Skip to main content

So God ordered a hit on an investment banker?

End of Days
(1999)

(SPOILERS) Or Arnie v Satan. And maybe, a decade earlier, it could have been a match worth catching. Or maybe not. Because End of Days simply cannot escape the fact that this is a terrible fit for the Austrian Oak. That it remains an entertaining movie – in most respects more so two decades on from its release, when it came across as no more or less than a rather desperate cash-in on pre-millennial angst – is almost entirely despite his presence.

Which reeks of irony, as Schwarzenegger was quite forthright in laying the blame for End of Days’ failure at director Peter Hyams’ door. In an interview with Harry Knowles – remember him? – he recounted how Hyams was suggested by James Cameron. Arnie, trusting Cameron implicitly, went with it (anyone familiar with Jimbo’s positive soundbites on various of the Terminator sequels will know his opinions are not to be taken seriously). Then, Hyams had the audacity – the audacity! – to veto Arnie’s suggestions for using handheld camera as “crap stuff” and proceeded to under-light his star’s BIG movie. Arnie took particular issue with Hyams’ comment that Cameron “over lights all of his sets and I don’t like the way his things look”. The thing is, Hyams is right. Cameron does over light all his sets. Take a look at Aliens again.

In a sense, though, Arnie wasn’t wrong. Not in terms of the verdict that “he did not have the potential… I think visually and intellectually to really do something with that movie” but rather to make an Arnie-appropriate action movie. Few directors do suit Arnie, because few have the requisite muscular style (pretty much Cameron, John Milius, John McTiernan, Walter Hill and Paul Verhoeven). Sam Raimi, who apparently turned End of Days down, would probably have made a decent Arnie movie, and Guillermo del Toro too (Marcus Nispel was replaced, and given his subsequent films, as well as being responsible for the Wet Wet Wet Love is All Around video, that’s probably no bad thing). The style needs to be big as its star, basically.

As does the story. It’s very easy to identify that End of Days was not conceived as an Arnie vehicle. Reputedly, Jericho Cane was envisioned for Tom Cruise, although I’m not sure an alcoholic cop grieving over his murdered family would really have done him any favours either (see Minority Report). But another, more versatile actor might have lent the part the necessary gravitas and nuance. As was increasingly the case post-True Lies and pre-governator – not helped by big projects like Crusade and I Am Legend falling apart – Arnie’s decade-long sure touch had floundered in the mid to late 90s. After Batman and Robin, Eraser and weak-sauce comedies Junior and Jingle All the Way, End of Days seemed to confirm he was batting wildly and unevenly (playing a villain in a Batman movie is sure to be a homerun, as is starring in a Christmas comedy, as is tackling millennial angst. Plus, Satan is big box office right now – see The Devil’s Advocate).

With Arnie come ever-bigger action sequences, all of which are competently staged by Hyams, as you’d expect, but also serve to emphasise that the best parts of the picture are those focussing on The Exorcist meets Sea of Love premise. Or a redux of The First Power, or Fallen, or The Hidden, if you like, with some Rosemary’s Baby thrown in (Screenwriter Andre W Marlowe didn’t fare too well with movies – Air Force One and Hollow Man also carry his name – but he went on to moderate acclaim for TV show Castle. He’s egregiously responsible for the scripted associationChrist in New York… Christine York”. Although, it sounds to me exactly the kind of gematria-tinged insight that would prove entirely credulous currently).

Cane: What about the End of Days?
Satan: Think about it as a new beginning. A change of management. And you’ll be right there with me on the ground.

End of Days would probably have been a more effective affair if it had been economically staged. When Hyams is allowed to focus on Satan’s – in the possessed body of Gabriel Byrne’s banker, or “Wall Street scumbag” – tenacious pursuit of his bride/mother of his child – Robin Tunny, the Christine York in question – the picture has a sense of trajectory and cohesion. It’s only when Jericho Cane lumbers into frame, offering unmodulated Arnie quips, that things fall apart.

Byrne is terrific, more so than the more acclaimed Pacino in the same role two years earlier, and very nearly singlehandedly pulls off a scene where Satan offers Jericho the return of the family he lost (“You were an honest cop. And where was God…? I can make it like it never happened. All for the price of a stranger’s address…”) Unfortunately, the scene also relies on Arnie’s ability to play emotional, so runs aground. See also Jericho’s generally appalling lines, appallingly delivered (“Now I have to believe in God in order to solve a crime?”; “Why don’t you just stop all this church talk and tell us what the hell is going on”; “Between your faith and my Glock 9mm, I’ll take my Glock”; and most excruciating of all “You’re a fucking choir boy compared to me!”)

Most of Cane’s dialogue turns to sawdust, even as he’s commendably supported by heavy-lifting Kevin Pollak (the buddy part) and Rod Steiger (the good priest part). Arnie recently delivered two more terrible performances, the first telling us of his pain over many of his family’s fascistic attitudes (someone needs to dig up his old interviews and recognise it wasn’t just his family) and pretending he’d been stuck with the RNA alterer.

Mabel: Take another Xanax to relieve your anxiety. You’re fine.

Udo Keir is dependably infernal as evil stooge Doctor Abel, until he gets his face punched through by Satan (there’s quite a bit of gore here and Satan is generally more T1000 than he is Mephistopheles). CCH Pounder essays a fairly routine detective turned Church agent. Tunney is surprisingly strong as Christine. Not because Tunney isn’t a good actress, but because it’s yet another fairly nothing part. And then there’s Mabel, Christine’s adopted mother; Arnie being beaten up by Miriam Margolyes is possibly the greatest thing ever committed to celluloid (Arnie also apparently farted in Margloyes’ face, which is another mark against him).

Chicago: You’d be amazed what you’ll agree to when you’re on fire.

On the one hand, Satan has a propensity for kinky incest-themed threesomes and pissing gasoline, but on the other, a thing for atmosphere-draining CGI flourishes. His antagonistic status, perhaps inevitably, casts the Vatican in a positive light, which is almost as laughable as Arnie’s acting. They’re represented by a good but bloodthirsty masonic order (you know, cos masons are good, but bloodthirsty). But hey, even Dan Brown’s villains actually held Christian beliefs. Unlike, you know, the real Vatican.

There isn’t, as you might expect from its opportunistic timing – at least Strange Days had the decency to arrive four years before the big day – much that is genuinely literate or theological in Marlowe’s screenplay. Accordingly, there’s much bumbling about 666 becoming 999 as the devil is all about reversals, and 31 December isn’t important in itself. What’s important is a “temporary celestial alignment” (so it is important).

There’s a reheated Baudelaire line – itself not actually a new one when he flourished it – that had already appeared in The Usual Suspects and ought to have turned up in The Devil’s Advocate about the devil’s greatest trick being convincing the world he didn’t exist. As we now know, his actual greatest trick was convincing the world there was a killer bug on the loose, and that we had to sacrifice our entire way of life in order to hold it in check.

The greatest trick of End of Days – if you think it in any way succeeded – was convincing the world he needed to come back, become corporeal and even have a kid in order to hatch his nefarious schemes. In other words, that he wasn’t running the whole kit and caboodle in a good cop, bad cop manner anyway. Much of the internal logic of Satan’s behaviour, abilities and awareness is on the wafer-thing side, but it needs to be to have Arnie as a legitimate opponent. In the end, Jericho is possessed by the devil. Arnie as Satan is about as convincing as you’d expect, but at least he can add that to his CV. He is also, shockingly shamelessly, crucified at one point. And there’s a decent, if overblown, subway chase.

Arnie dying at the end was apparently Hyams’ idea, but frankly his Terminator dying in T2 was more affecting. And that was dafter than it was affecting (I know many will disagree). The main thing to remember is that the millennium was all hype, and by the time November 1999 had come round, there had already been a cancelled Chris Carter series nurturing dwindling interest, a host of tedious Y2K fear porn and a solar eclipse, I mean cosmic alignment (yeah, one of those) that came to nought. It all seemed like a bit of a fizzle. End of Days, a bit of a fizzle, served to underline that. It’s not a bad movie, but it’s a bad Arnie movie.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.