wise choice.
Lancaster lumbers around during the entire picture, looking as if he's trying to remember he played a better General in SEVEN DAYS IN MAY. For a 'smart' General who knows all the ins and outs, he seems shockingly unaware that he should maybe, just maybe, instead of pacing around back and forth, pay attention to the security camera's to see the shocking idea of snipers essentially just running in plain sight to their positions. Luckily for the military, that's the one point where Paul Winfield decides to take a nap. Just absolute lazy writing in order to get the story to the desired conclusion. Which by the way, is ambivalent at best.
Gerald S. O'Loughlin, best known as the Lieutenant in "THE ROOKIES" ABC 1970's show, puts in a particularly poor performance, especially at the end. His crying actually made me laugh out loud. I've seen better performances at elementary school plays. And I actually LIKE Gerald S. O'Loughlin.
This story is a mess from the get-go. It's perfect for a Mystery Science Theater show. It was poorly received in the 1970's, and has aged even worse. Art is by it's very nature, subjective. But anyone who thinks this film is high quality calls their taste into question. I give it a 2 out of 10 because it's a fun film to watch with a friend(s) to laugh at. Only films that don't even reach that level deserve a single star.
Look for the scene where the President fawns of a painting his wife did. The painting looks a step above a 'Paint by Numbers" beginner project. This film is ABSOLUTELY "Ghoul" worthy. I read the Paul Newman turned down the role of the President. He made a wise choice.
Lancaster lumbers around during the entire picture, looking as if he's trying to remember he played a better General in SEVEN DAYS IN MAY. For a 'smart' General who knows all the ins and outs, he seems shockingly unaware that he should maybe, just maybe, instead of pacing around back and forth, pay attention to the security camera's to see the shocking idea of snipers essentially just running in plain sight to their positions. Luckily for the military, that's the one point where Paul Winfield decides to take a nap. Just absolute lazy writing in order to get the story to the desired conclusion. Which by the way, is ambivalent at best.
Gerald S. O'Loughlin, best known as the Lieutenant in "THE ROOKIES" ABC 1970's show, puts in a particularly poor performance, especially at the end. His crying actually made me laugh out loud. I've seen better performances at elementary school plays. And I actually LIKE Gerald S. O'Loughlin.
This story is a mess from the get-go. It's perfect for a Mystery Science Theater show. It was poorly received in the 1970's, and has aged even worse. Art is by it's very nature, subjective. But anyone who thinks this film is high quality calls their taste into question. I give it a 2 out of 10 because it's a fun film to watch with a friend(s) to laugh at. Only films that don't even reach that level deserve a single star.