This was one of the older Kiefer Sutherland movies from 2002. Probably did it on a break from 24 when it was still on TV. Maybe the people who wrote the script and produced the movie thought that everyone would go to see it because he was in it.
When I was in college, a friend of mine told me that you can never have a bad song from The Beatles. If Paul McCartney went to the bathroom, then they can make that into a good song. Maybe that’s the reason that Fox is trying to keep Touch on for a second season.
That doesn’t happen with Kiefer Sutherland. He needs a good script. I don’t need to look up his movies to see that the only memorable movie he was in was Renegades. Nothing else doesn’t come to mind. I can’t see myself going back to watching Touch either.
Sutherland is a great actor and I loved it when he yelled at everyone during the 24 series. In Desert Saints, you don’t have any yelling. Just a confusing movie with no real plot.
The movie starts out with Sutherland killing a woman named Gloria Lopez when she tries to get away from him. She’s running through the desert and Sutherland is at his car, aiming his gun, then firing it, watching as the woman went down. I guess you can say this was reminiscent of the movie The Magnificent Seven.
After that it was flashback after flashback. He’s in a hotel getting ready to shoot someone with a rifle. Then another flashback to when he would meet the hitchhiker. Later, this same scene would be in another flashback. You really had to pay attention or it was easy to get lost. Not sure I understand why that was necessary. Without the flashbacks, the plot device could have been Kiefer and the hitchhiker who was trying to con him.
I really don’t want to give too much away but she was supposed to be an FBI agent hunting down Kiefer who was a paid assassin. How do they meet? She is sitting at a gas station and suddenly, Kiefer pulls up and decides that he wants the hitchhiker to help him.
That was his goal. He would have a woman help him with his assassination, then pay her, then drive around and eventually kill her like he did to Gloria Perez. But since this hitchhiker was undercover, what made the movie even more unbelievable was when one of the agents was killed by Sutherland. Yet somehow, the agents still didn’t want to arrest him because they wanted to know who his boss was.
In the end, you can say that part of the con was something that you wouldn’t expect. The reason was that there were no clues that led you to believe that the hitchhiker had a partner. That’s not playing fair with the audience. The whole idea of the con is to leave clues. You would always have that. The TV show Leverage was a great example of doing that.
I really can’t go above two stars on this one. Maybe Kiefer should request a 24 declassified book for his next movie. I’ve read several of those books and they were great. Much better than Desert Saints.
Rick Holman
When I was in college, a friend of mine told me that you can never have a bad song from The Beatles. If Paul McCartney went to the bathroom, then they can make that into a good song. Maybe that’s the reason that Fox is trying to keep Touch on for a second season.
That doesn’t happen with Kiefer Sutherland. He needs a good script. I don’t need to look up his movies to see that the only memorable movie he was in was Renegades. Nothing else doesn’t come to mind. I can’t see myself going back to watching Touch either.
Sutherland is a great actor and I loved it when he yelled at everyone during the 24 series. In Desert Saints, you don’t have any yelling. Just a confusing movie with no real plot.
The movie starts out with Sutherland killing a woman named Gloria Lopez when she tries to get away from him. She’s running through the desert and Sutherland is at his car, aiming his gun, then firing it, watching as the woman went down. I guess you can say this was reminiscent of the movie The Magnificent Seven.
After that it was flashback after flashback. He’s in a hotel getting ready to shoot someone with a rifle. Then another flashback to when he would meet the hitchhiker. Later, this same scene would be in another flashback. You really had to pay attention or it was easy to get lost. Not sure I understand why that was necessary. Without the flashbacks, the plot device could have been Kiefer and the hitchhiker who was trying to con him.
I really don’t want to give too much away but she was supposed to be an FBI agent hunting down Kiefer who was a paid assassin. How do they meet? She is sitting at a gas station and suddenly, Kiefer pulls up and decides that he wants the hitchhiker to help him.
That was his goal. He would have a woman help him with his assassination, then pay her, then drive around and eventually kill her like he did to Gloria Perez. But since this hitchhiker was undercover, what made the movie even more unbelievable was when one of the agents was killed by Sutherland. Yet somehow, the agents still didn’t want to arrest him because they wanted to know who his boss was.
In the end, you can say that part of the con was something that you wouldn’t expect. The reason was that there were no clues that led you to believe that the hitchhiker had a partner. That’s not playing fair with the audience. The whole idea of the con is to leave clues. You would always have that. The TV show Leverage was a great example of doing that.
I really can’t go above two stars on this one. Maybe Kiefer should request a 24 declassified book for his next movie. I’ve read several of those books and they were great. Much better than Desert Saints.
Rick Holman