User reviews

"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+

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

I do not understand why good actors act in such "F" "movies"... I guess lack of money. Better to quit acting, open a restaurant or something, before you all turn to Steven Seagal...

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.

"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.

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"

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.

"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!

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.

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).

(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.

Bad music, bad plot, bad actors, bad scenes, even the newsupdate at the end is so simple that I can make it much better with Windows Moviemaker... it sucks.

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

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.

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.