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

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.