NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Tss5078 Remaking classic films is admirable. It is a great way to introduce a new generation to the classic stories of our culture, when it's done correctly. Suddenly is a remake of the 1954 Frank Sinatra film by the same name, starring Ray Liotta as Tod Shaw. Shaw is an aging, alcoholic cop in a small town, who is at the end of his career. One day, rather suddenly, the President makes a surprise stop in the town where he works. As they make the final preparations for the visit, Shaw comes to realize that a local family has been taken hostage, and the President is in danger. In remaking a film like this, producers should only consider going one of two ways. Either make it a true remake, set in 1954, or adapt the story to fit the times, Uwe Boll did neither. This remake is very much the same story, but takes place in 2013. This is problematic, as it makes the story somewhat unbelievable. There are better ways of doing things, modern technology, many different things the story could have and should have changed, but it didn't. As for Ray Liotta, he's probably the last person I would cast to reprise Frank Sinatra. When Sinatra made this film, he was 39 years old, Liotta is 58 years old, and he more than acts his age. Are we really supposed to believe that at nearly 60 years old, Liotta can even attempt to take on a beast like Dominic Purcell? The whole thing was just way off target, but I am giving it 2 1/2 stars, because of Purcell. This guy just gets better with every performance, weather it's the lovably naive escaped con or the scary cold assassin, Purcell is always believable and fun to watch. Suddenly was never that great of a story to begin with, but for some reason Uwe Boll had a connection to it, and decided to remake it, but the way it is done makes it almost comical and anything but a fitting tribute to the work of Frank Sinatra.

gavin6942 Four assassins pose as Secret Service agents to assassinate the President of the United States.The original film is very good, and could be a great source for a remake. Was this the remake that should have been? In all honesty, it is not that bad. Some of the acting is cheesy and it is less than perfect, but assuming a lower budget, it is actually pretty good. Definitely better than most of the crud the Asylum pumps out (for example).If nothing else, maybe this will encourage people to check out the original. I believe it is in the public domain, so it is not hard to track down.

Michael Noble First thing - Secret Service agents are all wearing the exact same ties, white shirts, black suits, and the same style black shoes.Continuity problems – at one point, one of the actors grabs a case out of the SUV to carry into the house, but walks through the front door without anything in his hands. The house is supposed to be isolated on the side of the mountain, yet in outside scenes, other houses are visible across the street. In another scene Ray Liotta is unshaven and in the very next scene he is clean shaven.If you can ignore all the directorial and other mistakes, it's watchable, but only barely.

jowenbmd Some people on these boards really ripped this film and its directer a new orifice. And to their point, it is really not a very good film, but nor is it all that bad. It does lack a high degree of tension and that's what it needed. More tension. But I and my wife were fairly entertained and the actors did a good job. Someone said that the boy, Cole Coker, was the best part of the movie. I disagree. His performance was flat. What amused me was in the closing credits the disclaimer that "... any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental". The Obama lookalike as the president was "purely coincidental'? Really? bOb