Review of The Rock (1996) by Elias Z — 29 May 2010

Michael Bay is not a bad director. I'm not sure he's an especially GOOD director, because he so often shoots himself in the foot with his visual excesses and sheer lack of ambition - if you don't count aiming for bigger explosions and visual effects as ambition, that is.

I can certainly respect a philosophy that puts entertainment value over didactism but, sometimes, creative people try to use the "its just supposed to be a bit of dumb fun" bit to excuse poor work. The truth is, if you aim to inspire, to move, to excite, you will inevitably find yourself (perhaps much to your horror) entertaining. Arthouse films often simply referse this philosophy, aiming first to lecture us on the ways of the world and second to be entertaining. Its the same philosophy reversed, and it goes to show that there arent so much "smart films" and "dumb films", "important films and "shallow films", as just plain "good films" and "bad films".

What the hell does this have to do with The Rock? I'm getting there.

You see, Michael Bay's problem, as his career has progressed, has been his lack of ambition. He uses tried formulas, and formulas within those formulas, to give us the same thrills film after film. The problem is, the word "same" can not be synonymous with the word "thrill". The characters (or "characters") and plots (or "plots") in Bays films may have changed over the years, but one can't escape a certain feeling of "same-ness".

But before he stopped trying, and settled into a rhythm of self-satisfaction, Michael Bay was pretty cool. There's clearly a precocious need to please in his early films, and that ambition drove him to do some very fun work.

The Rock may be his best. You can tell how much our perception of film pacing has changed in the new millenium, because I've read plenty of reviews complaining of how fast and frantic The Rock was. Now it feels just right, moving quickly but never too quickly.

The first thing to note about the film is its cast. Seriously, what a fucking cast! Not only do you get Sean Connery, Nicholas Cage and Ed Harris doing top flight work, but you also get John Spencer, Claire Forlani, David Morse and Corporal Hicks filling out crucial supporting roles.

The characters may not be "developed" so much, but they are at least effectively set up so that we care about them.

Which brings me to my next point - this is by far the best-written of all Michael Bay's movies. The final pass of the script was written by none other than Aaron Sorkin, and large parts of the film bear his unmistakable stamp, especially with Cage's one-liner's and extended rants (how in the name of ZEUS' BUTTHOLE...did you get out of your cell?). Ed Harris' military commander dialogue feels like it could have come straight out of the mouth of Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men.

And Hummell is just a very good bad guy - driven and charismatic and intense, but also likeable and very sympathetic. You get why he's doing what he's doing. Its somewhat complex for a big, dumb action movie - a little ambitious, perhaps. Overall there's just a solid narrative core to the film that is very well-executed.

These elements combined with Bay's Pacing and visual style add up to one fun ride. Bay can shoot action. He doesn't always do it well (Transformers 2...bleh), but overall there's a good sense of clarity to his mayhem. People who complain about how fast he cuts need to watch Prince of Persia to see what bad action really looks like.

Anyway...this is a long review. I don't know why, I got caught up. Its a good movie and I just re-watched it on blu-ray and I was surprised by how well it holds up. If Michael Bay can one day stop and think for a few minutes, I think he might make another good movie. I don't think Transformers 3 is going to be it...