I can understand the disappointment of those who bought this movie for the picture of Sandra Bullock on the cover. I looked at the date of the movie and had to think back to what I was doing that year...1987... definitely no Sandra Bullock on the radar yet. That picture was just to depict a pretty girl and innocent bystander in the movie. I think back in the day this movie would have been accepted for the corny schlock it really was, a genre that has evolved to give us Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4.
You realize that this is going to be corn, not serious drama the moment the opening political assassination begins. Instead of a sniper on a roof, they use machine guns in the halls. As the opening credits roll you are treated to further clues that this movie means to be bad - instead of a gun with a sniper scope, they show a gun with a 1000mm "catadioptric" camera lens stuck to the top of the gun (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system if you want to see just how ridiculous this is). That's not subtle schlock, that is full blown in-your-face meant-to-be-bad corn.
I give this movie full marks for doing what it set out to do, and minus a few points for poor marketing and plot. Even Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4 had good plots.
You realize that this is going to be corn, not serious drama the moment the opening political assassination begins. Instead of a sniper on a roof, they use machine guns in the halls. As the opening credits roll you are treated to further clues that this movie means to be bad - instead of a gun with a sniper scope, they show a gun with a 1000mm "catadioptric" camera lens stuck to the top of the gun (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system if you want to see just how ridiculous this is). That's not subtle schlock, that is full blown in-your-face meant-to-be-bad corn.
I give this movie full marks for doing what it set out to do, and minus a few points for poor marketing and plot. Even Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4 had good plots.