Homeland Security

2004
4.2| 1h38m| en| More Info
Released: 11 April 2004 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Admiral McKee is retired, when following the events of 9/11 he receives a call from the White House informing him that his commander in chief requires him to serve his country once again. Shortly after this he is sworn into office as a senior member of the Office of Homeland Security under Tom Ridge. Once in office Admiral McKee faces the challenge of organizing this new office so as to prevent further terrorist attacks against the United States. With this in mind, Admiral McKee's wife recommends he speaks to his friend, NSA Agent Sol Binder.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good
AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.
Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Portia Hilton Blistering performances.
mihai72 The title of the movie made me instantly realize that this was a movie meant for the people who believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by 19 dirty unshaved Arabs and controlled from a cave somewhere in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I watched this pathetic attempt to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to see just how shameless these people really are. Well, it turns out it didn't disappoint. The acting was a disaster, as one might expect from a made-for-TV movie. The storyline was a complete lie, as it made the attack seem like something committed by Islamic terrorists, when we all know that Bush never was and never will be a Muslim, so the prefix "Islamic" does not fit. This movie made me realize just how hard the Bush administration and its cronies are working to ensure that there is still a substantial amount of people who believe their conspiracy theory concerning Al Quaeda. If you haven't seen this movie, it would be a good idea to either refrain from watching it, or if you do, you might consider bracing your sides with something to prevent you from exploding with laughter. A 0/10, but since that's not possible on IMDb, a 1.
Robin Cook I rented this movie the other day on DVD and knew nothing about it other than what was on the jacket. I read other users comments and felt compelled to comment as well. Despite the low budget casting and filming processes, I felt that the message conveyed in this film was very good. The message? Well, one that came across to me was that no matter what status a person has in society, people are just human.Considering the finger pointing for blame on the terrorist attacks (past and present), this movie conveyed that we are all human with frailties. How would a mother and father respond to their potential son-in-law's father being imprisoned and considering how smoothly he had logical answers directed toward him when interrogated. We can all be easily fooled and terrorists are experts with intensive training to play upon human traits, whether we are an American or not.One thing, though, that I wished this movie would have attempted to clarify more was regarding Homeland Security set up and its' boundaries for the homeland. Is America going to have another agency with such power it can abuse and terrorize Americans similarly to the IRS? I agree, having an agency that combines databases of other agencies sounds cool, but the message I derived from this movie is that this set up for another agency was vastly opportunistic. Hence, I personally felt terror from this movie in this regard and how this agency will be run and what boundaries/limitations have been set, if any. After all, even I had trouble with Tom Skerritt's role of even being considered to set up such an operation ... just not the type or very credible ... just a nice old meandering neighborly guy, eh? Sure, like this is the kind of man now in charge? Perhaps keep him on the Lifetime movie channel. But, gee, maybe using him in this role helped to use this movie as a tool to influence people to be supportive enough to pay more taxes to support this new undefined (unrestricted?) powerful agency? Am I the only one who was left with feeling more terror about this new agency after viewing this film? Regarding other non-ending pieces and parts, I felt that this was intentional to provoke thought processing for viewers. If there had been more film with the tracking down of the terrorists and other things, it would have taken away from the human quality of this film.With that said, I felt this movie was very good in conveying that people are human and if it helped to teach some people not to let their emotions take charge in serious decision-making , then it succeeded in that degree.
Big Bo I went into this expecting a dramatization of the events. I am not a big fan of that type of film so I was not expecting much. I was surprised to discover it was not. What I found was a plotline surrounding the creation of some new secret agency, foreshadowing of enemy intentions, and a cliffhanger ending. Acting and technical aspects are excellent for a tv movie. Some plot elements are very cliched but it flows and is very watchable. Skerrit portrays an admiral quite ably but I find my self curious about the backstory of many of the main characters.I hope someday to see an unbiased documentary about the attack, but I expect many important things will remain classified till long after my lifetime.6/10
lellison Being among the first to contribute to the user comments, I feel somewhat on thin ice on this one.I noticed on the comments threads that several viewers thought the timing was wrong for this subject, and that it was a Republican billboard during an election year. All that aside, I did watch the complete movie, despite the many commercial interruptions. Flow and continuity is important to any pseudo documentary (which is how I would classify this work), documentary, or docudrama. It was difficult enough following the many different locations and mini-plots. To accurately depict the depth and scope of this topic, much more time is needed, and the many commercial breaks would have to be eliminated, which obviously won't happen on a network movie. All of the historical events visited, although based in fact, were given only a token presentation, and were intertwined with fictional characters and plots.It is entirely possible that the writers of this movie were attempting to accurately show the progression of the Middle East terrorism threat from the early 90's through post 9/11. Unfortunately, the span of this topic just can't be fit into the traditional movie length. Think about doing justice to War And Peace or The Godfather in 90 minutes.The single redeeming part of this movie might be a rather corny and feeble attempt at showing all of us how the Department of Homeland Security was formed, it's makeup, and it's function. However, one would do better to pick up a copy of last week's Newsweek for a more fulfilling explanation.Reflecting back on this movie, I feel like I watched 7 years of history on a fast-forward videotape. We all know the historical facts quite well, and most of this was a review of the high and low points, spiced up (or down) with soap opera style emotional tidbits.Yes, if the purpose of this presentation is strictly entertainment, the timing is wrong (and always will be). If enlightenment is the target, it missed the mark and might stand accused of being sloppy historical revisionism. Politically, it did lean rather heavily toward the right. The historical time line is full of holes, which were plugged with emotional sugar lumps. Technically fairly well written, acted, and directed. I was comfortable with this movie right after watching it, but having written the preceding, I now am not very pleased with it. There's a bit too much of an Oliver Stone undercurrent. Take it with a grain of salt, and don't expect too much.