|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Index||54 reviews in total|
Murder at 1600 is an enjoyable thriller. There are some formula aspects as
other reviewers have mentioned, but on the whole the plot a murder within
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue leaves the viewer in some suspense. As a
"whodunnit", the movie succeeds, and as for this reviewer, the murderer and
the actual conspiracy isn't evident till near the end. Wayne Beach and the
late David Hodgin create enough plot twists to keep most viewers guessing.
Director Dwight Little keeps things tight and well-paced. There is a good
sense of logic to Murder at 1600's execution.
It's arguably one of the best films Snipes has starred in. Known more for his tough-guy roles in Passenger 57 and Demolition Man, it's refreshing to see Snipes as a detective who relies more on thinking than weaponry. Revelations keep Snipes' character, Det Harlan Regis, pursuing new leads just as any logical audience member would. Regis, a history buff who has recreated battles with miniature models in his living room and a well-respected detective, puts both his police training and interests to use. Beach and Hodgin have also humanized Regis: he is about to be evicted a fact that is quickly introduced in the film's opening sequence and he and his fellow tenants' problem is solved in a refreshing way.
Diane Lane plays a Secret Service agent, Nina Chance, who begins to suspect a cover-up at the White House and assists Regis. It's established early on that she brought home the gold in sharpshooting at the 1988 Olympics and her skills are put to good use in several action scenes. Unlike most TV heroines, her aim doesn't get better as the ending nears. There's a welcome consistency that's seldom seen from Hollywood, where the hero often loses a fight at the beginning yet miraculously triumphs at the end. It's a real pleasure to see Lane back in a high-calibre film; for too long we've seen her in forgettable fare such as Judge Dredd and Knight Moves. Lane's acting ability should keep her in the limelight, one hopes she is an actress who doesn't deserve to fade in her 40s. This will depend on whether the establishment will come to its senses about its ageist attitude toward actresses.
The cast is ably supported by the menacing Daniel Benzali; Alan Alda comes to Snipes's aid as the National Security Adviser to the President; Ronny Cox is a president in crisis as American troops are held hostage in North Korea; Tate Donovan as the president's playboy son. Every character, with the exception of Snipes's sidekick played by Dennis Miller, has a part to play in the plot; thanks to a better-than-usual casting job by the duo of Amanda Johnson and Cathy Sandrich (often good with mysteries) the roles are very well filled.
And refreshingly for Hollywood, we do not have a male European-American hero saving the day with his African-American sidekick. There have been enough biases against minorities in casting films. And there have also been enough films that take things too far the other way. The race issue is never played in this film: director Dwight Little treats each character as a regular person, just like in real life where the majority of us don't give an iota what colour or creed someone is.
Some parts of Christopher Young's score are not terribly fitting although on the whole he does a good job. Sound effects are well handled in this film as is the editing; both contribute well to the suspense and the mood. Steven Bernstein's photography cuts between the real and created White Houses well, and contributes well to the film's overall effect.
This is one of the best and most logical films that has come out of Hollywood for some time. It will not insult many viewers' intelligence for starters. While not 100 per cent original, it is a very well-made film that rests on a solid plot and direction.
At first, it appears as though it will be your typical, by-the-numbers
political thriller. Then, as the movie progresses, it gets better and
better, thanks to a fast pace and lots of exciting action scenes.
'Murder at 1600' focuses on the discover of a brutally-murdered intern in the White House. Two detectives (Wesley Snipes and Dennis Miller) are assigned to the case, with White House security personnel limiting the detectives with classified information which may be useful to the case. Lucky for them, a dedicated Secret Service Agent (Diane Lane) reluctantly helps.
Although it gets predictable at times (especially at the end), it's still a fun little thriller. It really gives you a deep feeling of paranoia as well!
MURDER AT 1600 came near the end of Wesley Snipes' theatrical career, before he went STV, and it is a decent-enough, Canadian-lensed thriller about the discovery of a young woman's brutally murdered body in the White House. Could the president's bully of a son (Tate Donovan) have killed her? Or are there more sinister forces at work here? For better or worse, the identity of the killer is made plain just past the halfway mark. But that doesn't mean you can't go along for the ride as shadowy assassins try to keep Snipes, as a D.C. detective, and Diane Lane, as a sympathetic Secret Service agent, from uncovering the truth. Snipes is in tip top shape here and is surrounded by several great character actors: Ronny Cox as the president, Harris Yulin as a hawkish general and Alan Alda as a presidential adviser. Daniel Benzali, who some of you might remember from a short-lived TV crime show some years ago, is on hand as a senior Secret Service agent and Dennis Miller has a small role as a fellow D.C. detective. While MURDER AT 1600 is not a first-rate action film -- for one thing, it is chock full of tired plot devices -- it is certainly watchable. And it beats anything Snipes has done since going STV.
At least the whodunit puzzle left me guessing. But that's the only
redeeming quality of this pretentious mystery, set at the White House.
A lone, good guy cop (played by Wesley Snipes) goes up against the rich
and powerful. Our hero fights the bullies and the bad guys with courage
and daring. It's a tired, stale concept.
The story is chock-full of pretentious, self-important, irritatingly hip characters, most of them conveniently photogenic. The plot contains lots of chases and some fight scenes. It also contains the obligatory in-your-face news media frenzy, and other tiresome film clichés. The dialogue is banal. Example: "Section 6 secure"; "Go. Freeze!". The film's ending is unimaginative and trite.
Color cinematography is adequate, if conventional. Production design is detailed and quite convincing. Acting is average. The nondescript background music is very manipulative.
"Murder At 1600" comes across as your typical big-budget, high profile film right off the Hollywood assembly line. It's got visual pizazz and lots of "action". But the story lacks substance and depth, the characters are stereotyped, and the dialogue is vapid. It's just one more example of how Hollywood throws production megabucks as substandard screenplays.
When it comes to thrillers I usually find that smaller is better. I almost
always enjoy the small independent films with the second- and third-levels
stars rather than the big Hollywood productions made with the A-team that
cater to a broader public taste. But when your thriller is set at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia, it's awfully hard for a
low-budget production to pull it off credibly. Besides, I'm interested in
the presidency and like films that purport to give you a behind-the-scenes
look, even if it is fictional, so I gave 'Murder at 1600' a
Of course, if the movie is going to be longer than 15 minutes, you have to allow it some license. A lot of its success is based on how much you're willing to let go without saying, "Wait a minute!" A lot, too, depends on the cast and Wesley Snipes is a likable enough actor. Diane Lane is a big plus here as the Secret Service agent who works with him. They have a typical rocky relationship, but it's enjoyable. Daniel Benzali is ominous as the head of Secret Service. Snipes asks him what it would take for him to see some White House records and Benzali dryly answers, "Oh, not much. Just an act of Congress." Other veterans in the cast include Alan Alda, Ronny Cox and Harris Yulin. Bigger wasn't necessarily better this time but it was good enough.
This movie undoubtedly has one of the best pairings of movies in late
90's,that of Snipes and Lane.Diane Lane is at her most beautiful and
enchanting here and i liked her performance.Snipes is as always very cool
and strong and shows depth.Its amazing how someone can show depth in action
and criminal movies as he does.Blows my mind.
Film has a decent story and issue.It has already been worked up by Eastwood in "Absolute power".Its about people in key positions who use their power to achieve their own secret goals and do what they like.Alan Alda is very good as the stern villain who secretly works against the president played equally well by Ronny Cox.Benzali and Donovan make good supporting roles.
But what is the best thing with this is the chemistry between lead stars.Even if Wesley and Diane dont get involved romantically,their relationship makes it worth to watch even without the love scenes.They have quiet strength and strong charisma.And their bond is a great one.
This is a good 8/10.
Great performances by Ronny Cox and Wesley Snipes. A standard political thriller, made more interesting by Snipes' character's interest in history. He has made huge models of the DC area in his apartment, and uses them to solve a murder case that threatens to bring down the president. The gorgeous Diane Lane gives a creditable performance as a secret service agent. I liked the fact that the two main characters never have sex. Their relationship suggests it, and I kept waiting for the usual (and boring) bedroom scene. Sex is often used as a gimmick to hold interest in a boring plot and uninteresting characters. You either like the plot and this movie for what it is, or you don't.
The first hour of this movie was very entertaining, even if it did
offer up the normal clichés of the day. It featured good suspense and a
likable hero played by Wesley Snipes. I was really enjoying this, but -
yes, but - the film goes right down the tubes in the last 40 minutes.
The last 20 minutes will really have you cringing.
Not only does the story get convoluted, it loses all credibility. A murder at the White House and no FBI? That's just one of many loopholes. We wind up getting the same tired military-and U.S. government-are-the-bad guys bias that we've seen upteen times in the past 40 years. Hey, the film is entertaining but if you have a brain, you might have problems with this story.
By the way, any film that includes post-MASH Alan Alda or pre-9/11 Dennis Miller is usually pretty bad. We get both in this film.
The ending is so ludicrous, such an insult to anyone's intelligence, that is has to offend anyone, regardless of their political persuasion. This is one of the few films that ends so poorly that both Liberals and Conservatives would agree.
In fact, most people agreed that this film was great for the first half, horrible in the second and was filled with too many clichés that ruined a movie which good have been a good one. Another clue to what you have here is that this was directed by the same guy who did "Halloween 4" and "Free Willy 2."
"Murder at 1600" is basically a mystery-thriller with neo-noir premises
in the story. It succeeds by not letting its action sequences get out
of hand or too extravagant, and by staging them realistically, so that
the entire story comes across as reasonably realistic, or at least not
wildly implausible. Another element creating success is that there is
no over-acting. Wesley Snipes, a fine and substantial leading man,
handles the role well with his usual aplomb and confidence. For a
change, there is no needless friction built into the script between him
and his Secret Service sidekick, Diane Lane.
The story has a "Seven Days in May" angle at its heart, and there is one scene and line that shows that the writers were well aware of this. It occurs when Harris Yulin (playing a small part as a general) tells the president (the smooth Ronny Cox) that his behavior borders on the criminal. This was Burt Lancaster's line in the earlier movie, which also involved a plot to remove the president from office so that a new one could employ more military force in foreign dealings.
In this case, the plot to get the president to resign is led by the National Security Adviser, Alan Alda. Alda relishes playing the militaristic part; compare his superb movie "The Seduction of Joe Tynan" in which he also skewers politicians. It involves the president's son and a murder of a pretty White House aide. The Secret Service is involved, its head making off with vital tapes in a cover-up attempt.
The movie actually involves two more cover-ups, and they are the president's. They involve first his son, before he is found to be framed, and second, how the story is told to the public after Snipes finds the actual perpetrators. A story is concocted. Truth is shown to be breached almost routinely by the president who has been saved. This is a good twist of irony.
In fact, what I like best about the movie is the contrast between the cynical and scheming federal officials and the straight arrow Snipes.
The FBI was left out of the script because that would have ramped up the complications. One of the main ideas is to contrast local justice and police, in the form of honest and straightforward Snipes, with the national (federal) kinds of people involved in all kinds of lying, frame-ups, and cover-ups. Had the FBI been involved, we would have had the added complications of their leaders either kowtowing to the political figures or getting information on them to use against them or standing aside for their own advantage or else bumbling and failing to connect the dots, as the FBI is wont to do. Any of this would have been very hard to handle without extending the story by 30 minutes.
This movie is not predominantly an action film, despite the final sequence, and those who expect big action scenes will not find them here. This film is much more about a complex plot to take over the presidency by those interested in military action, in this case, directed at North Korea to recover American hostages. It is much more about uncovering the conspiracy. And it should be noted that Diane Lane plays a critical role as someone who must decide where her loyalty lies, to her job and superiors who are misbehaving, or to her conscience.
Although movies like this may seem fanciful, not a day passes that their themes do not become more and more pertinent. The years between 1997, when this was made, and now have been years of increasing propaganda emanating from Washington and media, militarism, and National Security Council spying.
This film is based on a novel by Margaret Truman, daughter of President
Harry Truman and First Lady Bess Truman. For some reason, she is not
given credit here on IMDb for the work that this film is based on.
As to the movie itself, I would agree that in certain ways it would be somewhat implausible, yet I still find it quite entertaining, and easy to watch any time it pops up on TV, these days in High Def, looking far better then it has in years. I like Wesley Snipes - persistent, a pain in the behind, never willing to give up with so much at stake. And I find that Diane Lane is at her best here - not trying to be attractive, yet amazingly so, showing that she can and ought to be an action adventure type of actor as much as any other type of work that she gets into. And after all the lies and other nonsense that has come out of the Nixon, Reagan and Dubya administrations, maybe this doesn't seem all that impossible after all.
|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Ratings||Newsgroup reviews|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|