Shaw is an operative for the United Nations' covert dirty-tricks squad, using espionage and quasi-ethical tactics to secure peace and cooperation. When a shipping container full of dead ... See full summary »
A 25 year old female White House staffer, Carla Town is murdered in the White House. D.C. homicide detective Regis is assigned to investigate, only to find all evidence suppressed by the ... See full summary »
Dean Cage is a former CIA operative who suffers from extreme PTSD. While in a program to resolve the stress of the loss his future brother-in-law Scott, he plans to meet Scott's sister at a... See full summary »
Two converging story lines involving corrupt cops ripping off drug dealers and serial killers are followed as former drug dealer Lucky, trying to go straight after doing a prison stint, ... See full summary »
Shaw is an operative for the United Nations' covert dirty-tricks squad, using espionage and quasi-ethical tactics to secure peace and cooperation. When a shipping container full of dead Vietnamese refugees turns up on the docks and China's ambassador is gunned down at a dinner celebrating a new trade agreement with China and the US, Shaw is framed for the murder and must evade the FBI and Triad gangsters to find out what is really going on. Written by
Jeff Cross <email@example.com>
Universal Pictures briefly optioned the screenplay and considered Jet Li to star. At that point, action director Dwight H. Little was also being eyed to helm. See more »
When the car explodes outside of the cafe, the camera cuts to an inside shot through the windows. The explosion wires attached to the windows to make them shatter are visible. See more »
What is he waiting for?
[putting on headset]
What are you waiting for?
Novak, I'm experiencing the moment.
He's going to experience a Chinese labor camp in a moment if he doesn't stick to schedule.
See more »
Most people can't differentiate between a bad film and a film they don't like. Many people didn't like this motion picture because of its liberal subtext. That doesn't make it a bad film. Most people don't realize that this was a Canadian production and that probably explains the political slant. However, as action films go, it was intelligent, high tech, stimulating, bordering on believable (seldom are action flicks actually believable), with plenty of violence. I didn't particularly agree with its `New World Order' message, but it was still a solid film.
The main criticism I have of the film is the editing. In an attempt to make the story more intriguing, it is pasted together in a convoluted way that makes it very difficult to follow. All the factions and motivations are eventually explained, but one has to pay very close attention or see the movie a few times to catch them all. The screenplay suffers from an excess of subplots, which makes following the story that much more difficult. The biggest sin committed by the producers and director was that they did not understanding their audience. This film targets action lovers, who are a visceral lot. They want to be stimulated, not confused and intrigued. They also tend to be more conservative politically (God, Guns, Guts). So naturally, the film bombed.
Wesley Snipes delivers a strong performance in the intelligent action hero role. Snipes seems to be locked in the action genre when he is really too bright for the roles he plays. He should take a lesson from Samuel L. Jackson and look for scripts that are more dramatic. Jackson still does action films (Shaft), but he picks parts portraying complex characters and scripts with strong character development, instead of straight macho testosterone parts. Snipes would have done well in some of the roles Jackson has had. Anne Archer does a fine job as the manipulative career diplomat, pulling everyone's strings behind the scenes. Donald Sutherland is a bit flaccid in this film, but his character really didn't have a lot of bite.
Overall, this film is a strong entry into a genre dominated by mindless body count. I rated it an 8/10. Those who like their action flicks to be completely believable subtract two points. Subtract another two points for those who don't like confounding story lines. For those who abhor screen violence, don't even bother.
34 of 48 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?