SPOILERS for ALL versions of "Two Minute Warning":
What was really funny about that TV version is that Charlton Heston himself agreed to shoot a scene or two, pretty much just standing against a wall with a walkie-talkie, "justifying" the change from the sudden-death bloody thriller that "Two Minute Warning" had been in theaters to a comparatively non-violent TV version.
Heston said something into the walkie-talkie like this:
"You know, I think I've figured this out. That sniper isn't a lethal psycho at all, he's just firing random non-lethal shots at the crowd to cause a riot and district us from the art gallery robbery going on across the street!"
Thus, they could leave in all the "crowd panic riot" footage...but we saw none of the deaths from the movie. Thus, the key actors -- Janssen, Klugman, Pigeon, just sort of disappear in the TV version. Though, crucially, both Janssen and Klugman are shown in the "happy endings" that occur (in the original) right before they get killed.
Evidently, NBC simply refused to buy or show the movie with its original violent storyline. So Universal "made the fix" -- spending a buncha money to hire all those new actors to play the art thieves.
Most critics just HATED "Two-Minute Warning" for its "mindless murder," but it is actually a rather taut little film. Something about Charlton Heston having to conflict with John Cassavetes' nicely deadpan and intense SWAT captain makes for a "meeting of two acting styles," while charismatic pros like David Janssen,Gena Rowlands, and Martin Balsam make the most of their rather sketchy characters.
In some ways, "Two Minute Warning" was "over-qualified." Some really intense actors (including husband-and-wife Cassavetes and Rowlands, obviously earning quick dough for their art films), some Oscar winners (Heston, Balsam), some TV stars (Janssen, Klugman)...all in the service of a rather cheap, very weird psychothriller.
reply
share
suemlee
16 years ago
I saw the original in the theatre and like it very much. I saw the made for TV version and wondered why they bothered it was hideously awful.
reply
share
toshguy
14 years ago
The strange thing is that the film apparently was a flop in theaters and didn't make a lot of money, so I find it unusual that the studio was willing to further invest in it at such lenghts. Why put so much additional money and resources into a movie just for its TV broadcast, if it isn't even a big hit which would guarantee the investment's return?
I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die
reply
share