MPAA Rating: R/Genre: Action Thriller/Stars: Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage, Ed Harris, Michael Biehn, William Forsythe, David Morse, John Spencer, John C. McGinley, Tony Todd, Bokeem Woodbine, Danny Nucci, Claire Forlani, Vanessa Marcil, Gregory Sporleder, Stuart Wilson, David Marshall Grant, Philip Baker Hall, Xander Berkeley, Stanley Anderson, Todd Louiso, Howard Platt, John Laughlin, Harry Humphries, Willie Garson, Anthony Clark, Tom Towles, Raymond Cruz, Jim Maniaci, Greg Collins, Brendan Kelly, Steve Harris, Dennis Chalker, Marshall R. Teague/Runtime: 136 minutes
I know I have mentioned it before during my tenure as an arguably fairly skilled member of the cinematic writing community, but it is definitely worth remembering that critics such as myself don’t always get it right when it comes to our takes, both on a collective as well as individual level, on a given slice of cinema. I mean I for example have no shame in saying that the Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey franchises would be better off if they had never been made at all, but given the amount of money those franchises made for their respective studios I think it’s safe to say that there might be a fair number of people out there who disagree with my assessment on that. Likewise, the overall film reviewing community may have been quite polarized in their reactions to the cinematic adaptation of Cloud Atlas from 2012, but I have always been someone who has loved that movie with a passion since it first came out and I always try to make it a habit to watch it at least once a month. Finally, I know for a fact that the also from 2012 horror slice of cinema Sinister is an incredibly made movie, which is why at least 21 dollars of the 87.7 million it made at the box office can be attributed to yours truly, and I guess that to me is why I find it so baffling that, despite being a financial success, the film reviewing community at large only sought fit to present it with a 63% on noteworthy (or notorious dependent on your point of view) film review website Rotten Tomatoes. Incidentally, and in case you hadn’t quite put two and seven together until this point, the reason I bring this up to you dear reader is because there is a film from the long-ago year of 1996 that I feel makes for another wonderful example of this distinct cinematic phenomenon in action. That being the slice of cinema, and film I happen to be reviewing for you today incidentally, known solely as The Rock. A film that, beyond giving an extremely good reason for why America should never let Ed Harris become a Brigadier General in the United States military to say nothing of a wonderful (even IF it has never been officially confirmed as such) send-off for Sean Connery’s take on iconic British spy 007, is also a bit perplexing to me. Not because it’s bad or anything. Rather, it’s because I don’t understand how a slice of cinema this genuinely entertaining and riveting can be a financial success to the tune of grossing a solid 335.6 million against a budget of only 75 million and yet the critics’ scores on Rotten Tomatoes manage to average out to only a 67%. To be sure, it is not a flawless film by any stretch, but with the aid of fairly (pardon the pun) rock solid work on both sides of the camera, The Rock is definitely one engaging, entertaining, fun, and action-packed cinematic ride you are sure to enjoy time and time again.
The plot is as follows: Taking us once again to the iconic locale of San Francisco (seriously Hollywood what did this place ever do to you besides deny you good parking?), The Rock gets its thrilling story underway as we are introduced to a man by the name of Francis Hummel. A man who, among all the things worth potentially knowing about him, is a more than slightly esteemed member of that distinct group known as the United States military. Unfortunately for them, he is also one who has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. One that takes the size, shape, and form of the fact that the U.S. government has time and time again failed to even acknowledge the deaths of numerous men who lost their lives while taking part in off the book assignments (or covert ops if you prefer) that he was in command of. Suffice it to say that to make the claim that the general is a bit on the exasperated side about this might just be a wee bit of an understatement. Perhaps this is why he has decided to do something about it and send the upper echelons of the government a message. One that, when our film starts, we see take the form of the general, his loyal 2nd in command, and a group of rogue Marines take part in the theft of fifteen M55 rockets filled with a poisonous gas so lethal it could kill any lifeform in a matter of seconds (gulp). We soon learn that what the general has in mind for these death deliverers is to place them on Alcatraz Island, which he and his squad take over (and with a tour going on to boot), and threaten to fire the rockets right into the heart of San Francisco unless the government is willing to cough up the solid amount of 100 million dollars from a top-secret fund and wire it to an account within the next 48-72 hours. Undeterred, we see that the Department of Defense and the FBI decide to counter Hummel with a move of their own. One that involves not only a top-notch Navy SEAL team as led by one Commander Anderson, but also two other individuals who are worthy of mention here. The first is a highly intelligent and undeniably skilled yet rather green when it comes to operating in the field chemical weapons specialist for the Bureau named Stanley Goodspeed. The second is a slightly older former member of British S.A.S. (a British special forces unit for those who’ve never played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare) and incidentally the only guy to have ever escaped Alcatraz when it was still in operation by the name of John Mason. Thus does our rather eclectic group of individuals have what it takes to foil Hummel and his dastardly scheme or is the City by the Bay about to have to deal with something a whole lot worse than trying to successfully park around town? That I will leave for you to discover…..
Now right off, it should be said that the work done by the assorted departments operating behind the camera on this particular cinematic outing is fairly solid across the board. This starts with iconic (or hiss-worthy dependent on the movie) helmer Michael Bay and fortunately this is one of the more solid entries on his creative resume as a director (though honestly as long as it’s NOT named Transformers I think the man can be a talented individual at the helm of a film). Yes, a lot of his usual Bayisms are very much on display here, but what Bay does here is he actually manages to be in wonderful synch with the components that have long defined him as a director rather than let them run amok. As a result, we see that Bay is actually able to give audiences directorial work here that is deliberate, composed, and even energetic if not surprisingly inspiring. Indeed perhaps the best example of this can be found in how Bay keeps the vast majority of the genuinely thrilling action beats restricted to the 2nd half while devoting most of the first half (an exciting car chase through the streets of San Francisco being perhaps the exception) to actually give a fair degree of depth to some of our cast of characters even if the majority aren’t given as much in terms of substance to work with as others. Suffice it to say that he might be at times Hollywood’s punching bag, but this is still undeniably one of Bay’s best works. Alongside solid work done by Bay at the helm, this slice of cinema also contains a fairly well-done script as penned by no less than a trinity of writers. Yes, you can definitely see where certain plot points are going and where certain character arcs will go, but by and large the script still works because of both a wonderful snarky sense of humor very much present by some of the characters and because the story itself is still quite riveting all things considered. Besides those two distinct departments, this film also presents us with terrific work from Oscar-nominated John Schwartzman in the cinematography department. Indeed not only does the genuinely beautiful cinematography reinforce the film’s unashamedly delightful approach to chaos and anarchy, but it also flows in such a way that we as audiences get to feel like we are right there with the characters at all times no matter what is occurring on screen. Lastly, I think that this section would be woefully lacking if I didn’t take some time to focus on the efforts done by both iconic composer Hans Zimmer (The Dark Knight trilogy, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Lion King, and many more) and Nick Glennie-Smith (Home Alone 3 and Ella Enchanted) on this slice of cinema’s musical accompaniment. Indeed not only does the score brilliantly synch up into the bigger-is-better attitude that the rest of the work done behind the camera is aiming for, but it also proves to be so delightfully over the top and bombastic on its own that don’t be surprised if you find yourself wanting to listen to the soundtrack on Spotify or YouTube long after you have finished watching the movie. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in well-done work from the editing department as headed by both 3-time Oscar nominee Richard Francis-Bruce as well as Steven Weisberg respectively among others it’s clear that their work might not be practically perfect in every way, but at the same time there is also no denying that the team behind the camera definitely does everything it can to make this slice of cinema as solid a viewing experience as it ultimately turns out to be.
Alongside the fairly solid work done behind the camera, this slice of cinema is also the blessed recipient of a collection of equally as engaging performances in front of the camera by an undeniably talented group of performers even if the fair majority of them aren’t given nearly as much in terms of narrative substance to work with as others. Without a doubt in my mind this starts with the work done by screen icon Sean Connery in the role of John Mason and he is spot-on here in the best way possible. Yes it does take at the very least 20-30 minutes before he shows up in this, but once he does there is no denying that Connery manages to walk away with this movie even when paired up with the equally as iconic Nicolas Cage and Ed Harris in the scenes he has with both men. Indeed what makes Connery’s turn here such a delight is not just the fact that he is being the kind of gruff and grumpy yet undeniably charismatic individual that made up a lot of his later on-screen roles. Nor is it the fact that he’s still able to engage in the action beats like no time has passed since he played a rather noteworthy superspy of some renown. Rather, it’s that for a lot (if not all) of his screentime Connery does a wonderful job of being an action hero who is just as inclined to wax philosophical or be quite the snarky individual as he is to engage in a bit of fisticuffs. Suffice it to say that Connery looks like he is having an absolute blast in the role and this, alongside Finding Forrester from 2000, is perhaps one of the last genuinely great performances we got out of this truly distinct talent. Alongside Connery, this slice of cinema also has an equally as delightful turn here from noteworthy screen talent Nicolas Cage in the role of Stanley Goodspeed. Yes there is that trademark Cage eccentricity on display, but even with that in mind there is no denying that Cage does a wonderful job at playing an individual who, despite being incredibly smart and possessing a delightfully dry sense of humor, is not exactly someone you might consider having by your side in such a combat-specific situation only to, as the film goes on, showcase a surprising degree of both resourcefulness and capableness in handling himself while out in the field. Lastly, I definitely this section would be woefully lacking if I didn’t take some time to praise the truly electrifying work done here by fellow screen icon Ed Harris in the role of General Hummel. Indeed this is a very intriguing role because while yes he is undeniably a villain you also can’t help but understand and even empathize with him and his cause to a degree. A feat made possibly by Harris not only not portraying him as your typical militaristic and/or tyrannical one-note villain, but the film in general also making his motives for why he is doing what he does here both relatable and even understandable as well. Suffice it to say it’s a very nuanced cinematic tightrope to traverse, but it’s one that Harris is able to traverse quite wonderfully. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in top-flight work from such screen talents as Michael Biehn, William Forsythe, David Morse, John Spencer, John C. McGinley, Tony Todd, Bokeem Woodbine, Danny Nucci, Xander Berkeley, Phillip Baker Hall, and Claire Forlani among many others it’s clear that this slice of cinema might have its distinct potholes here and there, but overall the work done by the cast in front of the camera certainly does everything in their collective power to help make for them.
All in all and at the end of the day is The Rock a flawless slice of cinema in every sense of the word? Sadly no, but honestly that’s ok. Not just because that is a rather unfair benchmark to put on every single movie in existence, but also because not every slice of cinema needs to be perfect in order to be enjoyable. With that being said however, is this the worst film made by any of the creative talents involved either behind or in front of the camera? Honestly if you think that then please take a seat and I promise some of Connery’s filmography, a fair amount of Cage’s filmography, Geostorm from 2017, and even the films in the live-action Transformers franchise that Michael Bay chose to direct would all like to have a word with you and I cannot exactly guarantee you that it is going to be pleasant by any stretch of the imagination. All joking aside dear reader, I really do love the heck out of this movie. Yes, there are certainly issues to be found here, but truthfully this is by no means a slice of cinema that is designed for you to utilize your brainpower in any meaningful manner. Rather, it is designed to be the cinematic equivalent of a thrill ride at an amusement park and in that regard this slice of cinema is most assuredly able to deliver the goods and then some in the best way possible. Of course, it also doesn’t hurt that the work done by Bay is actually quite solid, the humor on display genuinely funny, the action beats definitely more than capable of keeping you on the edge of your seat, the cinematography fairly riveting, the musical score wonderfully over the top and bombastic much like the rest of the film, and the performances (especially the ones given by Connery, Cage, and Harris) are all incredibly solid with everyone making the most out of however much or little in terms of screentime that they are given despite the vast majority not getting a whole lot in the way of narrative substance to work with. Suffice it to say then that The Rock might not win any points for intelligent filmmaking nor is it one that I can see the Oscars or any other cinematic award-giving group really looking at favorably, but as far as being a genuinely thrilling and fun popcorn movie trust me when I say that this is easily one of the most iconic that the decade of cinema known as the 90s sought fit to give us. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give The Rock “96” a solid 4 out of 5.
