Skip to main content

The Pentagon is gonna shoot us down.


Executive Decision
(1996)

(SPOILERS) Die Hard has yielded, and still yields, numerous “on a/in a… “ clones, including a minor “terrorists on a plane” ‘90s sub-genre. Passenger 57, Air Force One (which is part of another subgenre, “president in peril/action president”) and this, by some distance the best of the trio.

While it can’t summon up any of the sophistication or wit of the first Die Hard, neither is the script quite as knuckleheaded in construction as the credit to Jim and John Thomas (the first two Predators) might suggest. The characterisation is every bit as crude as you might expect and the terrorists are all-purpose Muslim extremists of the most one-dimensional kind; no wonder the production received full co-operation from the Pentagon.

There is little attempt to qualify the group’s motives or their plan for mass slaughter (of the entire population of the Eastern seaboard, no less!); the suggestion is that they wouldn’t have all gone along with it if they had known what their deranged lieutenant (Poirot actor David Suchet – always get a British actor to play a terrorist, no matter what race they are playing!) had in mind. This a standard Hollywood sop intended to forestall accusations of racism or insensitivity.  If I were sufficiently principled, I would no doubt reject Executive Decision out-of-hand for its unwholesome stereotypes (if this film had been made post 9/11, at very least the religious fervour of its main antagonist would have been nixed). But the confidence of the filmmaking manages to win me over.

Long-time editor and first-time director Stuart Baird has put the action together impressively. There’s little in the way of visual flair, but he instinctively knows where to place the camera and when to cut in order to maximise the tension in any given scene; he makes a virtue of the cramped setting, rather than allowing it become burdensome and repetitive. This is a relatively humourless affair (Oliver Platt aside) but Baird sustains the lengthy running time with ease, relishing the script’s unlikely twists and unfortunate mishaps as they pile upon each other. Even the most transparently formulaic elements (you just know that Kurt’s flying lessons will come in handy at the climax) are likeably predictable.

In its own way, rather unassuming way, this is the Psycho of action movies, dispatching the assumed arse-kicking star (Steven Seagal, an actor with all the personality of a mouldy pastry) at the end of the first act and leaving it to bespectacled intelligence consultant Kurt Russell to take centre stage. If nothing else, the surprise moment of Seagal’s departure is one for which Executive Decision deserves veneration and a place in movie history books. Of course, Russell is no one’s idea of a wuss so it’s little surprise that he rises to the leadership challenge. But he’s a very good actor too, which means you’re willing to suspend disbelief (he’d return to this type the following year in another well-made thriller, Breakdown).

Also along for the ride; Halle Berry as a plucky flight stewardess, John Leguizamo proving it’s more than possible to be annoying in every movie you make, an under-used J. T. Walsh, and Joe Morton acting most of the cast off the screen while barely moving. The plane that comes under attack belongs to Oceanic Airlines, whose unfortunate track record would get a lot worse in the TV series Lost.

Baird has only occasionally dipped a toe in the director’s pool since; both were sequels and neither met with much applause, either critical or commercial (U.S. Marshalls and Star Trek: Nemesis). As an editor, he’s as prolific as ever, most recently working on Skyfall. For reasons that remain unclear, Executive Decision was sold by Paramount to Warner Bros in exchange for the (at that point) troubled Forrest Gump screenplay (another film that might be read as possessing deeply conservative politics); at the time it must have looked as if Warner Bros was getting the better deal.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …