MovieChat Forums > Two-Minute Warning (1976) Discussion > Roger Ebert's Review and my added commen...

Roger Ebert's Review and my added comments - COmments please


There's a simple clue that helps us understand what's so wrong with "Two-Minute Warning," the new thriller about a gunman who opens fire at a pro football game.

The movie tells us nothing at all about the gunman.*** This is true and one of the flaws of the movie from my perspective*** But it takes great pains to establish other characters who are in the movie for a dreadfully simple reason: One by one, they will be shot. The clue is in the decision to keep the gunman anonymous. The movie's totally uninterested in the reasons behind his action; he's necessary only as an agent of violence, so we can be entertained by his victims. I found that disturbing. *** it took away the suspense of the movie for me. I wanted to understand the motive of the killer. The absence of this throughtout lead to the movie being disappointing***

I knew going in what the movie was about (few films have such blunt premises) and I knew "Two-Minute Warning" was supposed to be a thriller, not a social statement.

But I thought perhaps the movie would at least include a little pop sociology to soften its blood-letting. Not a chance. It's a cheerfully unashamed exploitation of two of our great national preoccupations, pro football and guns.

As I came out of the film I overheard someone (a film student, no doubt) analyze "Two Minute Warning" as "individual violence versus institutional violence." Maybe that's giving the movie too much credit. I don't think it has a point of view. It's a machine for making money. It's kind of scary that people will pay to see it. The plot formula should be familiar by now; you might call this an Ark film, with two of everybody. Put them on the ark (or in the towering inferno, or in the path of an earthquake, or aboard a crippled airliner), give them minute amounts of personality, and make sure we recognize them when they get wiped out. *** A reflection of 1970's movie making perhaps??***

The character's file into Los Angeles Coliseum. There's the young married couple with their kids. The quarreling middle-aged lovers. The gambler whose life is riding on the outcome of the game. The priest who's a Rams fan. Everybody gets a scene every 10 minutes or so. By the time they get shot, we remember them. We don't KNOW them -- but so what? They're just targets.

We also get to meet the cops. Charlton Heston is the officer in charge. Martin Balsam, as always, is the guy with a sour stomach who's worried. John Cassavetes is the cool professional who runs the SWAT unit. Command headquarters is set up in the control room of the live telecast; the sniper above the scoreboard has been spotted by a camera in the Goodyear blimp.

The cops have their work cut out for them: They've got to get to the sniper before he fires, and they can't risk a panic by evacuating the stadium. We know with a certain sinking in our hearts that they will not be successful, or at least not until too late; can you imagine a multimillion dollar Hollywood epic in which the sniper is brought down peacefully, the Rams win and everybody goes quietly home? It's not hard, then, to know what's coming. There will be the high points, in which the various characters get shot by the high-powered rifle, and the film will establish a certain rhythm by alternating killings with terse police conversations. At the end there will even by a nihilistic speech or two, and the sniper will be carried off. Movies like this give me a creepy feeling.

reply

Ebert is dead wrong. Why should we know anything about the gunman? So we can get some kind of pap "Gee Officer Krupke" explanation of what societal ills drove him to be psychotic? I think ultimately as far as depicting this madman goes, they did it perfectly in that the only thing we learn about him is his name (Carl Cook), and Cassavetes closing speech about how in weeks to come everything about his personal background will come out says enough. What reasons do we need to know about what drove him?

The recent case of the DC sniper shows us that in fact "Two Minute Warning" was much closer to the mark. None of us care at all what his "motives" were because we know enough that he was a brutal psychotic with no "rational" motives whatsoever. And in the end, that gives us a much more chillingly effective plotline which is one of the few strengths of "Two Minute Warning" one can point to. The movie is a very flawed film on a number of levels, but the manner in which it depicts the killer is not one of them.

reply

[deleted]

dude, you're obviously wrong - people do not care more about the offender than the victims. victims have rights, too you hippie. dude. mcgovern for president! mondale for president! legalize drugs you cry, no? that's the inevitable with your far left pinko language and rhetoric you use, sadly. i'd say that you should give up your liberalism, pinko!

dude, i'm wranking your chain. but, really, you got it wrong, mcgovernista.


i'm the dude

reply