Skip to main content

I said undercover. Not coked-up Borg and McEnroe.

6 Underground 
(2019)

(SPOILERS) 6 Underground’s opening sequence is as pure – if that’s remotely an appropriate word, given the content – and unexpurgated a slice of Bayhem as you ever did see, a visual tour de force of colours, sound, insane stunts, pulverised pedestrians and exploding entrails up there with anything in Bad Boys II. One can go back and forth on whether or not that’s a good or bad thing – at his best, which is increasingly rarely, I think Michael Bay’s a purveyor of “big” cinema par excellence – but the director’s undeniably in his element. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the movie is pretty unpersuasive.

Which is largely the case for Bay’s oeuvre. He is not the connoisseur of a well-honed screenplay. The best he’s given us came early on, with The Rock, while the more recent Pain & Gain found him bludgeoning, battering and beating any satirical elements to death via his typically hyperbolic treatment of the material. Because Bay wouldn’t be Bay if he engaged in moderation or subtlety. He spent a decade in the Transformers-verse, making five movies about a toy range beating the shit out of each other you can barely tell apart (the robots and the movies), and in Bad Boys II boasted extreme bad taste a badge of honour.

Also to be found in Bay’s resumé are a couple of paeans to brave heroes in the armed services, notably the risible Pearl Harbor and more recently 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. The latter was an impressively executed but predictably politically vacuous exercise in its depiction of private military contractors saving the asses of CIA guys operating in Libya to unspecified ends. Maybe Bay’s yen to make 6 Underground came from a similar philosophical place. Scripted by Paul Wenick and Rhett Reese – the Zombielands, the Deadpools, Life; actually nothing with their name on it hitherto suggests this would be quite so… so-so – it essentially posits a private sector CIA, unhindered by pesky government red tape, by way of irreverent quips and superhero secret identities (but no spandex).

Ryan Reynold’s billionaire magnet-guy – neodymium micro-magnets, to be precise – One has assembled the titular team to pull off jobs no one else can. Read: coups in Middle Eastern countries to depose dictators he unilaterally decides are no good (“You could take out some truly evil people. Truly world-class evil motherfuckers” he tells prospective Seven, Corey Hawkins of 24: Legacy). One made his fortune selling patents (including to the CIA) and decided he wanted to use his loot to do good: “Governments don’t really help people in need” he explains insightfully.

Later, One refutes the idea that the President sent them to their chosen country (“He can’t even spell Turgistan” which may be partly due to it being fictional, at least in the current era). The evil dictator they plan on taking down has been instigating chemical attacks on his people and observes in passing, as would any self-aware Middle Eastern dictator, “The US? They made me. Russia? They armed me”. So Turgistan is evidently intended as a grab bag of Libya and Syria, particularly the former, with the twisted justice One reserves for Rovach Alimov (Lior Raz); he refrains from killing him outright in order to drop him obligingly from a helicopter, so he can be torn apart by his fellow countrymen. Just the kind of compassionate guy you want on your side.

Bay has always refrained from explicitly stating his political preferences, but you’d be hard-pressed to see this simplistic story of evil dictators and democracy-enforcing vigilantes being other than shot through with right-wing idealism. The problem with all this, besides morally and ethically that is, is that 6 Underground takes a dramatic nosedive whenever we aren’t involved in the team pulling off daring operations. And since these operations constitute three extended action sequences over the span of a two-hour-plus movie, there’s a lot of dead weight here. Dead weight characterised by that evil Middle Eastern dictator, of the type Hollywood has been churning out for forty years now (with a moderate brother played by Patman Maadi to take his place).

The other problem is that the team aren’t especially appealing. Mission: Impossible is all about Tom Cruise doing stunts, so the supporting cast are lucky to get a look in. Fast & Furious is all about family. “We’re not family” instructs One at one point, meaning that events will inevitably prove him wrong (mostly swayed by Seven’s ex-Delta Force “leave no one behind” mantra).

The opening sequence effectively and often hilariously introduces the line-up, including Mélanie Laurent’s ex-CIA agent Two, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo’s hit man Three (not remotely funny as Bay clearly thinks he is), Ben Hardy’s parkour guy robber Four, Adrian Arjona’s doctor Five and Dave Franco’s doomed driver Six (Franco is usually less irritating than his brother by dint of getting less screen time, and mercifully, he’s done and dusted by the end of this chase). Fast-talking Reynolds aside, who doesn’t so much have a remotely plausible character as he’s played by fast-talking Reynolds, the only impressions made come via strained and unconvincing interplay; Two and Three embark on an unromantic Michael Bay romance, while Seven’s integrity rubs off on One when he saves Four.

But all that aside: the action. The opening Italy-set chase is exhilarating and outrageous, piling up the innocent bystander carnage (“You hit one more person, and I’m walking!” shouts Five), and replete with spurting bullet wounds, blonde Batman Four hanging about on rooftops waiting for the judicious moment to intervene in a car chase by sending scaffolding poles intrusively through windscreens and chest cavities, a dangling eyeball (“Don’t you squash it!”), a slow-motion rocket grenade brushing a bad guy’s nose before exploding, evidence that Bay thinks he’s still in the 90s (Spice Girls used as an inappropriate music choice gag) and best of all “Nooooo the puppies!” as Six attempts to avoid running over a couple of pooches. All this, interjected with freeze frames, title cards and Reynolds’ voice over, and Bojan Bazelli's gorgeous cinematography, makes for a dizzying mix.

Then, however, it’s another hour of twiddling one’s thumbs until Bay mounts the team’s attack on a rooftop pad, complete with breached swimming pool flooding carnage. Sure, there are flashbacks detailing how the team was formed and individual members’ backgrounds, but since the members aren’t very vital – Laurent probably comes off best – no amount of flash from the director can persuade us otherwise. The near-finale finds One using his skills to magnetise an entire yacht along with anyone in the vicinity. It’s big, bold and bug-nuts, and again, Bay’s like a pig in shit showing off just how far he’s willing to go, with a kitchen full of knives having a devastating effect and a hand grenade jammed in a bad guy’s mouth leaving nothing above the shoulders.

So 6 Underground represents another example of Netflix exerting absolutely zero quality control. A positive boon for the directors they’re offering bottomless bags of cash, not so promising for their growing library. This cost $150m, and I can imagine it would have bombed, had it been a studio cinema release (nevertheless, Bay's visuals are tailored for a BIG screen). As it is, it’s sure to do well, viewers-wise, but it’s evidence that Bay really needs material tailored to performers who can keep their heads above water – in the past Will Smith, Nic Cage maybe – while he’s setting destroying everything around them. Reynolds is left operating in a vacuum here, and it goes down as yet another of his iffy lead role choices.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.