The Trigger Effect (1996) User Reviews

The effect it may have on audiences who may in fact like it

[StevePulaski · 7/10 · 27 December 2010]

The Trigger Effect is a movie I'm not proud to like, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't. It wasn't a fantastic thriller, but it shouldn't get the beating it's getting on IMDb, Netflix, and every other review site. The acting isn't phenomenal, the plot isn't much, but the events in the film keep you at least interesting and hoping for the best. In the long run, The Trigger Effect is not the worst thing to come out of movies ever.

Sometimes, I believe, when a movie is panned by critics and moviegoers, a film gets bad reviews by everyone whether they like it or not. I looked on the IMDb Bottom 100 before writing this review, and thought, there's got to be one person out there that likes some of these films. I scanned about twenty, and the twenty I picked had no review above two out of ten. My point; not everyone can hate a movie. It can't be so bad no one likes it. This is kind of how I feel with this film and the 1996 comedy Bio-Dome which I found to be an entertaining film. The only difference with The Trigger Effect is I could find someone who liked Bio-Dome. I have yet to find someone that (honestly) admits they like The Trigger Effect.

The film has no real plot. It takes place in Southern California where our two protagonists reside. Matt (Kyle MacLachlan) and Annie (Elizabeth Shue) return home from the movies to find their infant screaming with an ear ache. Matt calls a doctor who promises to have a prescription filled by morning. In the middle of the night, the neighbors wake to find a the town has blacked out. Matt arrives at the pharmacy to find out the doctor didn't call in the prescription, so he resorts to stealing the medicine for the baby.

Matt's brother Joe (Dermot Mulroney) arrives at the house to convince the couple to buy a gun for security since the blackout is causing very strange behavior amongst the town. When purchasing the gun, the four come to the consensus that they must take a trip to wife's parent's house. Soon enough, all hell breaks loose.

The film is no masterpiece, but it shouldn't get the beating it is taking on the web now. It's a very least intriguing. You want to know what happens to these innocent people. You want to follow them through this journey through hell. As most of these events occur, they trigger another thing to happen (obviously why the film's title is what it is). Clearly the person behind this idea wanted no light at the end of the tunnel. Just like the film Where the Heart Is or The Quiet, they wanted no light at the end of the tunnel.

Upon it's release, it grossed a mere $1,887,791, and ranked 12th at the Box Office. It came up very short compared to it's $8,000,000 budget. It went on to gross around $3,000,000 in it's entirety, and lead on to never being spoken about again. While I think in no means it should be praised, it should at least be recognized for doing the job it did. It didn't want to be bad, but then again no movie does. It just showed it's limitations on screen, and nothing more. It doesn't want to be anything more than it's budget allows. It's a good thing and a bad thing simultaneously.

Starring: Kyle MacLachlan, Elisabeth Shue, and Dermot Mulroney. Directed by: David Koepp.

The Blackout: Stay at home or hit the road?

[Vomitron_G · 7/10 · 24 January 2010]

Why I couldn't recall practically anything from this film, is really beyond me. I saw it once during the late 90's, and the only thing I still remembered was that I thought it was pretty good. With this second time viewing, I can only conclude the same thing: It's beyond me, as this really is a fine film and pretty memorable while at it too. A blackout causes fear and distress in a small city. In the suburbs, the inhabitants of one street try to make the best of it. When a burglar breaks into Matthew & Annie's house, someone dies. And things go from bad to worse. And from a small town thriller with various characters, into a sudden road-movie with three protagonists taking the lead and an unpleasant (but worthwhile) Michael Rooker popping up by surprise. A cool little thriller that keeps you on your toes, towards an ending that's not all that horrible as you might expect it to be. Especially Kyle MacLachlan & Elisabeth Shue (as Matthew & Annie) give fine performances, though sadly Shue's character (splendidly portrayed in the first half) becomes a bit under-used in the second part of the movie. Still, check out this film if you have the chance. Reading some of the harsher comments on here, I wonder what people were expecting from this film... A profound piece of emotional drama? A Tarantino-like blabber-fest with many über-cool characters? Whatever. I didn't know what to expect - even this second time - and "The Trigger Effect" had me once again entertained. The characters were okay, the leads were fine, well-photographed and it turned out to be a sort of 'two-in-one' kind of deal. At least you get to choose which half of the film you liked better.

A good flick if you've just had a lenghty power outage

[Friendend · 7/10 · 6 May 2010]

The reason why I purchased this movie was because last year we had a power outage that lasted 2+ days for us. Some people in our area didn't have power for almost a week. I heard about the movie from a friend of mine that suggested it due to the event that we experienced. Due to us getting the movie shortly after the experience, I found it to be very entertaining and very close to what could happen to "civil" people if they were hit with such a situation for an extended period of time. It hit close to home for me and made me think about how dependent we our of good ole fashion electricity. If you want to see a movie that will give you a slice of what could happen when the power goes out then you will definitely want to see this film. Just think if your city goes without power. You then have no TV, you can't use your debit card, you have no heat or air conditioning depending on the season, no computer, no light at night, and that's just the beginning. When we had our outage we could at least get in the car and go to the mall and have lunch or whatever but if the WHOLE city goes down for a significant amount of time, then there's definitely going to be trouble on the way. And that's what this movie is basically about. Good, entertaining, and recommended for all...

Like Everyone Else Has Said

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 27 September 2005]

A power blackout sweeps across America leading to fear which slowly manifests itself into suspicion : Who will you be able to trust if the lights don't come back on ? That's the idea behind THE TRIGGER EFFECT , a film that on the surface resembles the plot of a novel by John Wyndham or John Christopher but as so very , very many people on this page have screamed from the roof tops this isn't a movie that makes the best of a great idea

The film starts with a sequence that can best be described as " Robert Altman directing the opening shot of SUPERMAN 3 " which is meant as a compliment to Robert Koepp . as the story continues we're quickly introduced to the characters of Matthew and Annie Kay who have a baby . They're visited by their friend Joe and then disaster strikes when the electricity runs out and shows no signs of returning . Get ready for danger

On second thoughts don't get ready for danger . There's something about this scenario that I can't quite pout my finger on . Maybe it's to do with the scenario which is credible but the actions of the characters aren't . Would a long lasting power cut lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it ? Possibly since everyone went on a looting rampage during the New York blackout of the late 1970s and let us not forget the mass panic caused by reports of rapes , murders and other assorted evil after Hurricane Katrina but even so I was not convinced that a power cut would lead to a post apocalypse scenario , it's not like the population has been rendered blind by a meteorite shower ( DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS ) or a worldwide famine is in progress ( THE DEATH OF GRASS ) or a nuclear war has happened ( Insert your most depressing Nuclear holocaust movie here ) . Perhaps I should point out that THE TRIGGER EFFECT probably isn't a post apocalypse type movie so if you're expecting 28 DAYS LATER you're in for a rude awakening , this is more of a slow burning drama where characters seem to be making mountains out of mole hills . By trying to be realistic it ends up being unrealistic . I'm sure most people would nonchantley sit on their behinds in this type of situation rather glad that their quarterly electricity bill would lower than usual . Hell the police are still driving around arresting people during a blackout , do you understand what I'm saying about a lack of credibility ?

I have criticised the characters but to be honest I think the problem lies with Koepp's casting more than his writing . I found Kyle Maclachlan rather wimpy as Matthew . I guess the point was that adversity can lead to wimps turning into violent anti-heroes but I was never convinced by his performance while the rest of the cast failed to make any type of impression on me at all

All in all this is a very disappointing contribution to speculative fiction . Let me just repeat that I doubt if it's intended to be an out and out grim depressing story of man fighting to survive , it's more of a drama about how reliant we are on both electricity and each other but the story never reaches its full potential which is a great shame

adding insult to injury

[Bram-5 · 5 April 1999]

One of those movies that could have been good, if Alfred Hitchcock was still alive. Everybody was in a bad mood anyway if the opening scenes were anything to go by. The opening scenes were good, by the way, which was one reason I kept watching, but to no avail. I agree, it gets worse as it goes along, as if the writer had one good idea then didn't know where to go with it, so it didn't go anywhere. If you're about to rent this movie anyway, think about why you've never heard of it.

A Great Start that Slowly Goes Nowhere

[caspian1978 · 6/10 · 27 July 2004]

The opening sequence of how other people effect the flow of our natural day opens up the idea to the audience that like the Trigger Effect, other people during the course of our "normal" days can end up making us go crazy and even doing some drastic stuff. The Trigger Effect opens up "Touch of Evil" style with a wonderful sequence of no name actors who end up playing a huge role on the story line of what the Trigger Effect is. Almost by mistake, we are brought into the lives of the main characters, and from there the story begins. The movie holds some amazing moments and some excellent scenes with the 3 leads. Still, the movie falls short with an ending, nobody wanted to see. A thriller that builds and builds and builds and goes nowhere. The struggle between the characters grow and then end up going off on a detour and nothing else. Sad, the movie could have been a timeless story how the slightest things in our day could end up killing ourselves if not killing others. The story was terrific and could have been an excellent movie. But overall, the movie is worth watching just for the moments it has.

Stop ruining good ideas!!

[Budd-5 · 4/10 · 10 September 1999]

Our society is so dependent on electricity so that when there is a blackout we despair. We find it hard to understand how people survived without the light switch, the TV, the refrigerator. The Trigger Effect is about such an occurence, but whereas our electricity usually comes back in a matter of hours, this movie's characters have to survive in the black for days. It is an interesting premise but it's horribly handled.

The characters we are shown are boring and two dimensional. An uneventful love triangle begins between the three leads which leads to nowhere. There are some interesting parts to the movie but it's let down by it's small budget. This movie demanded some cutting edge movie making, it fails to deliver. This could and should have been a much more (dare I say) violent picture. It's theme was that of man's devolution back into nature after it loses its use of technology. So we expect some nasty events to occur. It never happens.

A movie like this should have left the moviegoer with questions. How would you react in such a situation? Instead it only leaves us with a gaping mouth and a statement to the filmmakers. Stop ruining good ideas!!

Why are so many reviewers down on this film? It was very entertaining.

[AJ4F · 7/10 · 20 September 2010]

I thought this was a tightly-made survival piece and was surprised by the number of downbeat reviews. Good grief, people, this was hardly a bad film!

It might be a case of herd-negativity; one person reads a bad review, gets a bias, and so on. That is, unless they saw an edited version on TV that was too trimmed-down. A TV viewing should always be noted by reviewers, since it often ruins movies by cutting crucial scenes.

This movie starts with a strong sequence about random people getting on each other's nerves, with a sense of general foreboding that something bad is looming, although you knew that going in.

Then, it progresses quite seamlessly toward a societal breakdown scenario, without giving away too much information on the cause. That keeps the mystery going, which many films fail to do by letting the cat fully out of the bag. It's also presented from the viewpoint of a handful of people, not some national command center with the usual political bickering.

The tension between the married couple goes along well with the growing sense of general insecurity. I didn't find it contrived at all. At no point in the film was I able to guess how it was going to turn out, which is the way it would be in a survival situation. The ending could have gone either way.

Yes, there were some logical holes, but nothing truly glaring. It was entertaining enough to not inspire second-guessing.

I'd already seen the James Burke "Connections" episode of the same title which inspired this film. They gave it a visual nod early on, and that made it all the more entertaining.

I think "The Trigger Effect" is well worth your time unless some negative reviewer turned you against it, which is ironically how people behave in mobs when order breaks down!

One of the worst movies I've seen...

[Jodie-4 · 2/10 · 28 December 1998]

There are few things I hate more than being beaten over the head with the message a movie is trying to get across. The creators obviously became so wrapped up in conveying an interesting theme that they forgot about the importance of the other aspects of a good movie (character development, action, a PLOT)...This had potential- good actors, rising tension (in the beginning) and an interesting situation to be delt with. However, it soon became a downward spiral of events that were unbelievable and unoriginal. It became downright silly. The ending was so contrived it made me laugh. Even the acting didn't save this- I didn't care about these characters or what happened to them. This one will be *remembered?* as a movie that had potential but was unable to deliver.

It's not your everyday Agent Cooper VS. Judy Story

[starfist · 7/10 · 9 January 2020]

A commentary on how 'The Bad Behaviour Electricity Chain Reaction' effects normal people. I liked it. Our boy Kyle is doing great, considering the short term recovery from "Showgirls" as this is taking place only one year after it.

One Word-boring

[jpmurga · 2/10 · 5 March 1999]

The first time I saw it I couldn't make it awake till the end. It's so slow paced for its theme. The whole movie could've lasted 40 minutes if it moved at a regular pace. That aside the story was not bad but very badly developed. I'm so sorry I watched twice to see it complete, it actually gets worse at the end. If you don't have anything better to do, see another movie, read a book or take a nap, but don't see this movie.

At least its got an interesting concept (and a very fine female lead)...

[MarkCrozier · 8/10 · 3 June 2009]

which is a lot more than you can say for most movies...

I caught this flick one night on television. One of my favourite things is when I stumble across some little movie on TV that I haven't seen before. This happened to me one night when I was just skipping channels, as you do.

What stopped me dead in my tracks was the sight of Elizabeth Shue. Now I freely admit that this woman just hypnotizes me. She's extremely appealing on several levels so I will often watch a movie that's an obvious turkey (The Saint, The Hollow Man) just because she is in it.

Elizabeth aside, the movie itself proved to have quite a diverting premise: the meltdown of society when some of the trappings are suddenly removed. There is a lot that could have been done with this, but the production was obviously not that well-financed, so the director smartly focused on the characters instead.

It really isn't as bad as many of the people here make it out to be. The three leads are interesting enough, there is a sub-plot in the form of a love triangle to keep things interesting and the concept is certainly relevant enough in today's times to hold one's attention.

Yes, OK, its not a classic but its not a complete disaster either. And I for one detest neat little endings tied up in a bow.

Ultimately, as with many films, its down to the circumstances in which it is viewed. If you're looking to be entertained for a couple of hours on a slow week night, you could do a lot worse.

Quite alright but very problematic

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 6/10 · 28 September 2012]

What would you do if there was no kind of power, electricity in your city and you needed to do stuff, solve problems away? How people, society in general would react in such chaotic situation where nothing works? "The Trigger Effect" unique power is in touching such thoughtful matter that should be deeply thought in several possibilities. Too bad director/writer David Koepp ("Jurassic Park", "Secret Window") only dwindles in a soft "Twilight Zone" scheme pretending to be serious enough to make us fully interested. It works on a minor level of entertainment, due to the lack of brainy ideas. For the most part, it's a little depressing, somewhat ridiculous and strangely annoying.

It begins in a dull presentation of characters where three main characters, a couple (Kyle MacLachlan and Elisabeth Shue) and a guy (Richard T. Jones) are introduced in all sorts of confusion while gathered in a movie theater. Only in the 1990's we can think of small misunderstandings happening with people accidentally stumbling on other people causing such disturbance and heated little arguments that seems to lead towards aggression. We in the 21st Century are somewhat more aware of people, that we never know who they might be and we avoid conflict in the best possible way unless if inevitable. One small push and those characters need to curse, start a fight over pointless matters. But, they were together when the power went down in the room, then returned and by the end of the day, it will fail again, this time for a long stressful time, no answers given.

The couple's problem is finding medicine for their baby who's having some health issues. Breaking point for the father is to steal the medicine of a drugstore amidst the chaos and after fighting with the pharmacist simply because the guy "didn't like him" after (again!) small discussions. Their only assistance comes from a friend (Dermot Mulroney) who makes sure they're safe due to the violence threats, riots and robbery happening in the small town after the energy disaster. No news, no information, nothing is said about the incident and the situation gets worse by the hour. Another breaking point comes when a robber gets killed after trying to steal things from the couple's house, starting some deep ethical questions in our heads.

The movie's major weakness is in having a weak character as the figure we're supposed to root for. It's not a case of bad acting since Kyle is quite good in it; the problem is that it was too annoying, and far exaggerated all the time he had to take some different action than he used to take. Doesn't convince.

Also, all the trouble presented by Koepp that society would rise into pandemonium simply because they're stuck without power was far too one-sided, simplistic. He only touched the surface of the problem and that's it. And when he creates the problem it isn't all that interesting to see, in fact it's too damn unbelievable. The whole road situation and how they deal with Michael Rooker character were ridiculous, almost killed the movie. And his character should've been presented earlier in the movie and we should have the right to know his motivations for doing all what he does, menacing people. But no, he's just there to surprise us with what can be surprising since he always plays the same role of menacing tough guy.

If we don't get stuck with the negative aspects of "The Trigger Effect" we can enjoy it because of the proposition given and the actors working on it. Those who hated the movie for its acting or lack of a good story are a little wrong about it. Fine, it's not the best work of many of the stars present in here but it's not that bad. Hands down as best acting to Bill Smitrovich playing MacLachlan's friendly and helpful neighbor. He's a great character actor you recognize for countless films, never knows the name but here he makes his presence quite notable, specially after the robbery incident. Best character of the movie, it's because of him the film gets more gripping and more questionable when it comes to judge people's actions amidst such strange turmoil of events.

Not the best or the worst, it's right in the middle. A little mediocre but positively watchable specially on a night time. 6/10

David Koepp needs writing lessons

[mickeyhfgg · 3/10 · 12 September 2011]

The Trigger Effect is kinda like the little engine that could...but didn't. It simply falls flat, and it is all due to a script that is chock full of gaping errors and head scratching moments.

I have to give away some spoilers to prove my point, so stop here if you wish to be surprised.

Here are some of the examples about inconsistencies, and other head scratching problems.

At one point, the three leads decide to venture outside to witness the insanity caused by the blackout. But they leave the baby at home, alone, unattended, while it's sick with a fever, and there is no electricity.

I can understand long lines at places like a gas station or a grocery store or hardware store, but Kyle goes to a pharmacy and a gun shop where there are lines practically out the door. OK, maybe the gun shop I'll accept, but a pharmacy? All of a sudden people need to go to the pharmacy? Why now? And then Kyle gets into these totally unnecessary heated arguments with the pharmacist and the gun shop owner. Why?? If he would just talk to them in a calm, rational manner, he would have been able to get what he needed like the medicine from the pharmacist. It just made no sense. It's like, Kyle, calm down, dude!

After Rupert is shot, and they end up losing their car and having to use Michael Rooker's car instead, they try desperately waving cars down on the road to help them, but to no avail. Why didn't they just place Rooker's car in the middle of the road to block traffic? This would cause all oncoming drivers to stop, then that way Kyle could have asked them for a ride to a hospital. But nooooo, what does Kyle do instead? He runs all the way to that lone farmhouse that he ends up breaking into---and this brings up even more questions: Why did Kyle run all the way to the farmhouse for help? He passes a NUCLEAR FACILITY. Don't you think that the NUCLEAR FACILITY would have MANY people working inside? People who could have helped him get to a hospital? But, noooooo, he runs to the farmhouse.

When he gets to the farmhouse, he gets into yet another heated argument with the owner for no reason whatsoever. Had he just remained calm, I am sure the owner would help him. But, nooooo, they fight which causes Kyle to return later with the rifle that he gave to his wife to keep with her for protection. So, let's think about this. It means that Kyle ran from Rooker's car passing the NUCLEAR FACILITY to get to the farmhouse where he gets into a verbal fight with the owner, then ran back from the farmhouse passing the NUCLEAR FACILITY again to get to the car to get the rifle, then he runs from the car passing the NUCLEAR FACILITY yet again in order to get to the farmhouse where he gets into a gun fight with the owner after he unnecessarily breaks into it. Are you confused, too? So am I!

At the beginning of the movie, there is a sequence where a woman obliviously cuts into a line at a concession stand to get popcorn. Except for one person, no one else in this looooong line complains that this woman just cut right into them. Not even the concessionaire tells her to get to the back of the line. Wow. Such a kind, forgiving group of people.

At a time where cash is of the utmost importance, our leads happen to come across an ice cream truck (!!!???!!!) on the side of the road, and decide to blow some of their ever-so important cash---on ICE CREAM??? And why is this truck there to begin with, and how is the vendor keeping the treats frozen when there is no electricity?

A man breaks into Kyle and Elisabeth's house. After they chase the criminal into the street, their neighbor ends up shooting and killing the guy. For the rest of the film, Kyle resents the fact that his neighbor did this. Why? The criminal was even waving a switchblade in the middle of the street when he was shot, but for some reason I guess Kyle felt that his neighbor's action was too extreme. If this were me, I'd be kissing and bowing down to my neighbor thanking him for killing the guy!!! I mean, he just broke into my house carrying a weapon which I'm sure he would have used on me, my wife and my child. Yet Kyle, I guess, ends up resenting his neighbor for doing this good deed. Whatever.

I know it's 1996, but doesn't one single person in this entire HUGE city own a cell phone?!?!?

I could go on, but I'm sure you will find the same problems with this script that I did. The more I think about it, I realize that people in this movie just don't act rationally. I know that during a blackout people will do the strangest of things, but it's just that there are so many inconsistencies and scenes that make no sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, Koepp is a master of the Head-Scratching screenplays. His films are certainly entertaining, but there are many times when you just sit there and say, "Whuh? That makes no sense"! And this movie has a lot of those scenes. Too bad because it really is a fun idea.

Great idea, very VERY poorly executed

[wombat_1 · 23 February 2004]

I was one of the people who ended up "hating" this movie and wishing it weren't so. As others have said, it's an "important" concept - how would YOU behave in this oh-too-probably situation, but it was so poorly executed. All of the characters in this movie were sooooooo unpleasant, so unlikeable. Are all middle-class Americans really like this? Somehow I doubt it. With a good director and better actors - and let's face it, has Elisabeth Shue ever done any movie where she gets to keep her clothes on - this could have been much better than the 'C' grade crap that it ultimately became.

People go crazy easy

[lazesmelita · 7/10 · 26 February 2006]

People do things that are considered crazy all the time in normal functioning society, with all the comforts that come with it and make life more bearable. Someone pisses you off? Ah, to hell with it, you go and have a nice cold one, turn on the TV, and watch seinfeld deliver sugarcoated antisocial commentary resonating perfectly with your state of mind. But what if you couldn't have a cold one, couldn't see your TV friend agree with you, and would have to face the events of the day much earlier as the nightly electrical distractions become unavailable? Then you have "the trigger effect". Many people find it far fetched, conceived, self-indulgent, frivolous. They do so out of their air-conditioned apartment, eating ready-made microwave popcorn, downloading music for free and waiting for the pizza guy to arrive.

The royal treatment

[richard_sleboe · 7/10 · 4 June 2007]

Mayhem and bloodshed hang in the air as darkness is cast upon suburban Sacramento. "The Trigger Effect" could go in many commonplace directions from the initial blackout. Violence, destruction, an urban inferno of sorts. But none of that. The script avoids all the obvious traps and takes us straight to the heart of a far-from-perfect marriage, by way of the dusty California road. As the late Princess of Wales once put it: "There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded." All the lead characters feel like real people, not like the usual variables in a screenwriters equation: Matthew (Kyle MacLachlan, of "Blue Velvet" fame), Annie (Elizabeth Shue), Dermot Mulroney's Joe as the third one in the marriage, and Richard T. Jones as the mysterious stranger. This is a grown-up movie for grown-up people. Much like in life itself, there is no easy way out.

Lame, dumb, too much of my life that I won't get back.

[Chris_P · 2/10 · 9 September 1999]

The movie starts out good, with a decent premise and interesting idea. Then spirals into stupidity. All the main characters in the movie resort to very un-realistic behavior, where they over-react to a situation that is not as bad as they seem to think it is.

Mayhem In Civilization

[mal karma · 6/10 · 26 September 2002]

It was OK. A decent cast and production. Just shows how easy it is to lose everything we've done in 2000 years of history. Which is basically our civilized behavior, and then drag us down to the most basics of the animal instincts: surviving.

Don't bother...

[wdemurjian · 4/10 · 4 November 2002]

What a waste of time and cast. This movie was truly pointless -- it wasn't entertaining, suspenseful, fun, informative, nada. The only memorable moment (one hardly worth renting the film) was Elizabeth Shue getting all hot 'n bothered. Would have liked to have seen her dump her drippy husband for Dermot -- talk about the wrong guy taking the bullet.

Philadelphia Weekly had described this as the most overlooked film of 1996. Guess what? It deserved to be!

If only...

[pizzapooch-2 · 7/10 · 14 May 2001]

I rented this film, from my local video store, after browsing some of the older tapes on their shelves. What I found was an intriguing movie, that gives a great concept, only to balls-it-up totally, with a quickie ending.

The idea of "What would you do, if it came down to saving yourself and your loved ones, in a crisis?" is certainly a timely question, especially in this day and age. And, with a strong character actor cast, including Richard T Jones, (from TV cop-series Brooklyn South); Michael Rooker (from Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer and JFK), and Bill Smitrovich (from most of Michael Mann's films), it certainly makes for an entertaining, and diverting, 90 minutes.

Alas, David Koepp leaves us with this rushed ending of happily-ever-after, that ruins all that has come before. A shame, because this movie has so much that makes you think and question what you might do yourself, if placed in this situation. Some of the scenes are eerily tense and unnerving, especially when Kyle MacLachlan's character suddenly snaps halfway through, and realises that he is no less an animal than the rest of us.

Whether Koepp's ending was forced upon him from external forces, I can't say, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were, because it's only the final few moments that are capped-on artificially. The previous 85 minutes all unreel at a nice pace, that just keeps you guessing as to what is going to happen.

Despite my negative review, I'd still recommend this film, and would love to view the BBC series "Connections" from the 1980's that this film is allegedly based upon. Sadly, even the BBC in London, don't have any record of this series existing. Maybe this is Koepp's way of sticking two fingers up at the (alleged) studio-imposed ending?

Pushing all the buttons

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 19 May 2015]

The lights go out in the city in the middle of the night. Matthew (Kyle MacLachlan) and Annie Kay (Elisabeth Shue) are a suburban couple with a sick baby. Matthew is somewhat of a door mat. He struggles to get medicine for his sick baby. Their irreverent friend Joe (Dermot Mulroney) arrives. The guys buy a rifle to protect against looting. Annie throws it into the pool. That night, they chase a prowler out into the street where a neighbor shoots him. They decide to leave their cul-de-sac and drive to Annie's parents. On the road, they face their own darkness.

From the moment it starts with the loud-mouthed black people in the movie theater, this movie keeps pushing buttons. It's annoyance at its height. It has the gun issue when anti-gun still has a constituent. Society falls apart so quickly for no reason that the movie feels completely fake. The paranoia and selfishness is dialed all the way to 11 right from the start. They leave their home for a relatively flimsy reason. The movie does find a good place to end but it's a long bumpy unrealistic road.

A good movie, well-acted

[eastbourne17 · 8/10 · 7 December 2002]

Although this movie has an average rating of 5 point something, based on feedback from over 1000 voters, I'd like to put in a good word for it, if only to offset the very negative comment that is posted here.

It dramatizes an interesting situation (what happens when there's a power failure and the resources we've come to rely on suddenly aren't there), and I think the leads, Kyle McLachlan, Elizabeth Shue, and Dermot Mulroney do an excellent job, as well as the supporting cast.

This is a movie I'd buy and watch again. Do yourself a favor and judge for yourself.

Good depiction of how technology has replaced humanity in the US.

[zz-3 · 6/10 · 20 April 1999]

Overall a very good movie. It shows that on the one hand, technology has become so important that when the power goes off in a place, nothing can be done. The gas stations are out, the streets are dark, you cannot even gat a medicine for your child unless you steal it. On the other hand, human values have become so pathetic that one doesn't trust anyone. People love electricity but fear each other so much that on the slightest suspicion are ready to shoot each other. The film is a slap in the face for the modern world and wakes one up to the cost of technological progress.

Technology - Minor Spoilers

[Aloft · 3/10 · 3 September 2002]

To a prior comment about how this was a movie about the fragility of society, and not the technical aspects. Well, you cannot have a good movie about the fragility of society where it relies upon the collapse of something that isn't really all that fragile. Sure, it is just a plot device, but because of its inability to explain itself, or even use a realistic device, it subtracts from the premise.

Secondly, I've been in multi-day power outages before, and I have never seen society go to rot so quickly! This movie acts as if the moment we cannot withdrawal money out of an ATM machine, we start to froth at the mouth and become homicidal maniacs -- dispensing with all other forms of morality along the way.

This contains all manner of implications, the best of which are just plain silly. In my neighborhood at least, the effect was pretty much the opposite. People didn't have "anything to do" so there was a lot more time spent just hanging out together -- a truly rare event in modern suburbia.

So not only is the plot device absurd, no matter how abstract you try to make it, the result from the device is just as contrived.