Director Report Card: John McTiernan (2003)

11. Basic

After the public rejection of “Last Action Hero,” John McTiernan bounced back with “Die Had with a Vengeance.” After “The 13th Warrior” bombed enormously, McTiernan had a hit with “The Thomas Crown Affair.” Even the best gamblers eventually run out of luck. Following the grotesque failure of “Rollerball,” another Hail Mary pass wasn’t coming McTiernan’s way. “Basic,” his final film as of now, grossed 42 million dollars against a 50 million dollar budget. The reviews were negative, the film’s poorly chosen title opening itself up to numerous lame puns. The film attempted to build hype by repairing John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson for the first time since “Pulp Fiction” but it was no use. “Basic” would be the latest entry in a line of failures for its director.

In Panama, a man emerges from the jungles, carrying another man on his back, and pursued by a third man. A training mission for a team of Army Rangers has gone horribly wrong. Half the team is dead, including the master sergeant. The survivor refuses to speak to Captain Julia Osborne, the assignee to the case. Instead, former Ranger and DEA agent Tom Hardy is brought in. The two are told conflicting stories about what happened in the jungle, uncovering a drug smuggling plot and a web of deception.

“Basic” is a mystery. If it wasn’t for the flashbacks and a few location changes, it would be a closed room mystery. The murders happen before the movie begins and there’s basically only one suspect. Yet determining what happened is not that simple. On a basic level, the story boils down to a series of interrogations, the two detectives trying to hash out the details, determine the lies, and figure out what actually happened. The use of conflicting flashbacks also means “Basic” owes a lot to Kurosawa’s “Rashomon,” still one of the most ripped-off movies in cinema history. Despite relying on some old and worn out story concepts, “Basic” presents its narrative in a mildly clever fashion.

That John Travolta and John McTiernan would work together is appropriate. Travolta has had even more wild ups-and-downs in his career as McTiernan has. By 2003, Travolta has burned through all the good will “Pulp Fiction” had earned him. This was post-“Battlefield Earth,” after all. It was also post-“Swordfish,” a minor hit that had reestablished Travolta’s box office clout to a degree. In “Basic,” Travolta treads out the old swagger he’s been coasting on for decades. He coos, snaps his fingers, speaks lots of exaggerated dialogue, and shimmies. If you have a tolerance for Travolta when he mugs, it’s not a bad performance. Just know before hand his work here is closer to “Broken Arrow” or “Michael” than “Pulp Fiction” or “Saturday Night Fever.”

Most of “Basic” is built upon the chemistry between Travolta and Connie Nielsen as Captain Osborne. Nielsen does fine on her own. As the only true outsider to the situation, Nielsen does a fine job of being confused. There are a number of moments, when she plays “bad cop” or cracks a phone book across a guy’s face, where she gets to display an impressive toughness. The weird, quasi-romance she has with Travolta is less organic. A handful of scenes are devoted to their flirting. Whenever these moments come up, it feels out of place. Travolta is always slightly withdrawn while Nielsen seems uncertain of his loyalties.

Despite being sold on John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson’s pairing, the performers only have two scenes together. Jackson plays the abusive drill sergeant, the apparent victim of the central murder. Jackson is treading ground previously touched upon by R. Lee Ermey in “Full Metal Jacket” and many other military flicks. Unlike Travolta’s slightly tired shtick, watching Jackson scream petty abuse at people is always entertaining. The scenes of him berating the soldiers under him are especially amusing, making Jackson’s character into a perfectly hatable villain.

The meat of “Basic” is devoted to the flashbacks. The heavy use of voice over narration provides continuity between the memories and the scenes set in the present. The events follow a general outline, with small variances. The flashbacks are set primarily out in the rain while all the current scenes are inside. That’s some decent visual short hand, so the audience can keep up. The details vary between renditions. In one version, the victim is murdered with a grenade. In another, he’s shot in the back. In yet another, his shooter acts in self defense. The mental homework of figuring out which flashback presents the true events, or at least which one is more true than the others, is what’s most interesting about “Basic.”

The most compelling parts of the flashbacks revolve around the soldiers turning on one another. In “Basic,” the training missions meant to build camaraderie between the soldiers accomplishes the opposite. The men turn against each other, distrust causing their mutual macho aggression to boil over. In the first flashback, Jackson relentlessly torments a poor trainee. In another, the men all turn on one another, all but three dying in a storm of gunshots. The next time events play, the order of deaths is the same but the motive behind the shoot-out is different. The violence is sudden and effective. Perhaps the most shocking plot turns concerns a character suddenly vomiting up blood, dying unexpectedly. When focused on hard men turning on each other, and the rough ways they die, “Basic” becomes compelling entertainment.

However, even these effective moments have a problem. None of the soldiers in “Basic” are very distinct from one another. Out of the entire group, only two really stand out. Taye Diggs garners audience sympathy as Pike, the trainee who receives the worst of Jackson’s abuse. During the first flashback, you feel especially bad for him. After struggling to climb a hill, he’s mock by the sergeant and forced to do it again. Giovanni Ribisi, as the bed-ridden and homosexual Lieutenant Kendall, gives an eccentric performance. While he’s unable to define the character beyond his quirks, at least Ribisi is memorable. The other cast members quickly fade from memory. Is that Tim Daly as the Colonel heading the investigation or was it Harry Connick Jr.? No, Connick  was the shifty doctor. Brian Van Holt as the accused soldier, Dash Mihok as the redneck sergeant, Cristian de la Fuente as the token female… They all tend to blur into one another.

At the beginning of his career, John McTiernan’s visual sense was super sharp, providing memorable, dynamic, and exciting action. The further into this retrospective I go, the more disappointed I become with McTiernan’s work. “Basic” is characterized by a lot of rain. The movie is set during a hurricane. This could have been an oppretunity to generate some moodiness. Instead, the story just feels dreary. Worst yet, McTiernan’s action direction has totally devolve. The action sequence in “Basic” are rushed and shaky. A certain chaotic quality was intended, I’m sure. Any impact this might have had on the audience is lost, as we’re more concerned with the hazy visual sense. To go from the awesome action of “Predator” to the indistinct shoot-outs here is very disheartening.

As is typical of mysteries like this, “Basic” has a few subplots that seem unimportant at first before becoming pertinent details. This time, it’s a drug smuggling operation among the soldiers. Who was obtaining the drugs, who was manufacturing them, and who was shipping them are all questions raised and answered. The script doesn’t make you care about this stuff. At least, I didn’t care. By it’s last act, “Basic” collapses in on itself, a number of story lines coming to a head, all sloppily colliding with each other. When the murder is finally pinned on somebody, when a clear answer is provided, that made me happy.

Yet “Basic” isn’t done with you. In its final minutes, the movie piles on more and more plot twist. Oh wait, the script considers, maybe this is how it went! The loyalties and character development the film spent the last eighty minutes on are thrown to the wind. Before the credits roll, yet another twist is tossed out. This final revelation changes the context of everything that came before. The audience feels cheated, like their time was wasted. There’s a sense that events don’t connected. The screenwriter has been jerking us around, simply laying the track for a lame plot twist, a weak attempt to fool us.

“Basic” isn’t without its moment. Travolta and Jackson do their usual tricks but they still manage to amuse. Connie Nielsen gives a good performance, making the most of what she’s given. One or two sequence sticks out, impressing with some sudden violence or a flash of empathy. Before it’s over, “Basic” disappears up its own ass, becoming a collection of convoluted story turns and dramatic reveals. The result is a film that doesn’t hang together totally, that frustrates too often. But let’s look on the sunny side. At least it's better than “Rollerball.” [Grade: C]

You don't need me to tell you what happened to John McTiernan next. In 2006, McTiernan was arrested, implemented in the wire taping case involving private detective Anthony Pellicano. The director ultimately went to jail for the crime of lying to an FBI agent. The scandal destroyed McTiernan's career. Released from prison in 2014, McTiernan has tried to get a few projects rolling. An aerial combat film called "Warbirds," meant to star John Travolta, seemed ready to go at one point but has yet to materialize. He's most recently been linked to a World War II thriller called "Killing the Butcher." The director also really wants to make a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair." I'm rooting for him but it's currently unknown if McTiernan will ever have the comeback he arguably deserves.

This Report Card may be wrapped up but I'm not quite done at the moment. Expect a couple more reviews in the next few days, linked to some of the franchise I've talked about recently. There's also a new Bangers n' Mash episode in the editing bay. As always, see you soon.

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (2002)

10. Rollerball

I was dreading this one. The original “Rollerball” is a true cult classic, the definitive death sport movie, a film that is equally self-serious and campy. I love that movie. The remake of “Rollerball” from 2002 is an entirely different beast. Like seemingly everything John McTiernan made since the early nineties, production was troubled. Following test screenings, the film was re-cut and many scenes were re-shot. Filmed as an R-rated movie, it was hastily re-edited for a PG-13 rating, awkwardly cutting out the blood and nudity. Originally slotted for a summer release date in 2001, “Rollerball” was shipped off to the frozen month of next February. Among heinous reviews, it naturally bombed. Unlike some of McTiernan’s other failures, no reevaluation of “Rollerball” is forthcoming. This is a startlingly bad movie, an epic fiasco.

Like the original “Rollerball,” the remake follows an athlete named Jonathan. In the near future of 2005, a new extreme sport is sweeping the world. Rollerball, a goal keeping game played on rollerblades and motorcycles, has become hugely popular overseas. Jonathan, an extreme sports junkie, is talked into joining a Rollerball league by his friend, Ridley. Both are in over their heads. Not only is the game violent, the managers are blood-thirsty and psychotic. Soon, Jonathan and his Russian love interest Aurora are targeted for extermination by the people who control the money.

The worst kind of remakes miss the points of the originals. “Rollerball” doesn’t just miss the point of the original, it seems to be entirely beyond grasping the point. Say what you will about 1975’s “Rollerball,” a very flawed film, but it was ambitious. Multiple heady themes were examined within the movie. Satire of sports mania, satire of corporate ownership, how societies control the masses, the worth of a single man, the cost of violence, even some environment issues were bouncing around inside Norman Jewison’s original. The remake dismisses all of these issues. There are no deeper thoughts in the movie’s head. “Shallow” doesn’t due it justice. “Stupefyingly brainless” is more accurate.

Before 1975’s “Rollerball” set out to address any bigger ideas, it made sure the titular sport was easy to follow and exciting to watch. The remake needlessly junks up the game. The simple ring-shaped rink is transformed into a figure eight. This shape creates narrow corridors, which quickly causes the players to bottle-neck. Multiple ramps that serve no practical purposes are added. The motorcycles now have huge flags trailing behind them, which you’d think would be a serious issue in a game like this. The goals are elevated into the air. They’re only reachable by leaping into the “rabbit holes,” glass tubes built above the rink. In an extremely stupid touch, the goals explode into sparks when a ball is successfully thrown into them. That this version of Rollerball could ever become popular seems impossible. The game is difficult to follow and complicated for no clear reason.

One of the original’s strength was the sci-fi dystopia it presented. As ridiculous as it was on the surface, the movie sold the world with conviction. The viewer believed such a society could exist. Since the remake is completely disinterested in exploring any sociological ideas, the story is moved into nearly the present day. There are some very minor, inconsistent sci-fi concepts at play. The rest of the world seems to be falling into disarray. Advanced satellite technology allows for “instant global ratings,” an improbable concept. The fashion is cartoonish, suggesting some future climate. Yet the United States seems entirely the same, unaffected by the crumbling world around it. The cars and vehicles are modern. The contrast of sci-fi elements against an otherwise normal society confuses the viewer. Nobody sat down and figured out how any of this would be possible.

Let’s talk some more about those costumes. In Norman Jewison’s “Rollerball,” the players wore football helmets, shoulder pads, spiked gauntlets, and protective gear on their arms and legs. The gloves and skates aside, they were basically dressed like football players. The players in the remake are dressed like characters from a Saturday morning cartoon show. A bad one. Here’s some of the shit the players wear: A tutu. A cone around the neck. Complex body armor that covers most of the body. Elaborate masks that look like a statue’s face, an animal head, or a knight’s helmet. One player wears a large mask shaped like a jester’s head. Part of his get-up includes a puppet jester on his shoulder, to mock opposing players with. None of the above is practical sports wear. The costumes in “Rollerball” make the get-ups of professional wrestlers seem subtle and restrained.

In the past, even John McTiernan’s weakest films usually had some cool action or a decently directed visual moment. I’m not sure if McTiernan or the re-editing is to blame but the action in “Rollerball” is hysterically bad. The sequences set inside the rollerball rink are chaotically edited, to the point of incoherence. That’s not even the worst part. Any time somebody is struck in this movie, they go flying through the air. At least six times, a player is tossed head-over-heels from even the weakest of blows. At one point, one of the spinning victims is then hit a second time as they’re spinning. It looks absurd and got a huge laugh out of me every time.

Out of the myriad of bad decisions made during the production of “Rollerball,” one mistake stands above all the hours. The parvum opus of poor choices appears about an hour into the film. Certain their boss is going to kill them, Jonathan and Ridley make a night time escape across the desert. The entire sequence is shot in night vision. The scene is not short, running for about ten minutes. For all that time, we see the characters in sickly green and glowing yellow. This does not make any sense. Nobody is wearing night vision goggles nor are the events being observed through specialized cameras. This aspect alone is laughable but “Rollerball” is not done topping itself in ridiculousness. An airplane – I don’t remember where the airplane came from – flies through a wire fence. As the plane crashes through, a cartoony “boing!” noise is heard. A minute later, the movie repeats the same goofy sound effect. Is “Rollerball” pulling my chain? Is it suppose to be funny? Or is the film simply that badly made?

The acting in “Rollerball” is laughably bad. To be fair to the cast, it’s not like they had much of a script to work with. On the other hand, at least two of the main characters are played by actors with questionable resumes. 2002’s “Rollerball” was released during the brief period when Hollywood was trying to make Chris Klein happen. Klein looks like an overgrown boy. He never delivers any of his lines with conviction or self-assurances. A cocksure smile is the best he has to offer. LL Cool J, a dubious thespian even on a good day, plays Ridley. The rapper’s attempts at serious emoting are laughable. Mr. Cool J seems totally out of his element. Rebecca Romijn, still sporting a “Stamos” at the time, is hassled with a ridiculous semi-Russian accent. Of the major players, she probably gives the best performance. In other words, her acting is broad and laughable.

Crappy movies like this have, in the past, have provided talented actors a chance to overact in bad guy roles. I had hoped we get a hammy, enjoyably over-the-top performance out of Jean Reno in this. No such luck. Reno twists his natural French accent into something unrecognizable. His facial make-up extends his eyebrows, making him look like Ming the Merciless. Reno overacts, for sure, but there’s no joy in it. If “Rollerball” has any element of satire, it deals with the villain’s plot. The film seems to be taking target at sports managers that do not care for their players’ welfare. If this was intentional at all, the attempt at commentary is as facile as everything else about the film.

John McTiernan’s movies usually have pretty good soundtracks. Alan Silvestri’s legendary “Predator” score, Michael Kamen’s incorporation of “Ode to Joy” in “Die Hard,” Bill Conti’s smooth jazz orchestrations in “The Thomas Crown Affair:” All of its good stuff. Since “Rollerball” seeks to sully McTiernan’s good name in every way, it’s soundtrack is also terrible. “Intrusive’ doesn’t properly describe the use of music. Obnoxious Nu Metal blares during practically every minute of the thankfully short run time. Even when the likes of P.O.D. or Hardknox aren’t yelling on the soundtrack, a band accompanies every Rollerball game. At one point, a female performer lip-syncs to Rob Zombie. At another point, Slipknot – You remember that shitty Korn knock-off with the Halloween masks? – actually appear in the film. All I can assume is that “Rollerball” was desperate to appeal to mall-dwelling teens with indiscriminate taste. Many of these bands were popular with the assholes I went to middle school with.

Truthfully, there’s so much wrong with “Rollerball” that many staggering elements are included seemingly for the hell of it. During the first game, a Faulknerian man-child plays on Klein’s Rollerball team. His death is what signals the heroes that something is afoot. I seriously doubt someone with developmental disabilities would be allowed to play in a contact sport, much less one as brutal as Rollerball. An obnoxious ring announcer yells into a microphone during every game. He’s played by Paul Heyman, a former pro-wrestler. His bravado just adds another loud, obnoxious aspect to this misbegotten movie. At various points, the film cuts to footage from Bollywood musicals or Japanese variety shows. It’s senseless.

“Rollerball” is astonishingly bad. It’s preposterously bad. The remake of “Rollerball” is a film so incredibly miscalculated, you can hardly believe it’s real. “Rollerball” is so bad, its director went to jail as a result of the film. Movies are hard to make. Many people, lots of money and lots of time are necessary to make a movie. Hundreds of people worked on 2002’s “Rollerball.” The final product suggest that they all made horrible mistakes. That a major studio could release something this poorly assembled is baffling. I could go on but it’ll be just more ranting. John McTiernan’s “Rollerball” may be the worst big budget movie I’ve ever seen. [Grade: F]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1998) Part 2

9. The Thomas Crown Affair

“The 13th Warrior” was obviously an ordeal for McTiernan. After such a difficult production, and such disastrous box office gross, perhaps the action director was looking to change gears. His next project, released the same month but filmed afterwards, would feature few explosions and even fewer bullet wounds. 1968’s “The Thomas Crown Affair” is remember more for its theme song and the antics of its leading man than anything in the actual movie, making it a good candidate for a remake. Starring a still-hot Pierce Brosnan and riding a wave of positive reviews, the thriller gave John McTiernan’s career yet another shot in the arm. Though the success would admittedly be short lived, “The Thomas Crown Affair” is probably the best film from the last act of McTiernan’s career.

Business exec Thomas Crown seemingly lives a charmed life. He’s rich, handsome, and smart enough to out-think his professional rivals at every turn. Yet Crown craves something more, excitement and a worthy enemy. Strictly for his own amusement, he steals a priceless painting from the museum. While the heist baffles the cops, insurance investigator Catherine Banning quickly realizes that Crown is behind the theft. While trailing him, Catherine and Crown begin a hot and heavy affair. Even while they’re this close, the couple play each other, trying to decipher who is deceiving who.

“The Thomas Crown Affair,” coming at the end of the decade, is technically a member of that most nineties of all genres: The erotic thriller. Despite featuring some high-gloss sex scenes (and some dated technology), the film actually feels kind of timeless. Showing its sixties roots, the film actually belongs to a much older tradition. It hearkens back to a time when the charm of good-looking movie stars were enough to make a hit. Where half the fun is figuring out where the loyalties of the characters lie. In that sense, the movie has something in common with “The Hunt for Red October” and a few other movies that McTiernan made in the past.

As James Bond, Pierce Brosnan never really clicked for me. Though he was a solid action performer, Brosnan never seemed to grasp the comedic or romantic sides of the characters. Maybe it was the scripts. In “The Thomas Crown Affair,” Brosnan is way cooler than he ever was as Bond. From the first scene, he’s shown as a man of secrets, with complex motivations only known to him. The script depends on him immediately charming Catherine and, by extension, the audience. With his seductive smile and high-fashion life style, Brosnan oozes a sense of smooth cool. The film unlocks the suave charm that was always hiding inside Brosnan, under utilized by the demands of his big franchise.

Crown may get top billing but the movie may actually be more about Rene Russo’s Banning. In her first scene, she’s introduced in a dress slit up to the thigh, revealing her garter. Russo is obviously presented as a sex symbol from the beginning. And Russo is incredibly glamorous and sensual. The film parades her in a number of revealing outfits, like a clinging black dress or knee high leather boots. Yet Russo isn’t just eye candy. Her character is very intelligent, always pursuing leads and loose threads on her own. She is, after all, the one who fingers Crown for the crime as soon as she sees him.

Brosnan and Russo are fine on their own. The chemistry they share is what truly elevates the film. From the moment they meet, it’s immediately apparent how attracted the two are to each other. Their banter is well executed, Banning knowing what Crown is up to. The sexual tension, during their meal together, is almost overbearing. Soon afterwards, the two succumb to their mutual passion. The sex scene is long, at least by mainstream standards. The two consummate their relationship on just about every surface in Thomas’ home. Though featuring nudity from both actors, the sequence or the others like it never come off as exploitative. The movie’s sensual tone is such that, if the two leads weren't humping soon enough, the audience would’ve been frustrated. The steamy yet tasteful love scenes match the film’s fashionable tone.

Of course, “The Thomas Crown Affair” just isn’t about its characters’ sex lives. A game of deception is central to the story. We know Crown stole the painting. What he did next isn’t entirely clear. The business of paintings hidden under other paintings, switcharoos and double crosses, forgers and copies, aren’t horribly important. What’s more compelling is whether or not Thomas is being honest with Catherine. Soon, another woman enters his life, and Russo wonders if she’s being played. The true identity of this mystery woman is revealed eventually. What she represents, the dishonesty Crown propagates, is more pertinent. Up until the very end, we don’t see the entirety of Crown’s con. Banning doesn’t know if she’s ahead of him or being pulled along. The misdirection represents a whole lot of plot, the details varying. The emotions the cast feel is what truly keeps the viewer invested.

“The Thomas Crown Affair” isn’t exactly an action movie. Yet both of the heists play out like action sequences. The first has a slow build-up. A group of men climb out of a statue of a horse. There’s wires to be cut and security systems to be tinkered with. Avoiding the infrared cameras by raising the heat in the room is a clever idea. After that slow burn of a start, the heist explodes in an unexpected direction at the end. A helicopter circles overhead. One of the museum employees whips an electric cattle prod out. Most excitingly, Brosnan leaps into action. He rolls under a grate, grabs the painting, and rolls back out. It’s pretty cool.

After that dynamite opening, “The Thomas Crown Affair” turns its focus to the main pair’s romance. However, for the climax, an even bigger heist is performed. Though the police identify Crown by his bowler hat, the museum is soon filled with other people wearing the same style of hat. (This is a cute tie-in with the painting being stolen.) A suitcase, full of prints of the same painting, is spilled on the floor. A trio of smoke bombs are tossed into a room, exploding and setting off the sprinklers. As the water comes down, paint melts away, another clever reveal. Crown makes a daring get-away, leaving the cops flustered and confused.

Contributing to the excitement factor of both heists is McTiernan’s typical masterful direction. The opening scene, which cuts between Crown in the board room and in the museum, moves at a rocket’s pace. The camera never slows down during this scene. But McTiernan knows when to leap around and knows when to hold still. During Thomas and Catherine’s dinner, he pauses to focus on their faces, starring into each others' eyes. Though famous for his hyper-active camera work and explosive plots, the director is smart enough to trust his actors, knowing their chemistry can keep these scenes afloat.

Brosnan and Russo are clearly the stars of the show. Yet there are some plum supporting parts. As the government agent leading the investigation, Denis Leary gets a showy part. He unsuccessfully pursues Russo. His attempts to woo her are likably awkward. During a long car drive, we get a peak into Leary’s personal life and the failed marriage that deeply affected him. Faye Dunaway, who starred in the original film, has a small role as Crown’s psychiatrist. These scenes are mostly a framing device, given us a peak into Crown’s motivations. While not exactly necessary, Dunaway has an amusing rapport with Brosnan.

Supporting the film is an eccentric soundtrack. Bill Conti provides the music, McTiernan reuniting with the composer for the first time since “Nomads.” The jazz score gives a unique energy to many of the scenes. During the first heist, an up-beat song plays, keeping the audience excited. Modern and classic jazz songs reappear throughout the movie, reinforcing the sense of cool that is so vital to the film's success. Naturally, the remake reprises “The Windmills of Your Mind.” An instrumental, jazz version plays during a dance scene. A pretty drippy cover, courtesy of Sting, plays over the end credits. Over all, “The Thomas Crown Affair” is nearly as interesting to listen to as it is to watch.

The plot may very well be rubbish. The charisma of the leading actors, engaging direction, exciting editing, and an intoxicating atmosphere of slickness and sexiness prevents the viewer from noticing. Brosnan and Russo are a delight to watch. The film moves along quickly, making for a fun viewing experience. Perhaps John McTiernan should have stepped outside of the action genre more often. Pretty people having sexy sex in exotic locations: It counts for something. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1999) Part 1

8. The 13th Warrior

By 1999, John McTiernan was not the hit-maker he was once. Though he had bounced back with the third “Die Hard” movie, the stink of “Last Action Hero” still hung over his career. His reputation was about to take another blow. “The 13th Warrior” began production as “Eaters of the Dead.” Based on a novel by best-selling author Michael Crichton and headlined by proven star Antonio Banderas, the film was initially budgeted at 85 million. During filming, the budget ballooned over 100 million. Feedback from test screenings were negative, necessitating further re-shoots. McTiernan was let go from his own movie, with Crichton shooting a new ending. When the film opened, it only grossed 60 million, making it one of the biggest flops in cinema history. Did “The 13th Warrior” deserve to bomb so hard?

Arab poet (and real historical figure) Ahmad ibn Fadlan is gingerly exiled from his country following an affair with a nobleman’s wife. Assigned as an ambassador to the far north, Fadlan soon falls in with a band of Norse warriors. The vikings are summoned to protect a kingdom under siege by strange attackers. A fortune teller insists that a 13 men go on the journey and one of them must not be a Norseman. Fadlan joins the strangers on a quest into foreign territory were they face down an army of seemingly inhuman monsters, a primitive race that eats the flesh of men.

Back in high school, my English class read “Beowulf.” Most of my classmates hated the assignment but I loved it. A bad-ass Viking warrior fighting monsters and a dragon was right in my wheelhouse. Like most cinematic adaptation of the ancient story, “The 13th Warrior” approaches the text from a revisionist angle. The film tells the “true” events behind “Beowulf.” The titular hero is re-named Buliwyf. The monster Grendel becomes an entire tribe of monstrous men, called “Wendol.” The dragon’s role in the story is replaced with a last wave of attackers. By telling the Norse legend through the eyes of an outsider, a man that brings the written word to a verbal culture, the famous story is framed in a new context.

The same story element also makes “The 13th Warrior” a culture clash story, of sorts. At first, Ahmad doesn’t even speak the same language as his brothers in arms. The Norseman mispronounce his name as “Ebn.” They mock him as an outsiders. Their ways are, similarly, strange to him. They compare his smaller horse to a dog and laugh as his inability to wield a giant Viking sword. Yet Ibn shows how fast and agile his horse can be. He sharpens the bulky broadsword into a more-to-his-liking scimitar. By the end, the warriors have accepted the Arab as one of their own. It’s not a novel story but it is an effective one.

Even when I was in school, “Beowulf’ was examined less for its story and more for its linguistic importance. “The 13th Warrior” incorporates this element into the material as well. As a poet, Ibn is frequently writing. Buliwyf has never seen anything like this before. He asks the Arab how he can turn sounds into symbols. If you can overlook the factual error there – the Norse alphabet dates back to at least 200 AD – it’s an interesting display of how ideas transfer from culture to culture. Ibn brings Muslim belief and ideas to a culture previously unaware of them. We tend to think of the past as stationary. Yet cultures were interacting all the time, trading new ideas and concepts. “The 13th Warrior” does a solid job of illustrating this.

As a star vehicle for Antonio Banderas, the film plays up many of the actor’s appealing attributes. Despite the obvious disconnect of a Spaniard playing an Arab, Banderas is well suited to the part. As the story begins, Fadlan is an intellectual. This puts him at odds with his traveling companions. As an experienced Latin lover, Banderas has no problem with this material. By this point in his career, Antonio had already starred in swashbucklers like “Mask of Zorro” and bad-ass action flicks like “Desperado.” As Ibn develops into a warrior, Banderas gets to show off those skills as well. Even while hacking through monsters, he gets to maintain that erudite edge, making him more than just a typical action hero.

As solid as Banderas is in the lead, the supporting cast is less defined. The film makes little attempts to distinguish the other twelve warriors. Vladimir Kulich has a striking physicality as Buliwyf. Kulich’s glaring eyes come in handy when playing up the character’s mythic importance. Dennis Storhoi as Herger, the Viking who can speak Latin, is Ibn’s earliest friend. As the story progresses, the two become even closer. As for the other members of the clan? There’s an especially burly one and an archer. Beyond that? I’ve got nothing. I know thirteen is a lot of characters but the film could’ve gone a little further to develop the rest of the cast.

As a monster fan, “The 13th Warrior’s” treatment of Grendel is especially interesting to me. The singular monster is re-imagined as a small army. The Wendol are presented as a still lingering clan of Neanderthals, with wider noses and thicker brows. They dress in bear skins, their faces hidden by heavy hoods. They were giant claws on their hands, easily slashing their enemies apart. Though the Wendol are not literal monsters, their behavior is still certainly monstrous. They slink in and out of the shadows. In one scene, an attacker easily tears a man’s head from his shoulders. Their lair is decorated with the skulls of their dead prisoners. Most macabre is their habit of eating the flesh of those they defeat. Though you can’t overstate the appeal of a giant monster, the Wendol is an interesting variation on the classic archetype.

Perhaps another reason “The 13th Warrior” flopped is because it was a big and bloody, R-rated action movie in the age of CGI spectacle. By 1999, that kind of entertainment was already on the way out. Early on, Buliwyf cleaves a man’s chest open, spraying blood across the room. For the first hour, the action in “The 13th Warrior” successfully escalates. When the Wendol attacks the mead hall, there’s a chaotic flash of blades through the darkened room. Heads are removed, limbs are severed, and bodies are run through. The tone of that sequence successfully recalls the horror movies McTiernan got his start with. A duel between two men features lots of shattering shields and dynamic tumbling, concluding with another swift decapitation. The middle of the movie receives a bold exclamation point when the Wendol attack the Viking fort. There’s impalement, arrows and spears flying everywhere. The fire silhouetted against the black night gives the sequence a dramatic presentation.

As an epic action story, John McTiernan’s directorial trademarks are present and accounted for. The camera rarely stands still, smoothly surveying the action sequences. Blades and arrows are followed as they fly through the air. Once or twice, the blurry quality that showed up in “Die Hard with a Vengeance” appears again. McTiernan’s moving camera makes the action scenes tense and the quieter moments serene. Another attribute of the director, the use of foreign languages, also appears. Much of the Vikings’ dialogue goes without subtitles, at first. The transfer of languages is literally visualized when Ibn, after watching the Vikings talk for an evening, picks up on their speech. McTiernan utilizes a similar trick to what he did in “The Hunt for Red October.” At first, they speak Norse. Slowly, recognizable words slip into their conversation. Finally, as the camera focuses on their mouths, they start speaking English. Clever beats like that is something McTiernan rarely gets credit for.

After more than an hour of solid action and amusing culture clash antics, “The 13th Warrior” builds to its apparent climax. Buliwyf, Ibn, and the other men sneak into the Wendol’s lair. There’s an exciting sequence where they swing under a waterfall. A battle among a field of bones is another high-light. However, how “The 13th Warrior” handles Grendel’s Mother in an underwhelming fashion. A female elder dips her claw in some snake venom. She dances around Buliwyf for a minute, scratching him once, before he cuts her head off. The story seemingly ends there and, in McTiernan’s original cut, maybe it did. Instead, an extraneous extra act is tagged on. A sick Buliwyf and the remaining men take on the Wendol army. This battle only lasts a few minutes as well. Both of these elements wraps up an otherwise satisfying film on a slightly sour note.

The reason “The 13th Warrior” seemingly went so hideously over-budget, besides the re-shoots, is its extravagant production design. But you can’t say the money isn’t on the screen. “The 13th Warrior” looks great. The film’s world is extremely detailed. The villages, mead halls, and forts are full of minutiae. The mud, grit, and natural wood of the environment sets the film in a clear time and place. Aside from the awesome production design, the film also features a pretty good score. Graeme Revell composed the original score, which was rejected by second director Michael Crichton. Jerry Goldsmith wrote the music featured in the final film. Though I’m sure Revell did a good job, Goldsmith’s score is fantastic. The themes are rousing, recalling a classic sense of cinematic adventure.

McTiernan’s original vision of “The 13th Warrior” hasn’t emerged and it’s unlikely it ever will. The version released to theaters isn’t a masterpiece. However, it’s still a solidly entertaining film, a satisfying mixture of historical epic and low fantasy adventure. A movie like this probably never would’ve become the huge hit the studio needed it to be. But if it had been brought in for a lot less money, I suspect it probably would’ve done alright at the box office. Not quite an overlooked gem or a cult classic, “The 13th Warrior” is still a fun way to spend an evening. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1996)

7. Die Hard with a Vengeance

After a high-profile flop like “Last Action Hero,” John McTiernan retreated to the safety of a proven franchise. The director skipped the second chapter of the “Die Hard” series in favor of “The Hunt for Red October.” His reputation stinging from a costly disappointment, a third John McClane adventure was what he needed. “Die Hard with a Vengeance” continued the franchise’s popularity. Unexpectedly, it was also quite good. For a while, I even considered part three the best of the series, which is not an exactly uncommon opinion. I’ve softened a bit on the third chapter a little over the years but the film still dies hard.

In the heat of a NYC summer, John McClane is summoned by a villain. Hung-over and newly estranged from Holly, the cop is targeted by a new criminal mastermind. Calling himself “Simon,” the man has placed bombs all over the city and demands McClane play humiliating, deadly games. Paired with a Harlem pawn shop owner, John races to complete Simon’s tasks and save innocent lives. The vengeance comes in when John discovers that Simon is Hans Gruber’s brother. And using terrorist activity as a cover for bank heists is apparently a family tradition.

By 1996, the “Die Hard on an X” action troupe was well played out. You know the sub-genre was dead because the same year saw the release of “Skyscraper,” which was “Die Hard” starring Anna Nicole Smith. Anyway, “Die Hard with a Vengeance” smartly toys with the series’ formula. Johne McClane and the enemies he fight are no longer confined to a single location. Hero and villain alike are given a whole city to play in. John isn’t going it alone either, as he’s given a sidekick. Yet screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh knows what to keep. The bad guy is, once again, a thief posing as a terrorist. In order to avoid the blatant repetition of “Die Hard 2,” it’s personal between John and the bad guy this time. Starting life as an original script called “Simon Says” – which was also considered for a “Lethal Weapon” sequel – the film still feels like a “Die Hard” movie without blatantly copying the original.

Except, perhaps, in one aspect. At the end of “Die Harder,” John and Holly had patched their relationship up. The two were actively married again. At the start of “Die Hard with a Vengeance,” Mr. McClane has seen better days. He’s living alone again, back in New York, and has developed a drinking habit. Is that a betrayal of the character’s development or just proof that John and Holly simply couldn’t make it work? John’s humanity is also starting to fade, as he only gets the shit really beaten out of him once or twice. Either way, Bruce Willis remains entertaining in the part. He’s an expert at deploying one-liners and sarcastic asides. Like whispering corrections to the police chief, concerning his drinking problem. Or making chit-chat about Santa Claus before nailing some baddies. Even when hung-over, John McClane’s normal man charm is maintained.

Perhaps realizing the established series formula and Bruce Willis’ charms were not enough to further the franchise, “With a Vengeance” adds elements from another stalwart action sub-genre. Joining John on his adventure is Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus Carver. Since McClane is now an action hero, giving him a normal human sidekick was a smart decision. Zeus is frequently incredulous at the crazy circumstances he winds up in. Per the conventions of the buddy movie, the two hate it each other at first. John accuses Zeus of being racist against white people. Zeus takes every oppretunity to call his partner on his bullshit. By the end, they’re laughing and joking around. Samuel L. Jackson has a lot of fun as a comedic straight man, screaming profanity with a sweaty face.

You could boil the third film down to a catchy log line: “Die Hard in a City.” Unlike the same shit happening a second time in an airport, moving the action into the city totally changes the dynamic. Willis and Jackson have to navigate a crowded New York City. One sequence has the heroes delayed by a street choked with taxi cabs. This forces John to think his way out of crazier situations. The nature of the script also keeps the characters moving. John and Zeus are racing from one objective to the next, always against the clock and an unpredictable adversary. This keeps the tension up, the action continuously escalating, while forcing the cast to use their brains.

After taking a break in “Medicine Man” and “Last Action Hero,” John McTiernan’s directorial trademarks return along with John McClane. The filmmaker’s camera rarely sits still in “With a Vengeance.” While running through a subway car, the camera follows behind Bruce. During a car chase, the camera is attached to the whirling vehicles. Even during the slower moments, McTiernan keeps us moving, the camera prowling around corners or up buildings. Some times, the action is so frantic that things get a little shaky. Yet even when bouncing with energy, McTiernan’s direction remains focused and clear. The way “Die Hard with a Vengeance” is shot is engineered to keep the audience excited.

Considering both previous films featured explosive action, the third “Die Hard” movie has a high bar to clear. Luckily, the sequel is up to the task. McClane running through the subway train car, grabbing the bomb, is a suspenseful scene that concludes with a big ass explosion. A combination car chase/shoot out works really well, featuring shattering glass and twisting fenders. It too ends fantastically, with John and Zeus’ car flipping through the air. A similar moment has the duo climbing across a cord above a moving boat. Sticking with series’ expectations, John still narrowly avoids a massive explosion, this time leaping into the Hudson River from the booming ship.

My favorite action beat involves an underground tunnel filling with water. A wave races towards the cop, the truck he’s driving slowly being consumed by the liquid. A daring escape involves a well-place grate and a tunnel. The conclusion includes a big ol’ explosion too. That’s cool stuff but the smaller scale moments in “With a Vengeance” works a little better for me. Such as John struggling in an elevator, reaching for a gun while surrounded by attackers. Keeping a tradition that started with Karl the Kraut alive, the hero also gets a close-quarters fight scene with the bad guy’s main henchman. It’s the only time John really gets beaten in this one, tossed around and whipped with chains. I appreciate the film including that.

By moving the “Die Hard” franchise into the buddy cop genre, the third entry in the series features more humor than either of its predecessors. Much of it comes from the interaction between Zeus and McClane. Their first scene together, of John surviving Simon’s racist prank in Harlem, provides some jittery laughs. Later, the two have to reach a pay phone. A fat woman stands in their way. That moment concludes with both leaping away from a reportedly booby trapped trash can, which is another cruel prank from Simon. The movie makes great use of Samuel L. Jackson’s comedic abilities. His repeated insistence that John is racist, accusing him of stereotypical behavior, pays off nicely. Such as a discussion about hot-wiring a car or picking a lock. The two play off each well, when forced to measure out gallons of water. Considering the story is quite tense, the humor balances the tone out.

The biggest way “Die Hard 2” trailed behind the original was in the villain category. Perhaps aware of this, the second sequel introduces a new member of the Gruber family. Simon Gruber is nearly as awesome a bad guy as his brother. He’s equally cruel, joyously playing games of chances with other people’s lives. Both brothers are master manipulators, toying with an entire city as part of his ploy. Simon spends most of the film as a voice on over the phone, mocking his enemy with evil glee. The seal on Simon’s status as a worthy opponent was the decision to cast an actor nearly as awesome as Alan Rickman. Jeremy Irons digs into each line he’s given with calculated delight. His best moment occurs when McClane and Gruber discuss how big of an asshole Hans was. Irons is a worthy successor to the mantle of “Die Hard” villain, making the third film a memorable experience.

If “Die Hard with a Vengeance” has any obvious flaw, it’s that the script maybe spreads itself too thin. The movie frequently cuts away from John and Zeus’ adventure. We see Gruber and his men sneak into the Federal Reserve, cutting down the guards in their way. Many scenes are focused on the NYPD attempting to protect Gruber’s potential victims. While the scenes outside Nakatomi Plaza in the original were directly involved with John’s adventures, these scenes in “With a Vengeance” feel a little too disconnected from the hero and villain’s conflict. The supporting cast, which includes solid actors like Graham Greene and Collen Camp, are fine. It’s not really a flaw but, with these sequences cut down, “Die Hard 3” would’ve been an even tighter machine.

It’s not really fair to say “Die Hard with a Vengeance” is better than the original “Die Hard.” It’s not as clever, fresh, or visceral as that first movie. However, it’s still an extremely exciting sequel. Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jeremy Irons all work excellently together. McTiernan’s direction remains sharp. The action is big, bold and exciting. A fourth film wouldn’t come along for many years, meaning fans long assumed “Die Hard with a Vengeance” was the final John McClane adventure. It wouldn’t have been a bad note to end the series on, not at all. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1993)

6. Last Action Hero

In 1993, Arnold Schwarzenegger was still the biggest movie star in the world. His previous film, “Terminator 2,” shattered box office records, cementing the reputation the action icon had been building since the early eighties. After the success of the second “Terminator,” Arnold’s next movie was expected to be an equally huge hit. That next movie was  “Last Action Hero,” a self-reflective parody of not just Arnold’s career but all the then-excesses of the action genre. John McTiernan choosing to direct the film is just another example of its self-aware quality. McTiernan had provided Arnie with an iconic hit with “Predator” and revitalized the entire action genre with “Die Hard.” The film had seemingly everything going for it…

Danny is a lonely kid, living in a bad part of New York. He doesn’t care much for school, his apartment gets broken into frequently, and his single mom chastises his behavior all the time. Danny’s only escape from his grim realities is movies. In particular, the action movies of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He frequently skips school to spend all day at the theater, with the help of the eccentric projectionist. While watching a sneak preview screening of “Jack Slater IV,” the latest entry in Arnold’s star franchise, that very same projectionist slips Danny a magic movie ticket. At first, the boy doesn’t think much of it. When he slips into the world of Jack Slater, he realizes it actually works. The kid has fun exploring the insane action movie universe and befriending his fictional hero… Until the movie’s one-eyed villain gets his hand on the stub and enters our world.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has always been one of the more self-aware action heroes of his generation. Arnold starring in a parody of action flicks is almost unnecessary. In retrospect, if it hadn’t codified many of the rules of the genre, “Commando” would play like a parody of eighties action. There was always a glimmer in his eyes and a smirk on his face. In the early nineties, “Total Recall” and his comedies showed he was already willing to play with his hyper-macho image. With “Last Action Hero,” he goes meta. The film plays with its own status as fiction. Characters cross the fourth wall. (Though if there’s a fiction inside the fiction, does that make it the third wall?) Entering Movie World is enough premise for most films but “Last Action Hero” only uses that as a launching pad. The movie is as much about a normal human entering a fictional world as it is about fictional characters entering the real world.

Despite its heavily meta-fictional story, “Last Action Hero” doesn’t engage much with the meaning of these ideas. The existential dread a fictional character must feel from discovering he isn't real is only briefly touched on. The movie begins by killing off Jack’s son. That his tragedies, struggles, and entire life are entertainment to higher beings only briefly pisses the hero off. The implication of a fictional world existing on some other level aren’t elaborated upon. The biggest joke occurs after the story’s villain enters our world. He discovers that the real world is more callous then the world of eighties action. Moreover, he realizes that crimes can go unpunished in our world. Besides that, “Last Action Hero” does not attempt to read any deeper into fiction’s meaning to us and what it means if these stories could interact with us. The potential subtext is reduced to a gimmick.

Instead, “Last Action Hero” is a ridiculous parody of action films. The world of “Jack Slater” is exaggerated beyond the point of plausibility. Recalling the “Death Wish” series, the plot of “Jack Slater IV” is motivated by the death of the cop’s favorite second cousin. Presumably, this is because they’ve already worked through the rest of his family. Danny is launched into this world during the middle of a car chase. Here, we see a mook tossed into an ice cream truck, which then explodes, killing another baddie with an errant cone. Jack drives up the walls of a canal, launching his car into the air. A game of vehicular chicken ends with a body sticking straight-up out of a dumpster. There are some funnier, subtler gags here. When the bad guys attempt to drive up the same canal, they crash and burn. During the car chase, there’s a prominently placed Coca-Cola truck, the kind of product placement a movie character must be used to. However, most of the movie’s blatantly comic scenes are too self-aware, too winkingly goofy, to be genuinely funny. Even the most ridiculous eighties flicks were never this silly.  “Last Action Hero” is too in on its own joke.

A further example of the movie overdoing its own joke is the world Jack Slater inhabits. In the movie-within-the-movie, every house in L.A. is beautiful sea-front property, a fancy Italian villa. The police station is a huge, elaborate set. “Much nicer” then the real police station, Danny notes. Here’s a good example of a potentially amusing gag stretched too far. In the movie, every woman is beautiful, statuesque, long-legged and big-busted. However, the gag’s taken too far, every female dressed in ridiculous, revealing outfits. Another gag that could have been funny if underplayed more involves the other cops. In the background of the police station, unlikely partners are paired up, each one with a more preposterous buddy. That’s a funny idea, especially when the various partners include an overweight guy, a rabbi, the ghost of Humphrey Bogart, and a cartoon cat. However, the film drills the joke into the ground, draining it of laughs. When a script seemingly congratulates itself on a funny gag, the gag stops being funny. (At least “Last Action Hero” has the balls to make Whiskers, the cartoon cat, a supporting character instead of just a cameo.)

The only joke in the movie that isn’t overdone is the character of Jack Slater himself. At first, you might not even notice the central joke. Jack always wears alligator-skinned cowboy boots, tight jeans, a red muscle shirt, a brown leather jacket, and a patriotic belt buckle. The constant deaths of family members is obviously a riff on the “Death Wish” series and its protagonist Paul Kersey. Slater’s cowboy cop behavior is a take-off on Dirty Hary and his more extreme eighties cousin Cobra. You’ll notice all of those characters have one thing in common: They’re Americans who neither look nor sound like Arnold Schwarzenegger. So “Last Action Hero” is poking fun at Arnold’s tendency to be cast as all-American action heroes when he himself is obviously not. (Another funny gag is the closest where Jack keeps multiple, identical copies of his standard outfit… And all of his guns.)

Despite being a ridiculous spoof, “Last Action Hero” tries to play the relationship between Jack Slater and the kid for real emotion. As in any ridiculous action film, the mismatched partners start to care for one another. Jack watches out for Danny and vice-versa. In the last act, trapped in the real world, Jack nearly dies, causing Danny to shed tears. It’s a weird thing to see in a movie that is otherwise so goofy. Occasionally, the film explores Danny’s relationship with the fictional hero. He attempts to get Jack to say an R-rated word in his PG-13-rated world. While learning about “Hamlet” in literature class, Danny imagines a Schwarzenegger-starring take on the Bard’s story, with the required explosions and one-liners. That’s the funniest bit in the film and it comes early on. Had the film explored why young boys are so enamored of bigger-then-life movie stars like Arnold, or pursued the attachments fans can have to movie stars, it could have gotten at something deep. Instead, the story’s heart is full of schmaltz and the film’s potential is unformed.

Sometimes, the extensively self-aware action sequences produce some decent laughs. The bad guys attempt to corner Jack in his own home. They shoot huge holes in the walls, somehow missing the guy. He takes a shotgun round to the chest but survives, thanks to a magical bullet-proof vest. The best attribute to this scene is Michael Kamen’s score, which ebbs and flows with the action on-screen like a grown-up Mickey Mouse cartoon. Even this scene is damaged by an out-of-nowhere reference to “E.T.” Later on, there’s an extended scene at a mobster’s funeral. There’s some funny gags here, like everyone in the procession packing heat or the kid wondering how to operate a crane. However, I could have done without the extended fart joke. 

Apparently the first draft of the script was set entirely within the movie world and explored the consequences of a crazy action hero’s action. The filmed version of “Last Action Hero” has Slater and his archenemy escaping into our world. Weirdly, the movie gets a little better at this point. Jack suddenly discovers he can be hurt. He hears classical music for the first time in his life, loving it. Watching Charles Dance’s villain learning the callous ways of our world is worthwhile. When Jack has to confront the Ripper, a psychotic madman from his previous film, “Last Action Hero” begins to resemble a straight-up action movie. This is, oddly, more successful then the overdone comedy of the first half. Lastly, these scenes gets Arnold on-camera with the only actor to ever match him in charisma… Himself. Mr. Schwarzenegger doesn’t fight Mr. Schwarzenegger but it is amusing to see the Austrian Oak play off his real life persona, with jokes about Planet Hollywood, M.C. Hammer, and Jim Belushi. Even a last minute cameo from Ian McKellan as Ingmar Bergman’s Death is interesting in its own way. It’s easy to imagine a better version of “Last Action Hero” focused solely on the fictional characters navigating our real world. At the very least, it ends the movie on a high-note.

So how does Arnold do? Schwarzenegger has always been willing to poke fun at his own image. He had already done it twice before this, in “Twins” and “Kindergarten Cop.” Watching Arnold goof around is nothing new, as even his quote-unquote serious roles has him cracking silly one-liners. Schwarzenegger is at least convincing in the double role as Jack Slater and himself. He gets a few weirdly earnest moments to himself, like when the character discusses his dead kid or how pathetic his personal life kind of is. Austin O’Brian as Danny was fairly heavily criticized at the time but the kid does fine. He’s likable and seems to be having fun playing against Arnold.

Another high-light of the film is its villain. Charles Dance plays Benedict, the main bad guy. Though obviously a parody of refined British villains in low-prestige pop corn flicks, like Hans Gruber from McTiernan’s own “Die Hard,” Dance truly goes for it. He hams it up beautifully, having a great time as a big screen bad guy. It doesn’t hurt that Benedict gets a series of great gimmicks. He goes through a variety of glass eyes, wears a fancy white suit, wields an absurdly big handgun, and belittles his own boss. (Played by Anthony Quinn, also making fun of his tendency to get cast as crime bosses.) Tom Noonan plays the Ripper, another example of the foreboding star playing a psycho. The Ripper seems in awfully high spirits for a greasy psychopath. His collapsible axe is a really cool weapon. Another fun bit of meta casting is F. Murray Abraham as a dirty cop. Danny tells Jack not to trust the guy because he “killed Mozart,” one of the film’s few reoccurring gags that it doesn’t wear out.

Aside from noted thespians like Abraham, Dance, and McKellen, the film’s supporting cast is full of other interesting names. “Running Man”-graduate Professor Toru Tanaka also pokes fun at his own image, basically playing Oddjob. Art Carney, in his last screen role, is the eccentric projectionist that Danny befriends. Carney didn’t let his advancing age hide the obvious joy he got from performing. Frank McRae sure does have a ball screaming his lungs out as the police chief. Future Sonya Blade Brigitte Wilson plays Slater’s oversexed teenage daughter. She’s awfully nice to look at and Wilson seems to be on the film’s level. Whether or not she’s poking fun at playing a bubble-headed blonde or is just playing a regular bubble-headed blonde might be up for the audience to decide.

So the actors are having fun and there’s an occasional gag that lands. However, “Last Action Hero” is ultimately nowhere near as funny as it should have been. Perhaps McTiernan, a filmmaker better known for more-or-less serious takes on the action genre, was the wrong director for the film. Or maybe the over-hyped, over-processed film was an inevitable victim of the studio system. One suspects that the earlier drafts were edgier, funnier, and more focused. As it stands, “Last Action Hero” is an interesting failure, one full of potential, but brought down by its own smugness and an indecisive tone that fluctuates between spoofy parody and more on-the-nose satire. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: John McTiernan (1992)

5. Medicine Man

You’d think that after the tough time the cast and crew had making “Predator,” John McTiernan would not be eager to return to the jungle. Instead, McTiernan re-teamed with Sean Connery to make “Medicine Man.” The script, from the screenwriter of “Dead Poet’s Society” and “What About Bob?,” was purchased for three million dollars, a hefty sum at the time. What attracted McTiernan to the material, I don’t know. A slightly comedic drama, it features few of the elements you usually associated with the director. Though a decent money-maker at the box office, “Medicine Man” received lousy reviews.

Years ago, chemist Robert Campbell disappeared into the Amazon rain forest, searching for further miracle cures. Rae Crane, a chemist working for the same company, is sent into the jungle to find him. At first, the two don’t agree on much. Campbell is regarded as a shaman, a medicine man, by the local tribe he’s living among. Soon, Crane realizes that Campbell has discovered a cure for cancer. After finding the formula, he has since lost it. The two work together, slowly developing romantic feelings for one another, trying to recreate the miracle cure and prevent the forest from being encroached upon by modern society.

Once again, I find myself discussing the early nineties mania for saving the rain forest. Why were we so obsessed with protecting South American eco-systems in the early part of that decade? This was after the collapse of the Soviet Union but before Middle Eastern extremists emerged as our new cultural boogeymen. Likewise, a new awareness of other countries’ strifes became apparent to us. During that time, we had to occupy ourselves with something. Why not save a really pretty, interesting part of the world? “Medicine Man” is more subtle than most of the pro-rain forest propaganda of the time. It’s more occupied with the wonder of the location. Inevitably, how at risk the jungle is comes up, easily ear-marking it as part of the genre.

As a star vehicle for Sean Connery, “Medicine Man” breaks little new ground. Robert Campbell is introduced drunk, wearing a toucan mask on his head. Campbell is something of an outsider, willingly exiling himself from modern society. He gets a tragic backstory, including a dead wife. At the same time, Campbell is always the smartest person in the room. Connery gets show off his wit and toughness, living easily in the exotic location and belittling others about it. Connery’s effortless charm counts for a lot. However, Sir Sean doesn’t stretch his abilities and the script doesn’t give him much oppretunity to do so.

When “Medicine Man” was released, much of the criticism at the time was directed at Lorraine Bracco. Coming off a supporting Oscar nomination for “GoodFellas,” Bracco was seen as stepping outside her boundaries. At first, Bracco is fine in the film. She’s reasonably tough, returning everything Connery gives her in turn. As the film progresses, an embarrassing side emerges to the character. Bracco yells at a snake in her hut. After drinking a natural caffeine-filled liquid, Bracco runs through the mountains, yelling and goofing off. Afterwards, her character increasingly becomes the butt of the movie’s jokes. She spends the last third with a blue line drawn on her face. She is grossed out by an alcohol partially made from human saliva. Whether this is the result of the script or Bracco’s performance is hard to determine. Either way, it has a negative affect on the movie.

I was really hoping “Medicine Man” wasn’t going to become a romance. Crane and Campbell work better as friends. Primarily, this is because Connery and Bracco have zero romantic chemistry. When researching or trading verbal barbs, the two work together fine. When starring longingly into each other eyes, it falls apart. The romantic angle emerges suddenly, when Connery begins describing a drawing he’s made of Bracco. The two locking lips in the final reel does not feel earned. The love story almost feels like the result of a re-write, wedged in to please some uneasy test audience.

As a boy, “Medicine Man” was one of my Mom’s favorite movies. When asked about this, she admitted this had little to do with the film’s story or characters. Mostly, she just thought the scenery was really pretty. That much certainly is true. Despite being set in the Amazon rain forest, the film was actually shot in Mexico. A key moment has the two main characters standing atop a hill, overlooking the jungle and mountain peaks in the distance. Another scene is set in the tree tops, the characters moving along the gorgeous, green foliage. If one of “Medicine Man’s” goal was to get viewers to care about the rain forest, it succeed just by showing how beautiful a location it is.

Not being an action film, there’s not many opportunities for John McTiernan to show off his visual trademarks in “Medicine Man.” He still manages to squeeze in some fluid, dolly shots. While Campbell and Crane explore the tree tops on zip lines, McTiernan’s camera spirals around beneath them. It’s a nice shot, in addition to establishing the scope of the scene. Shortly afterwards, the two sliding down a tree is dissolved against blips on a computer screen. While this stuff works, later moments make the odd stylistic decision to strip the audio away. This is more melodramatic than anything else and not McTiernan’s best decision.

“Medicine Man” is at least partially a comedy. Some of these moments are better than others. Connery golfs inside the jungle, the tribesman retrieving the missing balls. While discussing Crane off-screen, another set of natives tease Campbell about his growing attraction to the woman. Some of the dialogue between Connery and Bracco amuses. An early exchange involving a guinea pig is cute. A reoccurring gag about cigarettes pays off nicely at the end. Probably the funniest moment in the film involves Campbell dueling with the tribe’s original medicine man. A haphazard duel results, the two men whacking each other with sticks. Every time Rae distracts him, he suffers a crack against the body or a thump on the foot. These aren’t belly laugh producing moments, exactly. Yet they mildly amuse.

The comedy is uneven and some gags are too broad. However, “Medicine Man” is even more inconsistent as a drama. A subplot, concerning a corporation building a road through the jungle, is introduced far too late into the film. That story line pays off in a hopelessly overwrought scene. Characters tumble around in slow motion, fist fighting while a fire blazes behind him. Though undeniably dramatically shot, the scene reaches for emotion the movie doesn’t earn. Scene set the next morning, of the characters digging through the smoking wreckage, would work better if the audience was more invested in the cast.

I can’t decide if “Medicine Man” would have been better or worst had it embraced its destiny as a Serious Movie. Responsible management of the rain forest’s resources is an important message to send. “Medicine Man” approaches this topic in a manner that’s a little too touchy-feely. The natural resources of the jungle are treated as almost magical. It literally “cures cancer,” an unlikely proposition. The climatic reveal of the cure’s secret ingredient is hackneyed, a far too easy resolution to what would surely be a complicated solution. If you squint, you could see “Medicine Man” making a statement about man responsibly co-exisitng with nature or corporations’ exploitation of the Earth’s wonder. Neither are expanded into defined points though.

Critics didn’t have too many positive things to say about “Medicine Man.” However, one aspect was frequently singled out. Jerry Goldsmith’s score is quite good. Goldsmith mixes some very pretty instrumental styles. Whimsical horns and strings provide a sense of wonder to the appropriate moments. The use of sparse woodwind or drums suggests the exotic location without overdoing it. The more mysterious moments add a dramatic electronic beat, creating a nice sense of mystery. Soft, inspiring, and melodic, Goldsmith’s score probably deserves a more consistent movie.

”Medicine Man” is essentially built around two performances, as they’re few characters in the film besides Connery and Bracco. Ultimately, the characters’ dynamic is not enough to sustain an entire feature. McTiernan wanting to step outside the action movies he had already become associated with was admirable. “Medicine Man” is a good looking film, with a nice soundtrack, and a handful of effective moments. An uneven script and a mismatched leading lady keeps it from rising above. [Grade: C+]