5 trailers and The Rock (Spoiler)
Kevin L Gilbert
Today it's not the familiar AMC Hamshire 6, but its neighbor, the
AMC Mountain Farms 4, in the mall of the same name, known popularly here
as "the dead mall." And apart from the theater, there isn't much there.
The important thing is that they accept my free passes, so in I go. The
Rock is on two screens here, and the house is about 2/3 full for the
first show at 4:30. Here come the trailers.
THE FAN: This is really a teaser, but it gives the basic premise:
DeNiro is an obsessive fan of baseball star Snipes. The narration and
the cinematography of night baseball give this a vaguely creepy feel, but
there's too little here to draw a substantial impression from. DeNiro
gets top billing over Snipes, which I assume represents the former's
stature as Great Actor rather than comparative box office clout.
THE FRIGHTENERS: I'll note one thing: Lee Ermey plays the ghost
of a hardass drill instructor. I love it. That aside, Heavenly
Creatures was enough for me to give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt.
CHAIN REACTION: Same as I saw last week, still looks promising.
I notice Keanu hasn't much to say in the trailer; wisely, Freeman does
most of the talking.
JACK: Now, I thought Coppola had gotten out of debt, so what did
he need money for that drove him to this? I'm not saying this'll be a
stinker, but for gad's sake, it's Robin Williams playing a ten-year old
in a forty-year old body. No, the body-switching genre hasn't come back:
Williams has a rare condition that has done this to him. This gives me
pause. The film is offered to us as a charming comedy and rather aimed
at kids, but the logic of the situation tells us that Williams's
character is going to die at an early age. Is this something the trailer
is hiding from us?
PHENOMENON: This has been slightly altered since I last saw it.
They've taken out one line of dialogue: Travolta's complaint that the
power should have been given to someone smarter. The studio may have
thought it gave the impression that the hero was a moron to start off,
which is probably inaccurate. Hmmm.
Anyway, on with the show, the valedictory production of that
industrious drug fiend, Don Simpson, . . . Michael Bay's THE ROCK
***********************S P O I L E R W A R N I N G *******************
Overall, I liked it. I must complain, however, that it was
awkwardly constructed. Ed Harris dominates the first 10 minutes, and we
get a sense of his grievance and his committment to desperate steps.
This emphasis on Harris, before we even see Cage or Connery, builds him
up as the character with whom our heroes must have a final reckoning.
This promises some complexity, because I felt some sympathy with Harris's
beef. I at least hoped he'd win -- not gas San Francisco, but get those
dead covert soldiers the recognition he thought they'd deserved. He is,
however, the villain. This creates a problem. Villains in this genre
must meet terrible, tortuous deaths, yet I'm sure most people watching
would feel Harris wouldn't deserve that fate unless he did something
unspeakable. But he scrupulously avoids anything evil. He shoos small
children away before his men take over Alcatraz. He tries to stop the
massacre of the SEALS. He diverts a missile at the last moment to spare
the city. All this makes him undeserving of the standard action movie
one-liner gag death, -- and face it, Ed Harris is too good for that
treatment. Yet we've got to have it, apparently; Cage and Connery must
annihilate somebody in audience-pleasing ways. This imposes a dilemma on
the filmmakers. They resolve it by abruptly replacing Harris as villain
with some of his more mercenary minions, who frag him when he decides to
abort the mission. So the climactic battle is not Harris v. Cage &
Connery, but the two stars vs. a small gang of supporting actors who are
dropped from towers, impaled on missiles, fed VX gas, etc. It can't help
but be a disappointment. At the very least, Harris should have survived
long enough to help our heroes reign in the bad seeds, but he gives up
the ghost with 15 minutes left in the show. As I said, this was
awkward. What, then, about his little crusade? I suppose we're to find
moral equivalence for it in Connery guiding Cage to the Secret J. Edgar
Hoover Microfilm, which will purportedly blow the lid off America. A
throwaway reference indicates that the Roswell landings were real, and
implies that Another Man killed Kennedy. But what is Cage going to do
with it? Make it public? Use it for Blackmail? ????
Acting was good throughout, Cage especially. Harris is a little
hampered by the shifting moods of his character. Connery is doing a
fairly standard character, but he's good at it. Apart from the above, my
major gripe is with the pointless car chase, in which every car chase
cliche is rehearsed ("Fruit Stand!" Siskel and Ebert could cry; "Parking
Meters!" I'd add.) This film could be about a half hour shorter and
better for it. It's gratuitous, and it costs the film the sense of
urgency created by the hostage and missile threat. Fortunately, the film
does regain this once it really gets going. So overall it's
entertaining, -- more so then the other blockbusters so far this year --
but there was room for improvement. But go anyway.
-KLGilbert (kev...@history.umass.edu)
ran...@hooked.net
kev...@asimov.oit.umass.edu (Kevin L Gilbert) said:
(stuff no longer here . . .)
>***********************S P O I L E R W A R N I N G *******************
>Apart from the above, my
>major gripe is with the pointless car chase, in which every car chase
>cliche is rehearsed ("Fruit Stand!" Siskel and Ebert could cry; "Parking
>Meters!" I'd add.) This film could be about a half hour shorter and
>better for it. It's gratuitous, and it costs the film the sense of
>urgency created by the hostage and missile threat. Fortunately, the film
>does regain this once it really gets going. So overall it's
>entertaining, -- more so then the other blockbusters so far this year --
>but there was room for improvement. But go anyway.
I agree with most of your review, but I liked the car chase. I felt
that, rather then being pointless, it helped establish the Mason
character and his priorities (his kin). I thought it also
reinforced his prowess at escaping, another important part of his
character. Plus I thought it was fun - I especially liked the fact
that the movie didn't use some of SF's "fake" cable cars (they look
sort of like the real ones but they are glorified tour buses
running on rubber tires) like they so often do (I especially
remember the one in Murder In The First, a very inaccurate Alcatraz
film of a few years back - they didn't even try to hide the rubber
tires).
ran...@hooked.net
>***********************S P O I L E R W A R N I N G *******************
>Apart from the above, my
>major gripe is with the pointless car chase, in which every car chase
>cliche is rehearsed ("Fruit Stand!" Siskel and Ebert could cry; "Parking
>Meters!" I'd add.) This film could be about a half hour shorter and
>better for it. It's gratuitous, and it costs the film the sense of
>urgency created by the hostage and missile threat. Fortunately, the film
>does regain this once it really gets going. So overall it's
>entertaining, -- more so then the other blockbusters so far this year --
>but there was room for improvement. But go anyway.
R. Wiley
>kev...@asimov.oit.umass.edu (Kevin L Gilbert) said:
>>Apart from the above, my
>>major gripe is with the pointless car chase, in which every car chase
>>cliche is rehearsed ("Fruit Stand!" Siskel and Ebert could cry; "Parking
>>Meters!" I'd add.)
The bottled water truck was "reminiscent" of the Perrier
truck in "Goldeneye".
rw
Zach Douglas
In article <4par2d$o...@nic.umass.edu>, kev...@asimov.oit.umass.edu says...
>
> THE FAN: This is really a teaser, but it gives the basic premise:
>DeNiro is an obsessive fan of baseball star Snipes. The narration and
>the cinematography of night baseball give this a vaguely creepy feel,
>but there's too little here to draw a substantial impression from. DeNiro
>gets top billing over Snipes, which I assume represents the former's
>stature as Great Actor rather than comparative box office clout.
I'm really worried about THE FAN. I'd hate to see Bob in a stinker.
And with Tony Scott at the helm I'm worried it will be a stinker, although
it will probably make lots of $. But, I'll have to go see it just to see
how they get 2 hours of movie out of an obbsesive fan and a baseball game!
> THE FRIGHTENERS: I'll note one thing: Lee Ermey plays the ghost
>of a hardass drill instructor. I love it. That aside, Heavenly
>Creatures was enough for me to give Peter Jackson the benefit of the d
>oubt.
Same here, DEAD ALIVE has made me a life-long member of the Jackson fan club
even if MEET THE FEEBLES really sucked. Although the movie itself looks
like a super-charged ghostbusters/casper take.
>
> CHAIN REACTION: Same as I saw last week, still looks promising.
>I notice Keanu hasn't much to say in the trailer; wisely, Freeman does
Haven't seen trailers yet.....
>
> JACK: Now, I thought Coppola had gotten out of debt, so what did
>he need money for that drove him to this? I'm not saying this'll be a
>stinker, but for gad's sake, it's Robin Williams playing a ten-year ol
>d in a forty-year old body. No, the body-switching genre hasn't come ba
>ck: Williams has a rare condition that has done this to him. This gives m
>e pause. The film is offered to us as a charming comedy and rather aime
>d >at kids,
I like the idea behind the movie - it does look to go beyong the
body-switching movies, although BIG came to mind watching the trailer. It
looks like Williams has the kid thing down to a T. Might be a pleasant
surprise - or not.
PHENOMENON: This has been slightly altered since I last saw it.
>They've taken out one line of dialogue: Travolta's complaint that the
>power should have been given to someone smarter. The studio may have
>thought it gave the impression that the hero was a moron to start off,
>
The trailer I saw at the theater was much less appealing than the first one
shown on TV. They should push Travolta for all it's worth and not flying
pens and shattered mirrors. Again, pleasant surprise or ho-hum film. The
trailers are good enough to avoid 'Da Bomb' though.
> Anyway, on with the show, the valedictory production of that
>industrious drug fiend, Don Simpson, . . . Michael Bay's THE ROCK
>
Very much agreed on the Ed Harris conflict. From the very beggining when
Harris gives the reason he demands the money I'm thinking - what's so bad
about that? The pentagon's reaction seems to say the acknoweldge the fact
that the US Govt. enjoys playing 'dirty tricks' and that they are right to
do so! So there is no conflict there. Plus the girlfriend thing is so
shallow it should have been left out. The only thing worth caring for was
simply that Connery be free and Cage not die (Simply because he was so
inexperienced). The rest was structured poorly indeed.
I didn't like it much. About equal to Twister. Haven't seen MI yet.
Interesting to compare the three plus Eraser when they come out. And ID4
but that looks to blow the other 4 out of the water right now....
Sawfish
>kev...@asimov.oit.umass.edu (Kevin L Gilbert) said:
>(stuff no longer here . . .)
>>***********************S P O I L E R W A R N I N G *******************
<SNIP>
>I agree with most of your review, but I liked the car chase. I felt
>that, rather then being pointless, it helped establish the Mason
>character and his priorities (his kin). I thought it also
>reinforced his prowess at escaping, another important part of his
>character. Plus I thought it was fun - I especially liked the fact
>that the movie didn't use some of SF's "fake" cable cars (they look
>sort of like the real ones but they are glorified tour buses
>running on rubber tires) like they so often do (I especially
>remember the one in Murder In The First, a very inaccurate Alcatraz
>film of a few years back - they didn't even try to hide the rubber
>tires).
Do you mean to say that the fact the the cable car might have had
rubber tires (i.e., was one of the city transport street bus
look-alikes) might bother soemone, but not the fact that Connery
cut a hole in tempered security glass with a bent quarter
probably would not?
I guess you can tell that I thought it was a pretty sorry excuse
for a movie.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~