"Today is a glorious day. Today I get to kill the President." Barren (Purcell) has become disillusioned with the President and his policies. He devises a plan that will help deal with his problem. Him and his accomplices pose as secret service agents and take up a position in a family's house that has the perfect sniping position. When a local cop (Liotta) shows up Barren's perfect plan starts to unravel. Uwe Boll's trademark seems to be lame movies with poor acting but decent action. This one had both. The movie itself isn't really that terrible but it is also fairly generic and predictable. There have been many movies about trying to stop a presidential assassin and I usually like movies with that plot. I did like this one too but it's not one of the better ones and I don't think I would watch this again. I have not seen the original with Frank Sinatra but I would guess that one is better. I could be wrong though. Overall, nothing terrible but nothing amazing either. I give it a C+
24 Reviews
Another Lackluster Remake
zardoz-1316 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"House of the Dead" director Uwe Boll and "The Killing Machine" scenarist Raul Inglis have appropriated Lewis Allen's presidential assassination thriller "Suddenly" (1954) and updated it. Basically, Boll and Inglis preserved the basic plot, but altered the characters. Nobody is truly the equivalent of Sterling Hayden. Hayden was the sheriff, while Ray Liotta is cast as a deputy rather than the chief. Erin Karpluk shares little in common with Nancy Gates as the anxious mother. The filmmakers have aged the character of Pidge, too. In the original, Pidge was an adolescent, but here he is a teenager. Ellen hated guns in the original, but she wound up using a gun to save the day. In the remake, Ellen makes no comments about violence and guns. Ellen's father in the remake is a goofy home-repair screw-up, while James Gleason in the 1954 version was a retired Federal agent. Boll has made a respectable thriller with a top-notch cast. Indeed, the performances are all first-rate with Liotta and Dominic Purcell going toe-to-toe for top acting honors. Clocking in at 90 minutes, "Suddenly" isn't bad, but neither is it above-average. The exterior scenery is majestic.
Right-wing assassins take over a house high enough above the town of Suddenly so they can shoot an Obama presidential look-a-like. Ray Liotta plays an alcoholic small town deputy with a dark secret. Liotta is as close as you can get to a hero in this complicated yarn. Altogether, Frank Sinatra version of "Suddenly" released in 1954 surpasses this polished but pale rehash. The good citizens of the small town of Suddenly are surprised when they learn that the President is passing through town. The town fathers stage a reception for him. Meantime, bogus Federal Agents Barren (Dominic Purcell of "Prison Break"), Conklin (Michael Paré of "The Lincoln Lawyer"), and Wheeler (Tyron Leitso) take over the house belonging to Ellen (Erin Karpluk) who has a son named Pidge (newcomer Cole Coker) who likes to make up tall tales. When the film unfolds, Deputy Reed (Ray Liotta) gets into a fight over his gambling debts. Reed's chief rubs him the wrong way about his drinking problem and then demands that he surrender his gun and gunbelt. Our trio of villains stashes Ellen, her son, and her father in the basement. The power has gone out at Ellen's house because her home repair father shorted out the electrics. Eventually, Reed comes to check up on Ellen, and all hell breaks loose. The villains capture Reed, recapture Pidge and the President steps up to the podium to speak as the assassins take aim.
Right-wing assassins take over a house high enough above the town of Suddenly so they can shoot an Obama presidential look-a-like. Ray Liotta plays an alcoholic small town deputy with a dark secret. Liotta is as close as you can get to a hero in this complicated yarn. Altogether, Frank Sinatra version of "Suddenly" released in 1954 surpasses this polished but pale rehash. The good citizens of the small town of Suddenly are surprised when they learn that the President is passing through town. The town fathers stage a reception for him. Meantime, bogus Federal Agents Barren (Dominic Purcell of "Prison Break"), Conklin (Michael Paré of "The Lincoln Lawyer"), and Wheeler (Tyron Leitso) take over the house belonging to Ellen (Erin Karpluk) who has a son named Pidge (newcomer Cole Coker) who likes to make up tall tales. When the film unfolds, Deputy Reed (Ray Liotta) gets into a fight over his gambling debts. Reed's chief rubs him the wrong way about his drinking problem and then demands that he surrender his gun and gunbelt. Our trio of villains stashes Ellen, her son, and her father in the basement. The power has gone out at Ellen's house because her home repair father shorted out the electrics. Eventually, Reed comes to check up on Ellen, and all hell breaks loose. The villains capture Reed, recapture Pidge and the President steps up to the podium to speak as the assassins take aim.
Suddenly... not a whole lot happens.
Seth_Rogue_One15 October 2016
I knew going in that the rating was low, but I thought maybe it was because Uwe Boll have many people who dislike him and maybe didn't give it a fair chance.
Now don't get me wrong, the first Uwe Boll movies I saw was 'House Of The Dead' and 'Alone In The Dark' and later 'In The Name Of The King' and they truly were terrible so he does get a bad name occasionally for a good reason.
But I've also discovered that he occasionally can be a pretty good filmmaker as well 'Rampage', 'Rampage: Capital Punishment', 'Assault On Wall Street' and 'Heart of America' are all solid movies for me.
I think those movies are close to Boll's heart and therefor they come out a lot better as he gives them a proper effort.
With this one though, not much effort was given at all.
The dialogue is poor, the acting is poor even the cinematography and pace is poor yeah there's really not many positives to give away here.
If I was forced to give one positive than I suppose I could say that at least it's not Boll's worst movie.
Now don't get me wrong, the first Uwe Boll movies I saw was 'House Of The Dead' and 'Alone In The Dark' and later 'In The Name Of The King' and they truly were terrible so he does get a bad name occasionally for a good reason.
But I've also discovered that he occasionally can be a pretty good filmmaker as well 'Rampage', 'Rampage: Capital Punishment', 'Assault On Wall Street' and 'Heart of America' are all solid movies for me.
I think those movies are close to Boll's heart and therefor they come out a lot better as he gives them a proper effort.
With this one though, not much effort was given at all.
The dialogue is poor, the acting is poor even the cinematography and pace is poor yeah there's really not many positives to give away here.
If I was forced to give one positive than I suppose I could say that at least it's not Boll's worst movie.
Bad direction
ParagDesh14 February 2014
I loved the situation. A small town, frustrated ex-military cop. But then the movie goes downhill pretty quickly. Story does not move at all. The end seems to be rushed. Climax is really tepid. Predictable and flat dialogs, the characters, especially the villains are not described in enough details. It feels like the director gave up halfway through the movie.
I loved the situation, a small, sleepy, snowy town. But the rest was totally so-so. The story had a great potential. It is sad to see it being wasted like this. The 1954 original was much better.
The actors also did not do justice. Liotta was just OK not very convincing. Erin Karpluk was good. Pidge and his grandpa were better. The rest of the actors were bad.
I loved the situation, a small, sleepy, snowy town. But the rest was totally so-so. The story had a great potential. It is sad to see it being wasted like this. The 1954 original was much better.
The actors also did not do justice. Liotta was just OK not very convincing. Erin Karpluk was good. Pidge and his grandpa were better. The rest of the actors were bad.
Go to youtube and watch the original.
ellic18 February 2014
Some movies just shouldn't be remade. I gave this film a 2 star rating because I did watch to the end. I like the actors, but they can't make up for poor script revision and direction. It also doesn't help that they took what is largely a dialog film and tried to add too much action. My advice go to YouTube and watch the original (B&W not colorized). Frank Sinatra, Sterling Hayden and James Gleason carried the movie with style. Direction by Lewis Allen was excellent. The original pulls all the pieces together better. I don't want to put any spoilers in, so I'll simply say that there was no reason to change Todds' character. And Pidge played better as a kid than a teenager.
Very poor remake
Wizard-815 March 2015
I saw the original 1954 "Suddenly" movie several years ago, and I thought it was pretty good. This remake, however, just doesn't cut it. There are many reasons why it doesn't work, but I think the main reason is that its tone for the most part doesn't fit what should be a hard-edged thriller. The musical score is almost comic in tone at times, characters CONSTANTLY utter "clean" swears like "frigging" and"fudge" instead of real four-letter word swears (at least in the version I saw), and the bad guys seem too disorganized and soft instead of coming across as dangerous and intelligent killers. It seems that notorious director Uwe Boll's heart wasn't in this movie. Maybe it was because this project obviously didn't have a substantial budget compared to his other movies - it has that cheap and tacky look that plague so many other (bad) Canadian films. Boll's apparent lack of enthusiasm might also explain some real continuity flubs in the movie, like why it's snowing and snow- covered in some areas, though around the house where most of the movie takes place there's no sign of snow at all. It's all capped off with an ending that feels unfinished in a number of aspects. The end credits reveal that the creation of this movie was sponsored by a Canadian pay TV network, which are forced by a government-imposed quota system to sponsor a number of (almost always bad) Canadian movies every year. Based on this and the ton of other bad Canadian movies that have come from this quota for years, I'm really glad that Canada does not have a quota system for movie theaters!
Poor writing, poor acting, bad directing, awful production
CanadianBill25 July 2014
I am not at all sure what the reason is for so many Canadian movie productions being of such poor quality. The fact is there is NO good reason for it. We have terrific writers, a wide variety of talented actors, and several great directors. A decent film doesn't start and end with any of that though. It starts and ends with solid producing, of which this production egregiously lacks.
Suddenly simply falls flat from the get-go and never really takes off nor goes anywhere. For one thing a Presidential visit to a small town looks like a grand affair, but the portrayal of that in this film comes off as low budget and rinky-dink. The actual Secret Service would have been all over that town.
Much of the dialogue is hollow, along with too much needless footage and shots, all serve to bring the watchability of it down further yet. Liotta's character had real promise but again, with not much in the way of meaty dialogue or depth of story even his is a somewhat tinny performance at best.
Weak writing is usually the main cause for actors coming off as bad, while poor direction is to blame for actors over-acting. Weak writing however can at least to some degree be compensated for with solid directing, but sadly that's another thing this film is sorely lacking in. Thus the entire production comes off as thin and very low budget. Newsflash Canada: "Low budget" does not always have to look as such.
Final thoughts --- This film does not do justice to the original with Frank Sinatra, not by half. The ending is somewhat inconclusive, and anyone who has developed any sort of connection with any of the principle characters is going to be disappointed at the lack of a decent story wrap-up. If you're bored and there's nothing much else on then go ahead and kill 90 minutes, but please don't blame me if you end up wanting your time back.
2/10, and that's being generous here.
Suddenly simply falls flat from the get-go and never really takes off nor goes anywhere. For one thing a Presidential visit to a small town looks like a grand affair, but the portrayal of that in this film comes off as low budget and rinky-dink. The actual Secret Service would have been all over that town.
Much of the dialogue is hollow, along with too much needless footage and shots, all serve to bring the watchability of it down further yet. Liotta's character had real promise but again, with not much in the way of meaty dialogue or depth of story even his is a somewhat tinny performance at best.
Weak writing is usually the main cause for actors coming off as bad, while poor direction is to blame for actors over-acting. Weak writing however can at least to some degree be compensated for with solid directing, but sadly that's another thing this film is sorely lacking in. Thus the entire production comes off as thin and very low budget. Newsflash Canada: "Low budget" does not always have to look as such.
Final thoughts --- This film does not do justice to the original with Frank Sinatra, not by half. The ending is somewhat inconclusive, and anyone who has developed any sort of connection with any of the principle characters is going to be disappointed at the lack of a decent story wrap-up. If you're bored and there's nothing much else on then go ahead and kill 90 minutes, but please don't blame me if you end up wanting your time back.
2/10, and that's being generous here.
Majestic fecal matter of a movie
jpgonc29 August 2013
I never saw Lewis Allen's "Suddenly" (1954), but I guess I just don't need, because I know a priori that it is an Oscar-winning film comparing to this atrocious remake made by an unskilled, dull and inept director that, besides being labeled as a movie-killer by making abominable, heretic and unintelligible movies, still get millions to produce plain pointless excrement.
Nevertheless, I swallowed an aspirin and, maybe taken a bit away to the fact Boll's last movie drew some fair critics, I finally had the courage to assist a movie made by this European quarreling psyche. Unfortunately my expectations weren't wrong at all: It was like to have an urge to commit suicide or to mutilate myself for being an utterly idiot.
Boll's cinematic masterpieces, according to him, 'Alone in the Dark', 'House of the Dead' and 'Far Cry' are all, cemented by virtually 90% of critics and spectators, a collection of rambling-disjointed narratives of absurdity, execrable directing, vile and poorly written scripts and an unbelievable populist egocentric paranoia product of a tormented mind.
This movie, for which it was presented with established actors, fails miserably in achieving something other than a mind-blowing overly median hogwash.
I really must go out and buy the original movie to make a sincere topic comparison and eventually assert righteously that Uwe Boll must pay in prison terms for brain damage to the public and serious technical incompetence. Even with Liotta and Purcell on the screen the movie drags on into a worn out monosyllabic clichéd and putrid dialog.
The story of 3 assassins posing as secret agents who find an excellent sniper spot (a house) to murder the US president is tantalizing enough to draw a good script, but with Uwe Boll, that's not the case: For Boll it seems the only person to sense something about the fake agents is an alcoholic, self-neglecting and psychically affected and sacked ex-marine who can't cope with his friend death years and years ago. Brilliant!
I really think there's not much more to say unless citing all the mumbo-jumbo and mediocrity that abounds in this Boll's vision of a film. Ultimately, dare me to advise you to spare your limited lifetime and patience and skip this for real - You won't regret, I CAN assure 100%.
PS-> Another priceless story is how I ended up seeing this "piece of art". - But please don't ask me to, I cannot tell, Boll can lawfully sue me or else invite me for a matching box until K.O.
Nevertheless, I swallowed an aspirin and, maybe taken a bit away to the fact Boll's last movie drew some fair critics, I finally had the courage to assist a movie made by this European quarreling psyche. Unfortunately my expectations weren't wrong at all: It was like to have an urge to commit suicide or to mutilate myself for being an utterly idiot.
Boll's cinematic masterpieces, according to him, 'Alone in the Dark', 'House of the Dead' and 'Far Cry' are all, cemented by virtually 90% of critics and spectators, a collection of rambling-disjointed narratives of absurdity, execrable directing, vile and poorly written scripts and an unbelievable populist egocentric paranoia product of a tormented mind.
This movie, for which it was presented with established actors, fails miserably in achieving something other than a mind-blowing overly median hogwash.
I really must go out and buy the original movie to make a sincere topic comparison and eventually assert righteously that Uwe Boll must pay in prison terms for brain damage to the public and serious technical incompetence. Even with Liotta and Purcell on the screen the movie drags on into a worn out monosyllabic clichéd and putrid dialog.
The story of 3 assassins posing as secret agents who find an excellent sniper spot (a house) to murder the US president is tantalizing enough to draw a good script, but with Uwe Boll, that's not the case: For Boll it seems the only person to sense something about the fake agents is an alcoholic, self-neglecting and psychically affected and sacked ex-marine who can't cope with his friend death years and years ago. Brilliant!
I really think there's not much more to say unless citing all the mumbo-jumbo and mediocrity that abounds in this Boll's vision of a film. Ultimately, dare me to advise you to spare your limited lifetime and patience and skip this for real - You won't regret, I CAN assure 100%.
PS-> Another priceless story is how I ended up seeing this "piece of art". - But please don't ask me to, I cannot tell, Boll can lawfully sue me or else invite me for a matching box until K.O.
Another "movie"...
mr_big-2398019 November 2018
What a waste of time
bdave8235-831-52762630 October 2013
That is 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. To say the acting was bad is a discredit to bad actors. The story line was painful to follow and the action was dull and predictable at best. I like Ray Liota in a lot of his rolls but he must have been desperate to go for this one. It is a horrible remake that should have never seen the light of day. Purcell was decent in Prison Break but in this atrocity his acting talent was limited to scowls, stupid short lines and poor prep on how to handle a firearm. The premise of the movie sounded intriguing but it just did not deliver. The kid that played Pidge must have been picked up at the local middle school drama department and on the way back to the set the stopped at the senior center to get someone to play grandpa, neither one was convincing. To say this movie is a bomb is to be gracious.
Pathetic...
jan-196-62652826 December 2014
"Suddenly", after more than 90 minutes watching this atrocity, I realized that it is probably one of the worst movie productions ever....
You wait for hours (feel like months) for something to happen and even when it happens it is so awfully fake that it makes you want to cry.
Can you believe that a whole team spent weeks/months on this?
A few other questions remain: How does this so called director get money to produce such a disaster? What did Ray Liotta smoke when he agreed to be part of this.... ?
How come a good service like Netflix selects such crap for their viewers?
Will there be a sequel? Cause if there is one, you may use it as psychological weapon to torture any healthy brain around the world.
You wait for hours (feel like months) for something to happen and even when it happens it is so awfully fake that it makes you want to cry.
Can you believe that a whole team spent weeks/months on this?
A few other questions remain: How does this so called director get money to produce such a disaster? What did Ray Liotta smoke when he agreed to be part of this.... ?
How come a good service like Netflix selects such crap for their viewers?
Will there be a sequel? Cause if there is one, you may use it as psychological weapon to torture any healthy brain around the world.
Thought it was good
john-baker97 October 2013
I enjoyed watching it because it had a lot of well known actors in it as well as those I have not seen before. I thought Pidge (the boy)did a great job and made the movie especially at the end when he saved Ray Liotta. And how many can say that they "got" Dominic Purcel. The settings with snow and mountains were great. Yes, no one will win an award for their acting, I suppose, but it was enjoyable none the less. Don't know why that it did not start in the theaters. Thought the Mother and her Father did a great job. And Tyron has great. Dominic was a little freaky where as he could just be a loyal American who felt that he had a job to do for "the betterment of his country"
Plain & simple - BAD
mnoble1-217 January 2015
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.
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.
Awful, just awful!
belindar-21 March 2014
"Suddenly". It is sad that an idea for a movie can be taken and destroyed as the worst piece of cinema ever. Whoever put this mess together must to have had some money to throw away. I thought I had seen some bad movies before, but this one is the worst of the worst. If you must watch it to believe it, then you will understand how terrible it is. You will believe your "lying eyes". Ray Liotta must be desperate for money because he is going from bad to worst. Not only was the acting terrible, but the music score will make you physically sick. It has been a long time since I have seen anything as awful as this. It makes a viewer appreciate a good movie when one is seen. This director should be arrested for this direction. Awful, just awful!
Acceptable junk
searchanddestroy-14 March 2015
OK, I agree that movie is a real Junk one, I agree at one hundred percent, but a cool Junk. I did not expect more from Uwe Boll. Although most of the movies he made did not disappointed me that much. I know that he is not an ambitious film maker, nothing to do with the likes of John McTiernan or Michael Mann. But I always enjoy the films he gives us. If you dare comparing this feature with the genuine one, made in the fifties by lewis Allen, of course you'll run away from it. Sure. But, please, compare what is comparable. Performances are OK for me. I know I repeat myself, but from this kind of feature, don't expect so much, don't expect grade Academy Awards performances. I appreciated the lead bad guy, Irak vet sitting with the American flag on his knees. I loved this sequence. Yes, I am fond of Uwe Boll, despite the fact he is a lousy director for most of the audiences.
Joke movie for laughs :D
Imdbterminator22 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
What a fail. Haha I laughed during the movie. The kid was a crappy actor "no no no u gotta believe us" hahaha. What a crybaby horrible actor. Stay in school kid and become a welder :). His mom? Lmfao what a horrible job acting. The crying way so unbelievable and the dialect was sleepy time tea. I am glad this didn't make it to the screen. I stayed up til 3am watching it on Netflix. Thank god I didn't pay $1.10 at red box for this. Ray liotta must have taken this script to pay bills and fill in when he had no work. Just Awful acting. I laughed when the old dude died hahahahahaha. . Gave it a 2 only because I watched it all the way through. When the old dude died they played this cheesy scream 2 music in the background and some chodey snare drum and cymbal marching band crap at other times. So stupid and fake! I am going to watch the original black and white version on YouTube and see a real movie. I wasted 2 hours of sleep for this crap.
Solid Low-Budget TV Thriller - for the most part!
ThomasMuf13 February 2019
Shot for a Canadian pay-TV network, SUDDENLY is a remake of Lewis Allen's 1954 thriller of the same name, starring Frank Sinatra. And, yes, it was directed by Uwe Boll - a man much maligned by stupid nerds/losers (= gamers) all around the world who clicked "1" on the IMDB movie ratings even before his films had even come out. I actually watched a number of his movies, some of them very bad (Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead), some mediocre (Dungeon Siege, Schmeling) - and some decent (1968 Tunnel Rats, Stoic, Darfur).
SUDDENLY falls into the middle category: mediocre. The low budget and brief shooting schedule (12 days) are immediately obvious from the very first scenes, which will convince no one that this was shot in the US. The build-up is fairly slow, but the second half turns out to be tense and suspenseful - within its TV movie limitations. The acting ranges from solid (Ray Liotta, Erin Karpluk, Michael Paré) to so-so (Dominc Purcell) to oh-dear-no (Don MacKay). There are a number of minor continuity errors, but nothing too distracting. The low budget cracks are most obvious in the assassination scene (surely the Obama-lookalike President should command more than a handful of townsfolk at his rally), but the low-key action is otherwise satisfactory and believable. The kid (Cole Coker) is a bit annoying, but then, most movie kids are.
If you expect 90 minutes of low-key thriller action on a decent TV-movie level, you won't be disappointed. Boll's direction rarely commands attention, as this was one of his "journeyman jobs" produced by others. But it's mostly technically proficient. Easily the most distracting aspect is the cheapo synth score by Stu Goldberg, which is mildly effective during its best moments, but howlingly off the mark in some isolated scenes (like the death of an old man, which features almost circus-style scoring).
SUDDENLY falls into the middle category: mediocre. The low budget and brief shooting schedule (12 days) are immediately obvious from the very first scenes, which will convince no one that this was shot in the US. The build-up is fairly slow, but the second half turns out to be tense and suspenseful - within its TV movie limitations. The acting ranges from solid (Ray Liotta, Erin Karpluk, Michael Paré) to so-so (Dominc Purcell) to oh-dear-no (Don MacKay). There are a number of minor continuity errors, but nothing too distracting. The low budget cracks are most obvious in the assassination scene (surely the Obama-lookalike President should command more than a handful of townsfolk at his rally), but the low-key action is otherwise satisfactory and believable. The kid (Cole Coker) is a bit annoying, but then, most movie kids are.
If you expect 90 minutes of low-key thriller action on a decent TV-movie level, you won't be disappointed. Boll's direction rarely commands attention, as this was one of his "journeyman jobs" produced by others. But it's mostly technically proficient. Easily the most distracting aspect is the cheapo synth score by Stu Goldberg, which is mildly effective during its best moments, but howlingly off the mark in some isolated scenes (like the death of an old man, which features almost circus-style scoring).
THE GREATER GOOD
nogodnomasters29 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
In the small town of Suddenly, Tod (Ray Liotta) is the town drunk and deputy. He likes the widow Ellen (Erin Karpluk) and is respected by her son Pidge (Cole Coker). Ellen tolerates Tod because he spends time with Pidge.
As it turns out, the President is going to stop in town. Members of some super secret society plan on assassinating the president from Ellen's house. Even when the plots are together, things seem like two films. There is the personal aspects and the dirty little secret why Tod drinks. The secondary aspect is the guys who are planning to kill the President.
Ray Liotta, who I normally don't like, did a fairly decent job as someone who drinks too much, the stagger, the glassy eyes, etc.
Note: The film credits spells Liotta's character name as "Tod" while IMDB lists it as "Todd." I'm still trying to figure out "Pidge" which sounded like Mitch, Bidge, Pitch, and something I call my dog.
The film never grabbed me. Except for the swearing, I felt I was watching something made for TV. An action film for those who like a little Mayberry drama tossed in.
Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity. Talk of rape.
As it turns out, the President is going to stop in town. Members of some super secret society plan on assassinating the president from Ellen's house. Even when the plots are together, things seem like two films. There is the personal aspects and the dirty little secret why Tod drinks. The secondary aspect is the guys who are planning to kill the President.
Ray Liotta, who I normally don't like, did a fairly decent job as someone who drinks too much, the stagger, the glassy eyes, etc.
Note: The film credits spells Liotta's character name as "Tod" while IMDB lists it as "Todd." I'm still trying to figure out "Pidge" which sounded like Mitch, Bidge, Pitch, and something I call my dog.
The film never grabbed me. Except for the swearing, I felt I was watching something made for TV. An action film for those who like a little Mayberry drama tossed in.
Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity. Talk of rape.
The 1954 version starring Frank Sinatra and Sterling Heyden is better
jordondave-280853 May 2023
(2013) Suddenly
THRILLER
"Suddenly" is the name of a small town located in the US, starring Ray Liotta as Deputy Todd Shaw stumbling onto an assassination attempt by a small group of militia men against the President Of The United States. Also held hostage are a mother and her son and her dad. Quite bad and sometimes painful to watch, since it's quite routine and that it's very low budget. Directed by Uwe Bowl who's directed some of the worst reviewed movies ever made who's also credited as one of the executive producers. It may also be the poor equivalent rebooted version of the 1954 version of the same name starring Frank Sinatra as the sniper and Sterling Heydon as the sheriff.
"Suddenly" is the name of a small town located in the US, starring Ray Liotta as Deputy Todd Shaw stumbling onto an assassination attempt by a small group of militia men against the President Of The United States. Also held hostage are a mother and her son and her dad. Quite bad and sometimes painful to watch, since it's quite routine and that it's very low budget. Directed by Uwe Bowl who's directed some of the worst reviewed movies ever made who's also credited as one of the executive producers. It may also be the poor equivalent rebooted version of the 1954 version of the same name starring Frank Sinatra as the sniper and Sterling Heydon as the sheriff.
Rubbish
harmenkampinga5 April 2021
Better than expected
Leofwine_draca6 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
SUDDENLY is nothing less than Uwe Boll's remake of an old Frank Sinatra classic which I recommend checking out. This version is, of course, inferior when compared to the original, but saying that it's still pretty decent for a Boll movie. Ray Liotta plays a sheriff in a small town due to be visited by the president; the only problem is that a group of assassins have been tasked with taking the big man down. Dominic Purcell shows up for another imposing bad guy role, while the suspense bubbles along well enough. The film is a little padded at times which takes the edge off it, but otherwise generally hits the mark.
A Fair Thriller - Not Bad
jowenbmd10 March 2014
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
Uwe Boll Tries To Remake a Frank Sinatra Classic
gavin694223 June 2015
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.
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.
Ignore The Ridiculous Negative Reviews
jimcarter195912 January 2020
A bad remake? Sorry. Much more plausible than the original. I watched them back to back. Keeping all your hostages in the same room as the marksman is silly. Making the boy older in the remake is a plus. Not knowing your house of choice in the original is occupied by a former agent is unacceptable. A plot of this magnitude requires more than three people, which is rectified in this version. One star deducted for a jail cell with drywall. Spend a few dollars for believability. I knocked off two stars for the depiction of the most convoluted home electrical system known to man. The panel in the basement has circuits and not fuses, so it's modern. Aside from that panel and the meter on the outside of the house, that's it. That panel in the kitchen is a piece of fantasy. As was pointed out in the goofs, the phone booths in town are clearly Canadian. We all should know by now that our goods come from China and most movies are shot north of the border. I don't know anything about homes in Canada, but the setting is supposed to be the United States, so the aforementioned electrical system is deserving of a two star loss. The cast is largely familiar and more than competent.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
