I had looked forward to seeing this film after reading about it, especially given Stanley Tucci's involvement. The first half of the film is quirky and interesting in it's "Tin Men" like overview of the home security sales business. However, the second half of the film veers sharply into post-Tarantino plot devices, none of which are remotely interesting or innovative. By the end of the film (and it's pointless prologue), I was thoroughly bored and ready to leave. Tucci is OK as the slimy proprietor but Arquette's one-note performance grew tiresome. Kate Capshwaw, who looks absolutely gorgeous, is wasted but Ryan Reynolds is outstanding as her son. His scene with Arquette in which he described his attempt at lovemaking was worth the price of admission. In fact, I would have preferred to see a movie about his character rather than Arquette's.
22 Reviews
Schematic Mystery and Comedy.
rmax30482320 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is about a novice security-system salesman (Arquette) who has an affair with one of his clients (Capshaw) and, when she and her son are murdered, comes to believe that his effluvial boss (Tucci) did the deed. This conviction comes to him after he's visited by Capshaw's spirit who advises him, "Get the bastard." And, indeed, the talkative Tucci is not a palladium of morality. He kicks in doors to create incidents which in turn create fears in Los Angeles neighborhoods. And when he learns of a rich potential client's home being empty for a while, he's not above committing burglary. So when Capshaw and son die, Arquette -- enraged, half insane -- kidnaps Tucci and takes him to a deserted spot in the desert. Just before shooting him, he discovers that the real killer has been captured. He and Tucci make up and agree to work together again.
Each of the individual scenes is pretty keenly observed. Nice little everyday details, amusing in their familiarity and even funnier when they stretch the envelope. The whole thing doesn't hang together very well. There's a major weakness in the plot -- Arquette's vision. Nothing has really prepared us for it. Arquette has never been crazy or anything other than a bit self conscious. And then in thirty seconds of screen time he turns delusional. Tucci's earnest logic -- he admits to being full of crap and a thief but he had absolutely nothing to gain by Capshaw's death -- makes no difference to Arquette, whose mind is made up. I know. This is beginning to sound like today's political arena.
The movie is shot mostly in a classical style with little in the way of directorial dazzle, though there are a couple of overhead shots that are inconsistent with the rest, and one or two scene in something like step motion that don't belong there.
As the central character, Arquette is given to over display but is otherwise unexceptional. The story is more or less held together by Stanley Tucci's performance and his mustache, a combination of British military and Groucho Marx. He's a splendid actor of considerable range. (Catch him in "The Big Night.") There is a lengthy sequence towards the end that has Tucci tied up on the desert floor and Arquette waving a pistol over him, about to kill him, and it's all made bearable by Tucci's response to the situation. He switches in an instant from squealing with terror to blustering self defense.
Kate Capshaw gives another convincing performance. She's no longer the glamorized hero of adventure movies in which she's confronted with a dish of monkey brains. She's aged somewhat. She's beautiful, very sexy, and gives the best performance I've seen her in.
It's not a poorly done film. Despite its weaknesses, it has its genuine moments. One of them is when Arquette is sitting in the living room, trying to sell his security system to an elderly couple, when the old dude suddenly leaps up and shouts that he has his OWN security system and breaks out his armory -- M-16, AK-47, a .357, a .454, and some grenades. ("Maybe it's excessive," says the beaming little old lady who is his wife -- remonstrative, you know, but proud too.) The ending is completely incredible. It's like having a plug in your front tire, trying desperately to keep the air from escaping. And there's an unnecessary epilogue that I suppose was intended to be funny.
Each of the individual scenes is pretty keenly observed. Nice little everyday details, amusing in their familiarity and even funnier when they stretch the envelope. The whole thing doesn't hang together very well. There's a major weakness in the plot -- Arquette's vision. Nothing has really prepared us for it. Arquette has never been crazy or anything other than a bit self conscious. And then in thirty seconds of screen time he turns delusional. Tucci's earnest logic -- he admits to being full of crap and a thief but he had absolutely nothing to gain by Capshaw's death -- makes no difference to Arquette, whose mind is made up. I know. This is beginning to sound like today's political arena.
The movie is shot mostly in a classical style with little in the way of directorial dazzle, though there are a couple of overhead shots that are inconsistent with the rest, and one or two scene in something like step motion that don't belong there.
As the central character, Arquette is given to over display but is otherwise unexceptional. The story is more or less held together by Stanley Tucci's performance and his mustache, a combination of British military and Groucho Marx. He's a splendid actor of considerable range. (Catch him in "The Big Night.") There is a lengthy sequence towards the end that has Tucci tied up on the desert floor and Arquette waving a pistol over him, about to kill him, and it's all made bearable by Tucci's response to the situation. He switches in an instant from squealing with terror to blustering self defense.
Kate Capshaw gives another convincing performance. She's no longer the glamorized hero of adventure movies in which she's confronted with a dish of monkey brains. She's aged somewhat. She's beautiful, very sexy, and gives the best performance I've seen her in.
It's not a poorly done film. Despite its weaknesses, it has its genuine moments. One of them is when Arquette is sitting in the living room, trying to sell his security system to an elderly couple, when the old dude suddenly leaps up and shouts that he has his OWN security system and breaks out his armory -- M-16, AK-47, a .357, a .454, and some grenades. ("Maybe it's excessive," says the beaming little old lady who is his wife -- remonstrative, you know, but proud too.) The ending is completely incredible. It's like having a plug in your front tire, trying desperately to keep the air from escaping. And there's an unnecessary epilogue that I suppose was intended to be funny.
"So much potential, wasted..."
bek-1229 January 2000
The first time I saw this movie, I joined in right before the mood got dark--during the overnight stay with the parents, and this movie knocked my socks off. Very quirky and interesting, but not "Tarentino-like" at all, as someone else has said. So tonight I rented the movie and watched it start to finish. Ugh! I feel like the first time I saw it, I only saw the very best of the movie! It's got one dark, nice twist, but otherwise, this is a mediocre movie at best. Stay away unless you're very bored!
Simply a masterpiece!
jakeloves15 January 2003
It's rather sad to see that so many people seem turned off by this comedy. Just like Romeo is Bleeding, too many people seem to just give up when they're finally shown something that truly creates an original tone for itself. This movie walks a tight-wire between the absurd and offbeat while still seemingly plausible and realistic. The plot twists with wonderfully subversive glee. I could not help but fall hopelessly in love with this charming movie. Don't listen to all the negative comments. Rent it and judge for yourself. You just might be wonderfully surprised.
Did Stanley Tucci need the money?
stewartflamingo2 February 1999
I was at this film's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in 1997. After the screening, when the writer/director and some cast members offered to answer questions, no one could even be bothered to ask any. Rarely has a film been so poorly directed (why on earth were random frames snipped out of some scenes?), wretchedly acted (David Arquette, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, does not run the emotional gamut from A to B. He parks at A and brings a lunch) and utterly pointless. Characters behave completely out of character for no reason except to force the plot to move in certain directions. At long last, the film comes to a completely random and pointless end that's supposed to "really make you think." Unfortunately, what it makes you think is, "Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back."
A Comedy That Takes A Strange Turn
ccthemovieman-127 March 2006
This was surprising, maybe I didn't expect much: just the usual somewhat stupid and sleazy comedy of today. Instead it was one of those films that IS a comedy for the most part, but in the last segment turns dramatic.
The comedy in here is more subtle than normal and David Arquette does a nice job with, especially in one scene that is not-so-subtle. Just his stupid grin throughout the film was worth a few laughs. Stanley Tucci, meanwhile, is very convincing as as less-than-ethical salesman. Kate Capshaw makes the female lead role an attractive one.
Without giving anything away, suffice to say this film is a bit different, not what you might think, and worth a look. I can say one thing for sure: it is no award-winner but it's better than most of these reviews would have you believe.
The comedy in here is more subtle than normal and David Arquette does a nice job with, especially in one scene that is not-so-subtle. Just his stupid grin throughout the film was worth a few laughs. Stanley Tucci, meanwhile, is very convincing as as less-than-ethical salesman. Kate Capshaw makes the female lead role an attractive one.
Without giving anything away, suffice to say this film is a bit different, not what you might think, and worth a look. I can say one thing for sure: it is no award-winner but it's better than most of these reviews would have you believe.
Pointless career low for all involved
rob-23610 September 2000
THE ALARMIST is so abysmally scripted that you have think to yourself why on earth did an up and coming actor like David Arquette agree to be in it. It has to be one of the weakest plots I have ever seen and without any humour at all, it borders on the brink of tedious. It staggers along to a dreadful conclusion which appears to only happen because the director got bored and just wanted to wrap up quickly in order to get home for his dinner. Stay away!.
Dark, humorous, quirky and melodramatic.
ipswich-224 May 2000
Dark, humorous, quirky and melodramatic. The mix of this movie may not gel and disappoint some, but on the whole I found it fun and entertaining. Dave Arquette, Stan Tucci and Kate Capeshaw give fine performances in this very offbeat movie that starts dark but ends with a comedic twist. Perhaps the plot could be better but there's plenty enough to give viewers amusement and chuckles. A strange one you'd either hate or enjoy. For myself, I found it on the plus side.
Alarmingly awful
strangerdave-27 June 2006
What begins as a fairly clever farce about a somewhat shady security monitoring company turns, almost instantaneously, into an uninteresting and completely inane murder mystery. David Arquette and the great Stanley Tucci try mightily to make this train wreck watchable, but some things are just not humanly possible.
What, for instance, causes Gale to turn suddenly from a sweet motherly figure into a drunken shrew at Tommy's parents house? Why would Heinrich, although admittedly a sleezebag, want to destroy the business to which he devotes his life, by robbing and possibly murdering his customers? Why does the seemingly sensible Tommy believe that Heinrich could be a murderer (based almost entirely on a dream), and even if that were believable, why wouldn't he go to the police? And why didn't Gale activate the alarm when she got home, especially after scolding Howie about it being off? Of course, all of these events are necessary for the plot (and I use the term very, very loosely) to unfold. And it might be forgivable if it resulted in even the slightest bit of comedy. But everything, from Howie's description of his date rape, to the coroner's misidentification of Gale, to the final "joke" about Gale and Howie still being dead, is more tasteless and pathetic than anything else.
I checked the box indicating that my comments contained "spoilers", but there's nothing more I or anyone else could do to spoil this thing that already stinks to high heaven.
What, for instance, causes Gale to turn suddenly from a sweet motherly figure into a drunken shrew at Tommy's parents house? Why would Heinrich, although admittedly a sleezebag, want to destroy the business to which he devotes his life, by robbing and possibly murdering his customers? Why does the seemingly sensible Tommy believe that Heinrich could be a murderer (based almost entirely on a dream), and even if that were believable, why wouldn't he go to the police? And why didn't Gale activate the alarm when she got home, especially after scolding Howie about it being off? Of course, all of these events are necessary for the plot (and I use the term very, very loosely) to unfold. And it might be forgivable if it resulted in even the slightest bit of comedy. But everything, from Howie's description of his date rape, to the coroner's misidentification of Gale, to the final "joke" about Gale and Howie still being dead, is more tasteless and pathetic than anything else.
I checked the box indicating that my comments contained "spoilers", but there's nothing more I or anyone else could do to spoil this thing that already stinks to high heaven.
Inconsistent black comedy.
gridoon12 August 2004
"The Alarmist" has a pointless first half, with David Arquette's stiff acting getting in the way of any possible comedy, but gets better in the second half, when it enters darker territory and presents some unexpected plot developments. And yes, Kate Capshaw does look good for her age. (**1/2)
A film can not live on quirk alone...
The_Limey9 April 2003
Very poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.
Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.
Nothing to see here, keep moving...
Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.
Nothing to see here, keep moving...
This is a HILARIOUS comedy. Arquette & Tucci are at their best.
coryhotshooter11 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
How anyone can say anything bad about this film shocks me.
It is what indie films should be. Funny, unique, amusing, well made, off-beat. Why did the studio bury it? I guess it's hard to sell a film when you knock off one of the main characters early in the film. But I think Dunsky (the writer-director) just did WHAT NEEDED to be done for the integrity of the film.
Tucci is at his best when he is under Arquette's pressure. And watch out for Mary McCormack (Mrs. Howard Stern in PRIVATE PARTS) that lady can act!
This movie was at many major film festivals and got some great reviews (that I dug up). Siskel and Ebert loved it (on their TV show only - for some reason they never wrote up a review of it).
SEE THIS MOVIE but don't expect a juvenile comedy off the shelf from a major studio. Expect to be surprised and you'll have a good time.
It is what indie films should be. Funny, unique, amusing, well made, off-beat. Why did the studio bury it? I guess it's hard to sell a film when you knock off one of the main characters early in the film. But I think Dunsky (the writer-director) just did WHAT NEEDED to be done for the integrity of the film.
Tucci is at his best when he is under Arquette's pressure. And watch out for Mary McCormack (Mrs. Howard Stern in PRIVATE PARTS) that lady can act!
This movie was at many major film festivals and got some great reviews (that I dug up). Siskel and Ebert loved it (on their TV show only - for some reason they never wrote up a review of it).
SEE THIS MOVIE but don't expect a juvenile comedy off the shelf from a major studio. Expect to be surprised and you'll have a good time.
A good satire along the lines of The Player.
Kiosky7 May 1999
Aside from David Arquette's irritating performance, this is solid and fairly competent work. Although the characters may be dead-hollow, the events that ensue during the 90 minute run of the film are both amusing and inspired. Genuinely good.
An American Tragedy.....
rbrb18 September 2003
Qurkiness can't carry bland acting or a meandering script.
greenie26 January 2000
There's really not that needs to be said about this movie, except perhaps that it is little more than an unbelievably average attempt by all parties involved, from scriptwriters to actors to the film crew Stanley Tucci within a tight timeframe, and this was the only project on the shelf. But how any producer could look at If there's one good thing I can draw from this movie is the increase in respect I offer towards the Cohen brothers; even in their weakest attempts, the characters themselves remain interesting and unique due to a successful blend of writing, acting and directing.
Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.
My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.
The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.
The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.
As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.
in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.
Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.
My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.
The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.
The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.
As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.
in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.
Simple, stupid humor
tsmithjr11 February 2004
What a horrible comedy. Totally lame. The supposed "humor" was simple and stupid. Stanly Tucci (a great actor) had the only parts worth chuckling at. And he was tied up and gagged at the time. Don't waste your time with this one. It deserves a 0/10.
arquette is a god!
f_ragsdale12 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....
Weak ending but quite funny; Kate Capshaw a marvel
Uthman18 September 1999
Although the ending is likely to disappoint, this weakness should not dissuade one from watching THE ALARMIST. All the characters are appealing, the script witty, and the pacing tight. The interactions between Howard and Tommy and the family dinner scene are especially good. Stanley Tucci attacks his part with both barrels.
A word about Kate Capshaw: Wow! A forty-something grand multipara in real life, Kate is as attractive as a woman can be. While much credit is due the cinematographer for knowing how to shoot her in soft, warm light, her native charms give him a lot to work with. She endows her character with the sweetness of youth and the cynicism of maturity. I see from her filmography that she has been working pretty steadily since INDIANA JONES days, but I must have missed most of her films. Maybe the financial security Mrs Spielberg enjoys allows her to limit her work to small, low-key pictures with little marketing, but I sure would like to see her hit the big-time.
A word about Kate Capshaw: Wow! A forty-something grand multipara in real life, Kate is as attractive as a woman can be. While much credit is due the cinematographer for knowing how to shoot her in soft, warm light, her native charms give him a lot to work with. She endows her character with the sweetness of youth and the cynicism of maturity. I see from her filmography that she has been working pretty steadily since INDIANA JONES days, but I must have missed most of her films. Maybe the financial security Mrs Spielberg enjoys allows her to limit her work to small, low-key pictures with little marketing, but I sure would like to see her hit the big-time.
I was cheated!
jax71330 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I rented this film for $1 and feel like I got gypped! Granted, I rented it because Stanley Tucci is in it, so it wasn't a total loss - he can make chewing gum interesting. But the plot was stupid, most of the characters too goofy to be entertaining, and the abrupt changes in the storyline (from visiting the parents to murder?) ask too much of an audience unaided by drugs or alcohol. I haven't seen all of Arquette's movies, but he can't carry a film. Does he always play the bland, likable dufus who gets to accidentally realize maximum potential? Sounds like his real life. I get very annoyed when I think about film makers who are able to get paid to churn out this kind of nonsense and then foist it on an unsuspecting public wrapped in the cachet of adjectives like "indie" or "original" or, worse, "comedy." This movie isn't funny, period. It's like whipping up a new recipe in the kitchen by stirring together flour, eggs, ketchup, and sardines, serving it raw, and expecting people to rave about it. One star only because Tucci is always a joy to watch.
Quirky, Funny... Enjoy the vignettes
Harry-226 February 1999
I was surprised by the number of times I caught myself smiling or laughing quietly during The Alarmist (AKA Life During Wartime), a film where the parts are definitely greater than the whole. Be prepared to all but ignore the plot, which is unnecessary except as a place to loosely hang some wonderful performances by everyone involved.
great
streethassle14 July 2000
Loved it. Someone said the mark of a great mind is the capacity to hold two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time. It seems easiest for modern filmmakers to create a vision of humanity that is cynical/chilling or impossibly naive. I believe this film shares with Atom Egoyan's films, Milos Forman's late work, Sofia Coppola's Virgin Suicides and others, an essentially gentle but unclouded gentle view of humanity. From that, all things are possible: good satire, worthwhile commentary on the human condition, truly sexy scenes, all of which this film has. Consider the sex scene, once shocking, now a mainstay. When a film becomes trapped in either cynicism/dark brooding on one hand, or impossible romantic naivete on the other, it can no longer do anything but turn up the heat on accepted conventions. This film is not trapped in any such way. (See the scene in the kitchen when young Howard walks into the kitchen.)
A truly wonderful experience!
Dan_Stone1 June 1999
This movie is not what it looks like on the cover. This is a very funny - yet very serious - movie. (Get ready for an emotional rollercoaster ride.) The writing is simply brilliant and while it is at times quite baudy, it is always wonderfully sweet. The performances are stunning (who knew Kate Capshaw could be so funny?). Evan Dunsky is a director to watch...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
