Review of The Rock (1996) by Gerardistheway — 12 Jan 2017

How could Michael Bay have fallen so far in just 20 years? Though it is largely a picture that doesn’t require much use of one’s brain, “The Rock” succeeds in its goal to entertain with frenetic action, likable leads, and one of the better screenplays Bay’s brought to the big screen (though that should probably tell you something). Hell, watching this he even seems like a promising, talented director, and he probably once was before delving into a world of big paydays in exchange for sh**ty acting and CGI overload.

The film opens in stereotypical revenge film fashion: with the main antagonist visiting the grave of a dead loved one. That would be General Frank Hummel (Ed Harris), a bona-fide American hero who’s seen at least three decades of war. Yet Hummel is upset by the US government’s failure to pay the families of Marines under his command slain on covert missions. His respect for his fellow servicemen follows over into a raid conducted by him and some of his men on a top-secret government storage facility, telling them “no casualties” (something he seems to forget later on in the film). When all is said and done, they’ve made off with 15 rockets armed with V-X gas (though not the normal kind, a scarier-looking version that melts one’s skin for some reason) and proceed to Alcatraz, where they hold a group of tourists hostage and threaten to kill the population of San Francisco unless $100 million is transferred from a military slush fund. Sent to stop him are John Mason (Sean Connery), a former SAS captain held prisoner by the US government for over 30 years without due process for stealing a microfilm filled with state secrets, and Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage), an FBI chemist who curiously works well under pressure but is terrified by the idea of having to do so. Once their Navy SEAL escort is killed by Hummel’s forces, Mason and Goodspeed must brave the treacherous island while avoiding the General’s men and disarming the rockets. From there, it takes only a knowledge of “Die Hard”-esque action movies to guess what’s going to happen from there.

Something that works against the film in my opinion is Hummel’s characterization, which is constantly in conflict with itself. He is depicted in the movie as having a strong sense of honor, which undercuts some of the more ruthless actions he attempts by making it seem like he will be unable to follow through on them. In what world is the man who threatens millions of lives with nerve gas-enhanced ballistic missiles the same man who tells a group of kids to leave the island he plans on taking over so that they’re not in danger? What ruthless terrorist threatens to gun down enemy soldiers if they don’t drop their weapons but then gives them plenty of time to surrender and tries to stop his own men from firing on them? Hummel seems like too good and honorable of a man to pull off the attack, and though Harris plays him well a little more ambiguity might have served the character well. Don’t get me wrong, though, this movie does possess its strengths. Connery brings dry wit to the character of John Mason that makes him resemble an elderly James Bond, Cage is good and even likable as the reluctant hero, Harris generates sympathy and concern for General Hummel, and the supporting cast ranging in star power from 80s action icons like Michael Biehn (Corporal Hicks in “Aliens”) in the role of a SEAL commander to others like William Forsythe (who I first discovered by watching the Rob Zombie flick “The Devil’s Rejects”) playing a more typical FBI Agent (interestingly enough, a lot of Forsythe’s previous roles had been as “tough guy” gangsters) occupy their allotted space well. Nothing about the story is particularly new, but it’s executed with enough vigor and energy to give the genre clichés contained within it fresh life. The film also provides a welcome change of pace in villains by switching gears from Russian or Iranian or wealthy megalomaniac terrorists to American terrorists. Quite the change, I know. But in an era when we are becoming more and more wary of the world around us and the people who inhabit it, a reminder that we can just as easily face enemies at home is both refreshing and a little frightening.

Michael Bay’s first film is probably his best, which should probably tell you something about the state of his career. If he could somehow return to this phase, the director who once showed promise and didn’t kill brain cells and acting careers with his movies, and start over, he could have possibly done some great things in cinema. But alas, what’s done is done and we’re left with only a hair lip reminder of what could have been.