Action

Suddenly

ActionThriller

Four assassins pose as Secret Service agents to assassinate the President of the United States.

Year

2013

Duration

1h 30m

IMDb

3.6

Trailer

Cast

Uwe Boll

Director

Ray Liotta

Tod Shaw

Erin Karpluk

Ellen

Dominic Purcell

Baron

Don MacKay

Pete

CC

Cole Coker

Pidge

Tyron Leitso

Wheeler

Michael Paré

Conklin

Steve Bacic

Dan Carney

Garry Chalk

Sheriff Grant

Brendan Fletcher

Deputy Anderson

Daryl Shuttleworth

Nate

Chris Shields

President

Haig Sutherland

Judd

Eric Keenleyside

Mayor

Brad Kelly

Harlan

Ed Anders

Agent Virgil

Raul Inglis

Writer

Explore More

Discover partner platforms for games, short dramas, and more entertainment.

Gaming

Gamixo

Play top free games online — action, puzzle, and casual titles.

Short Drama

VSKIT Drama

Watch short-form dramas and vertical series on VSKIT.

Comments

10 comments

Kwadwo SheldonMay 29, 2023

source: Suddenly

Sweety SirinaNov 22, 2022

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.

Uaundjua ZaireNov 22, 2022

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.

zozo gnoutouNov 22, 2022

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...

🔥3issam🔥Nov 22, 2022

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).

👑Sabin shrestha👑Nov 22, 2022

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.

PUPSALE ®Nov 22, 2022

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!

Sup...Nov 22, 2022

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.

user114225Nov 22, 2022

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.

C'est Dieu Qui DonneNov 22, 2022

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.