Review of The Rock (1996) by Bill M — 10 Mar 2011

2.5 Stars out of 4.

Clint Eastwood did it in 1979. He escaped from Alcatraz. Well, in Michael Bay's second film The Rock, the heroes have to break-in to the prison. They are not escaping but moving toward a bitter fate. Since this is a Michael Bay film, he'd prefer they put the characters themselves in danger, because then there are some explosions, goofy one-liners, and a lot of running. Who doesn't like that?

Well, I'm not sure if I do. I like to be entertained but not trampled upon. With every Michael Bay movie, you get that feeling that this director could make a better film if he was a little sincere after awhile. If this guy wasn't a movie director, he'd be charged for premeditated arson. But The Rock almost works as an action movie - it's not offensive like Bay's later films and doesn't feel cruelly unfair to its actors.

What detracts The Rock is all that excess. Maybe that just comes with the Michael Bay package now, but time is precious. What's with all the JFK mumbo-jumbo in the first half? Oliver Stone covered that realm in 1991, so what is The Rock pressing for? Well, I think that is a pointless allusion to its gloriously absurd plot: A lunatic brigadier General Francis Hummel (Ed Harris) steals a stockpile of VX-gas missiles and annexes Alcatraz, taking hostages and aiming the missiles at San Francisco.

The plot is impossible, dumb, but - for some - it could be fun. Oh right: that excess. The Rock runs 136 minutes and that is at least half-an-hour too long. When the timid bomb specialist Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage) has to convince MI6 agent Captain John Patrick Mason (Sean Connery) to team up with the FBI to take down Hummel and his clan, some hilarious banter ensues. Connery has a new hair cut, a rugged attitude, and is again rejecting his screen presence. He's content to be a jerk. But after the Bay banter, we get the Bay butchering action.

In this process, Bay finds time for an excruciatingly long, jumbled, and pointless action scene with a conveyor belt of explosive apparatus. When a trolly car innocently strolls down the lane, we know Bay is setting those poor passengers up for disaster. I like action, but I kept asking if that was necessary? Maybe if these characters were not so dumb, the movie would be shorter and more enjoyable. But I did love after this unendurable action sequence, Cage barks at Connery: "You almost killed me twice! And my jaw hurts!" That almost amended Bay's punched clock.

The Rock has an effectual script, written by David Weisberg, Douglas S. Cook, and Mark Rosner. It seems to have the right type of cheese. This was probably to the help of Aaron Sorkin and Quentin Tarantino who contributed to the script process. But when Tarantino is involved, I am amazed The Rock did not have a samurai scene.

Cage and Connery are a great duo, and are hailed as one of action cinema's finest. I like Bonnie and Clyde, or even Butch and Sundance. But no one can deny Cage's volatile charm and Connery's calm agility. Being a secret agent, Connery is just extending off his Bond character - but older and in an even more absurd movie. Ed Harris is the villain, who we are not sure may have compassion or just a poisonous amount of jingoism. Either way, Bay doesn't give Harris's Hummel villainous justice. We keep wanting more complexity to him or even a pussy cat to be cradled in his arms. He's mostly a drag.

I've been hard on The Rock. I shouldn't be. It is very entertaining, but just overdone and excessive. That may be why people love it so much. I personally admired Bay's shallow, embellishing whirling camera and vainglorious low angles of his characters. He uses slow-motion like a stop and go button, but I think that is just a part of the action movie deal. The movie builds to the obvious race against the clock and of course, we see the impossible hero achieve impossible ends. Bay is so faithful isn't he?

I did wish this duo between Cage and Connery was more developed. Connery's Mason has such an obstinate composure that I found it hard to believe he could switch gears towards Cage's Stanley, who is good handling bombs but he should stick to that. So that is it. Michael Bay needs to learn how to direct women, if direct at all. His camera management here has a nice pace to it, but it is now time for him to treat women like they matter. Here, Cage's pregnant fiancée is forced into schmaltz closeups, where I could almost hear Bay yell to her: "React!".

I felt the script gave Mason some poetic justice at the finale. He's one of those characters who is there and is gone. That is what happens. Connery is an actor who needs to play the wise shadow. As for the plot, it needs work. Bay is one of those directors who throws away the script, yells action, and encourages explosions. He has a visceral eye, but that rarely suffices. I wanted to be involved with the hostages and to develop an urgency on their lives. Instead, it's one action scene after another and that is just a clock ticker.

If we watch The Rock for what it is, it is middling. It's got classic garbage in it, and it introduces clichés that have become stock in action films nowadays. We see this film as a buried treasure of the cheese that would be. The Criterion Collection, known for choosing films of contemporary importance and cinematic artistry, have The Rock in their list. It does not surprise me. Francois Truffaut once said that a good film is a bad film made better. Bay makes a bad film, then the script and the tolerance of his audience makes it - well - not good, but a Michael Bay masterpiece. I use that word lightly.