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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.