User Reviews

Slow thriller that builds steam slowly...then the damn lid blows off. Terry Allen(Peter Krause)is a CPA that gets laid off from his job post 9-11. His wife Maria(Kari Matchett)believes he has way too much time on his hands. Terry becomes obsessed with possible terrorists after spending much of his days and nights watching national news on the subject. When a "middle-eastern" man, Gabe Hassan(Khaled Abol Naga), moves into a neighboring apartment; Terry believes he has uncovered a suspicious terrorist conspiracy. How far will he go to protect homeland security? Why doesn't somebody just grab this guy by the throat and slap some sense into him? Its a movie, that's why. Watching paranoia make Terry sweat is the source that fries your nerves. Also featured are Richard Schiff and Ian Tracey.

Civic Duty is a well-made, well-acted film with some confusing messages. While the script is a bit weak in dialog in some places, all together the story holds together well. My biggest problem with this film is it's overall message. Up to the last few minutes, the message was clear depending on your political persuasion.

For the conservative, the message seemed to be that our democratic system was too soft, allowing sleeper terrorists carte blanch to plan their nefarious deeds under the protection of the law. The average citizen should keep their eyes open, be vigilant but level headed, and pursue their instinctual suspicions. The Arab living next door could in fact be the next murderer of innocent people.

For the liberal, the message appeared to be a warning call. The media instills fear in us - these days about terrorists hiding among us. So powerful is this daily bombardment of messages, that a simple guy with too much time on his hands can become possessed with suspicion, and lose his mind and reason.

But the last few minutes, in which it seems evident that the suspicious Arab in question was in fact a terrorist, seems to justify the more right-wing take on the matter. Disturbing to say the least.

After the New York World Trade Center attacks of Septemeber 11th, 2001, the climate in America has been one of suspicion of anything that might look as a terrorist threat again. The media and the law enforcement institutions have had a field day every time a new mention of possible aggression by sworn enemies comes out in the news. The danger comes always from people of Arab extraction, invariably, although there are many other groups involved in the same work. Even law abiding citizens of that ethnic background have had to suffer the indignities of being accused, perhaps unjustly, about this type of activity, which, in a way, is what comes out in the film.

Terry Allen, an unemployed accountant, has too much time in his hands. His world is dominated by all recent events that have contributed to make him a man that feels surrounded by the dangerous environment he is bombarded by the media. Living with his photographer wife Marla, he begins spying on a young swarthy man, Hassan, that lives on the ground floor facing an inner courtyard of his apartment building.

Terry becomes obsessed by what he sees Hassan do from his own window. He must try to do something, and what he ideates is to go to the FBI to denounce the irregularity. But alas, the agent he contacts, Tom Hilary, sees nothing wrong with the details Terry brings him. His own relationship with Marla goes from bad to worse. Terry Allen will not stop until he has a confrontation with Hassan, but is this poor man, who Terry believes he is? Is he the fanatic terrorist that will stop at nothing in order to damage the country? Jeff Renfroe, the director of the film, working with the mysterious Andrew Joiner screenplay, makes a case for the collective paranoia most people have lived for many years, where even a small occurrence can be seen as an imminent attack on our way of living.

Peter Krause plays Terry Allen with a keen sense of knowing what makes this man tick. He has been betrayed by the system, so he is not going to stop to reason and let the higher authorities get involved in the danger he perceives. Kari Matchett is good as the suffering Marla. The excellent Richard Schiff is seen as the FBI man. Khaled Abol Naga has some intense moments in his confrontation with Terry.

The film captures the claustrophobic atmosphere with Dylan MacLeod's camera work. The director gives the film a washed out tone that contributes to the mood and the effect the film has on its viewers. We shall look forward to Jeff Renfroe's films in the future and wish him well in everything he does.

Pros: Great acting throughout; Peter Krause is incredible. All extras fill their respective roles convincingly, as well. Directer put great emphasis on the details, which, in this movie, is important. Story/Plot is simple due to its symbolic nature, making it easy to follow. Awesome camera work lends to the unsettling nature of the film. Great cultural/stereotype contrasts, displayed with perfection.

Cons: Message is too heavy-handed, taking away some realism. Film tends to be dramatically claustrophobic. It does not matter if it was intended, it still needed air.

Where They Went Wrong: There is an anti-American diatribe against American Foreign Policy to rebut the cruel treatment of women in certain Middle-Eastern countries. This did nothing to lend to the films credibility and came off as ridiculous and unfair. Conflicts (wars) are completely different than inhumane domestic policy. Even if those conflicts are wrong. The whole screed was a misnomer.

Where They Went Right: The symbolism of Krause's angry disposition serving as Americas general hostility, fed by media hype and propaganda. The predisposition made the whole chaotic scenario almost believable.

This film was enjoyable, just wish it would have been well rounded. Also, we could've used this film 2-3 years ago. But, whatever.

Rent It.

Not too bad but could have been better, although it did a pretty good job showing what may have actually happened shortly after 9/11. This movie did a pretty good job making you think that Terry was actually going to kill Mr. Hassan near the end and you kind of feel sorry for the poor guy because you know he isn't associated with any terrorist group. The thing that was most interesting is that Terry is shown going through all the guy's personal items hoping to find something that may connect him to an extremist group. It could have been a bit better I just don't know how, but the Arab kid did good job. It's one of the few post-9/11 movies that uses somewhat known actors and actresses in the cast.

The best thing I can say about 'Civic Duty' is that it makes me want to move out to Hollyland and get a job. They obviously need help.

The problem with this film isn't just that it's not a good film (though, truly, it isn't very good); its problem is that it should probably never have been made. Here's why: The basic conflict in this kind of movie, by definition, is between paranoia and reality. Krause's character, however, is set up to be obviously paranoid. In any suspense thriller, a filmmaker must work *against* expectations. And in a *really* good suspense thriller, the filmmaker should even work against the expectation that he or she will be working against expectation. And in a truly *exceptional* film of this kind, you can repeat this process and flip reality several times.

'Civic Duty' takes no such steps. Terry is suspicious about his neighbor from the first time he sees him, though for no real reason except overexposure to news media. There is very little effort (indeed, perhaps none at all) made to make the viewer suspect that perhaps the neighbor is, in fact, nefarious. We're simply waiting around to see how badly Krause will unravel.

But that *still* doesn't address the heart of this movie's problem, which is that in the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry, it would be all but impossible to make a movie in which a character is paranoid about a mysterious Middle Eastern neighbor, only to find that said neighbor *is* in fact a "terrorist." It would be somewhat gutsy film-making, in fact, to make such a movie. And since Terry is riddled with paranoia, the filmmakers spoon-feeding us with several minutes of news footage and Bushspeak before the movie even gets underway, the movie simply has nowhere to go.

And that's what it does. It goes nowhere.

It would have worked better if it had been done the opposite way. Perhaps Terry could have a long-time friend or co-worker who's Middle Eastern. Perhaps a third party, an FBI agent or even his wife, could voice suspicions. Terry would defend his friend right to the end, only to end up going down in flames with him when the truth was finally revealed. That would have at least loaned a touch of dramatic irony.

Or perhaps the FBI agent, or lead investigating character, could have himself been Middle Eastern, and the film could have shown that character's inner struggle: not wanting to believe that this hard-working master's candidate had something to hide vs. doing his duty to protect the American public, frustrated by always being required to investigate people of his own ethnic background. Of course, that would require the absence of Richard Schiff, who in my opinion was the movie's only saving grace (man, do I miss 'The West Wing').

Here's an even better scenario. Terry could have come to his senses about his paranoia toward the end of the second act. Amidst his embarrassment, he could have become reluctant friends with Gabe. Then he could discover that, not Gabe himself, but Gabe's associates at the copy shop were part of a terrorist cell and were 'using' Gabe as an unwitting 'mule' (or whatever). This would then provide motivation for Terry to again take action. His reluctance to end up looking foolish again would be outweighed by a sense of duty (nay, 'civic' duty) to Gabe, whom he is now motivated to protect since he put him through such an ordeal to begin with. Of course, Gabe would be reluctant to believe this. And perhaps the audience would again suspect that Gabe himself is knowingly involved. But in the end, it would be Gabe who would give his life to destroy the cell, thereby becoming a hero and doing his 'civic duty.'

And there you have it: You could have had a good movie, and still been politically correct. Hell, the 'bad guys' don't even have to end up being Middle Eastern. They could have been pale white corporate crooks, perhaps selling information or materials to "terrorists" who themselves are never seen. The only Middle Easterner in the film would turn out to be the hero. Then you could have your movie and still be *completely* politically correct.

But as it stands, 'Civic Duty' goes exactly where you think it's going to go the moment you see the photo on the DVD box and read the description. Because it has nowhere else to go.

Which brings me back to my original point: Who the heck greenlights such projects?? How can you set out to make a suspense thriller when the outcome, for largely political reasons, is practically a foregone conclusion. I'm really not trying to advance my own ideology here. I'm just demonstrating how politics has gotten in the way of good entertainment and quality storytelling.

My TV Guide gives this one and a half stars out of four, pretty low. I don't know why. For most of the time, it's an enthralling story of a young man whose fortunes are in decline because of self-destructive acts and who, in true paranoid fashion, projects the malevolence onto someone else, an Islamic neighbor who appears to be affiliated with some mysterious Arab organization.

Peter Krause does an excellent job as the plain, not-unpleasant-looking accountant who has been fired twice for being abrasive and who now is having trouble finding work. His wife, Kari Matchett, is equally good but has less screen time.

Between angry calls to potential employers, Krause occupies his time looking out the window of his endangered condominium. He begins to focus on his swarthy and handsome young neighbor, the Egyptian actor Khaled Abol Naga. Naga comes and goes at odd hours. He has dark-skinned visitors who bring him cardboard boxes that look ominous to Krause.

He calls the FBI and nags them into a meeting with one of their agents, the mild-looking, somewhat goofy Richard Schiff. Schiff takes down all the information that Krause has -- and there's not much there -- and records his suspicions, then gives him a pat on the back and tells him to report any further strange activities but to otherwise leave it to the FBI.

Krause is unable to do that. He sneaks into Naga's apartment, rummages through a mysterious assemblage of bottles, some chemical equipment, and myriad ATM deposit envelopes. Krause interprets the bottles as containing liquid explosives, and the ATM envelopes as instruments for laundering terrorist funds.

Becoming obsessed, Krause insists on another meeting with the FBI agent. He explains to Schiff what he found in Naga's apartment, but instead of gratitude his presentation is met with anger and a warning that he, Krause, has broken the law and should now divorce himself from his concern with his neighbor.

His wife finds out about his increasing involvement and, faced with his growing agitation, she leaves him.

One afternoon he returns to his apartment, finds the door open, creeps in to find the intruder, but discovers only the shower running in an empty bath tub. He begins to carry a loaded pistol.

Krause's next step is to visit the Islamic neighbor with the gun tucked under the back of his belt. "We'd better have this out, the window thing," he tells Naga. But Naga misunderstands and is short with him. "Look, man, if you prefer men to women, why don't you just come right out and tell your wife about it?" That's the wrong thing to say to a gun-toting paranoid. The wind up has Naga tied to a chair, Krause holding a gun to his head, and the place surrounded by the police that have been called by Krause's wife. The resolution isn't a happy one. Krause winds up in a psychiatric facility.

Now, so far, this is an intelligently written thriller. And the acting is effective all the way around, even down to the smaller roles. And it's a good thing that everything else is so good because the direction almost torpedoes the story.

The shooting and editing are almost desperately hip. The pallet is from the now overly familiar ghoulish green portion of the color spectrum. There are multiple instantaneous inserts that zip by before they can be apprehended. This technique isn't "bad" in itself. It could be used, say, as objective correlates of Krause's breakdown. But it's not. Images flash before our eyes without relationship to any fragmentation taking place in Krause's mind. They just add zap to the tempo. And, frankly, I winced when the accountant pulls out his pistol and holds it sideways as he points it at an antagonist. That's the most unkindest cliché of all. It's used by directors who haven't thought out their story. Perhaps the most important scene -- a furious one of accusation and counter-accusation between Krause with his gun and the bound Naga -- is ruined by a trembling camera and a pounding thumping on the score, suggesting an earthquake of great magnitude. One expects everything to fall apart on the screen. A terrible job, unworthy of the script and the performances.

Except in the last scene, in which everything we've learned about the characters actually does collapse upon itself. Krause is watching the news on the funny farm's TV and an item comes us about cyanide in the glue on ATM deposit envelopes, leading to multiple fatalities. Well, what the hell is this? Is Krause now openly hallucinating? Or is he actually a hero, a man who saw the danger coming and acted preemptively, despite the indifference of his own government, and in the process sacrificed himself?

Here's my own paranoid delusion. Naga was never meant to be the terrorist Krause believes him to be. But the people behind the film couldn't allow Krause to be anything other than a true patriot. There are too many potential viewers who NEED Krause to be a one-man army and fight swarthy people. They're the enemy, aren't they? All those illegals? And the FBI and the government it represents is both stupid and impotent for insisting that laws must be followed? A few weeks ago, as I write this, a deranged man, angry at being hounded for taxes, flew his airplane into a government building, causing several casualties and killing himself. A few DAYS ago, another man entered the Pentagon and began spraying lead around before he was killed. The first madman's blog, before it was withdrawn from the internet, was filled with laudatory comments. The general message was, yes, we have to take matters into our own hands.

A fine story about paranoia and the role of the media in promoting it, almost spoiled by directorial excess and by cowardice.

According to this film, you should never notify the FBI or other authorities if you get a suspicious neighbor. Not even if he looks like a terrorist and has a chemistry lab and receives constant deliveries from other suspicious-looking people. And especially not if you just lost your job and your wife just left you. They will just think you are paranoid and put you in an asylum, even if it turns out in the end that you were right all along. This is one of the reasons why terrorists have succeeded so far. This is how they put the first bomb in WTC and carried through their second assault. This is how they made the bomb for the Lockerbie accident and got it on board. People did not care, or were afraid of the unpleasantness to themselves if they notified the authorities.

Just saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival. It is very good. There was a problem with the ending. The film ends emotionally when the man shoots his wife but there is another scene. In that scene you are lead to doubt that the middle eastern type is really innocent. The director, or whoever, it was at the screening, said that you are supposed to see that as a product of the psychosis of the main character. All this is hard to follow without going into more detail if you haven't seen the movie. But I don't want to go into more detail and spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the movie. Anyway, there is no point to that last scene-if to show that the guy is crazy-that is already known-if to show that middle eastern type really is guilty, that plot twist is too clever and without justification. The only one I can think of is that without that scene, the movie could be seen as too left wing-paranoid accountant unjustly accuses middle eastern guy-and would not be accepted for distribution ? They should have left that ending out and gone back to the relationship with the wife and given her more dialog at the end before he kills her. The interesting thing is her love for him even though he is apparently chronically intermittently paranoid.