Skip to main content

You’re a monster, and my father is a great man. You’re nothing like my father!


Air Force One
(1997)

President Harrison Ford takes down the terrorist. This year’s “terrorists take over the White House” movies require the President to be saved by brave Special Forces types. Not so back in the ‘90s, when Russkies assumed control of Air Force One. Back when Indiana Jones was a ‘Nam vet President and recipient of the Medal of Honor, more than qualified to kick-ass.

Wolfgang Peterson’s Die Hard-on-the-President’s-plane was such a big hit (and not just in its core US market) that I wondered if I had missed something when I came away from seeing it non-plussed. I’m a fairly willing audience for Die Hard-derivative movies, even knowing that most of them turn out to be shitty. But Air Force One, despite a goofy premise only topped by Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down, possessed a prestige cast (led by Ford, Glenn Close and Gary Oldman) and a director who had previously scored critically and commercially with a political thriller (In the Line of Fire). It sounded like it might work; why else would it attract such talent?

The only conclusion can be; handsome paydays. Andrew W Marlowe may have partially redeemed himself with the TV series Castle, but Air Force One is contusion of half-baked set pieces and ultra-corny sentiment. Peterson lends it a certain gloss (although the CGI is frequently dreadful), and a couple of the actors nobly attempt to liven the proceedings up (Oldman’s terrorist leader Korshunov chews the scenery, just not quite with the abandon seen when working for Luc Besson, while Dean Stockwell’s Secretary of Defense is winningly unsentimental about the plane’s chances and political realities) but Ford is less than engaging. He’s moved into the earnest bore period in his career, typified by Jack Ryan and Richard Kimble; films that make the right kind of signals to attract an audience but which he can sleepwalk through. It must have given him a false sense of security, until his box office clout dried up at the turn of the millennium.

Ford’s President Marshall has set his mast out as a humanitarian, interventionist leader; he has zero tolerance for terrorism, against the advice of his staff. And he will be neither bucked nor bowed by economic or political pressures. Rather, he is led by a higher moral imperative; to do what is right. He has the prescience and clear judgement to make this sort of call, you see; it isn’t just grandstanding because Harrison Ford is always sincere. Consequently, he’s inclined to deliver nonsensical lines in his addresses that have the appearance of sage truths (“Peace isn’t merely the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice”). The only thing missing from his mission statement is that God is on his side and that he prays every night.

You see, his Damascus moment results from the US’s delayed involvement in deposing and capturing Jurgen Prochnow’s General Radek. An empathic President Marshall recognises that this slowness to act indirectly resulted in much suffering and death. Radek had set himself up as dictator in Kazakhstan (Who knows anything about Kazakhstan, right? No one will care if they’re the bad guys!) and it takes a joint Russian-American operation to bring him down. This is the classic Hollywood “terrorists as villains” approach; make a nationality the antagonists as long as, at some point, you make it clear that their entire country is not evil. It doesn’t matter if the audience takes away Russians=bad guys, you’ve absolved yourself of any responsibility.

As with Olympus Has Fallen, the villain of the piece is intent on unifying his country (there Korea, here the Soviet Union); the first step towards this is the release of his beloved General Radek. And, as with that film, he gains access to the President’s inner sanctum with astonishing ease (anything else and you wouldn’t have a movie). As usual, there’s a traitor on the inside, and as usual his motivations are at best broad strokes at worst nonsensical. Both films make an idle gesture of balance by suggesting that the President, and America, is guilty of villainy and atrocities (Korshunov brings up Iraq), but of course we don’t really believe this. We’re talking about President Harrison Ford here. He agonises over his every action and endures a constipated expression to prove it.

The supporting cast are underwritten and fail to make much impression accordingly. It’s not as if Ford and Oldman have any great lines (“Get off my plane!” anyone?), and they’re the leads. Prochnow’s is little more than a cameo, William H Macy has a nice noble moment or two and Xander Berkeley does what he does best. Close surely had a patio that needed paving as she called upon merely to adopt her best steely gaze.

Peterson and Marlowe have to jump through hoops to try and make this premise work. The President needs to be on the loose, continually evading capture and engaging in altercations with terrorists, for at least an hour or you don’t have a movie. This is never very convincing, particularly when Korshunov seals him in the lower deck. There’s the occasional ruthless ultimatum, eliciting a John McClane-seque stoical response at first (but, as with Olympus Has Fallen , the President pussies out when his family are threatened; what kind of President does that?)

We know the President did the right thing to stay on board, as a plump aide thanks him personally (her face is later adorned with a hilariously beatific smile as she parachutes earthwards to safety). The odd instance of plotting suggests the writer may have some wit to him (Marshall’s “I’m counting on you, red, white and blue” when he’s hotwiring the fuel tank) but you’re mostly left with the impression of empty-headed “America, the beautiful”. Certainly, this is reinforced by Peterson’s decision to cut back to whooping and cheering in the White House Situation Room every time the President takes out a bad guy or a potential disaster is diffused.  

It’s not just the lack of self-consciousness; Marlowe doesn’t have an original idea. The President is even called on to pilot the plane, just as Kurt Russell was during his terrorist encounter in the previous year’s Executive Decision. Apparently the Department of Defense co-operated in the making of the film; presumably their failure to suggest any remedies for its incoherence of plot was by the bye as long as the whole was resolutely patriotic. They were hardly going to tell Hollywood producers how Air Force One actually functions, were they?

Jerry Goldsmith’s score underpins the film’s air of avowed patriotism in a vomit-inducingly stone-faced manner. Still, rather him than Randy Newman (Peterson rejected Newman’s score, so Goldsmith was a last minute replacement).

Despite the overall nonsensicality, the President-goes-all-John McClane scenes are reasonably engaging. It’s when Korshunov catches him that Marlowe’s script begins to test the patience. Maybe the problem is that the jingoistic claptrap the film embraces resists irreverence and outrageousness of the kind these types of film need to really work. If you’re going to treat a B-movie premise like this over-earnestly, you’re doomed from start.

**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.