Mercury Rising

I do not want to make this ongoing series into a review of other people's movie reviews, but one of the Washington Post's movie critics has suggested that this film is following in the "schlock" footsteps of "Titanic." As far as I can tell, this comparison is made because both films have action and emotion in them at the same time (or try). Yeah! Never mind the fact that "Titanic" and this film are about as similar as "The Man Without a Face" and "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"! Let's get one more dig in on "Titanic!" Half a billion dollars must be wrong, somehow!

Now that that ugliness is behind us, it must be noted that the salient feature of this movie from most people's perspectives is that it generates a lot more emotion than I expect, say, "Armageddon" will (or plans to). This is primarily because Bruce Willis, playing the basic character developed in the "Die Hard" films (a down-to-earth government law enforcement person with a history of disobeying his superiors but being right for doing so), is forced by circumstance to guard an autistic child. This being a movie, they are supposed to develop an emotional bond. The strange thing is that they do. I mean, how many times have you gotten to the end of an action movie where you were probably supposed to care about the characters but didn't? About 99 times out of 100 that they try, right? ("The Saint," "Desperate Measures," and every Batman since the first one are just the ones I thought of in the last 5 seconds.) But Bruce Willis is alone among action stars in making you identify with him, in some small way, and because he is human (unlike Ahnold, who is of another species, far as I can tell) you can believe he has developed an attachment to the boy which goes even beyond wanting to protect him from getting gunned down by the NSA.

The boy, Simon, is (to his and the writer's credit) a handful. The screenwriters blame this on autism, but let's face it: all 9-year-olds are pretty annoying sometimes. I know I was. I know I wouldn't have been like a lot of these other 9-year-olds in action movies who are totally unspooked by men with guns swarming around them and being violently thrown out of the range of gunfire. I would have screamed or refused to move, which is what Simon does, sometimes (although if he did this all the time the movie would be pretty short and unsatisfying, seeing as how everyone would die by minute 45).

Once you believe in the emotional bond, the movie is pretty much set for Bruce Willis to get wounded in a sort of attractive way while killing everyone bad after disobeying direct orders from a superior. (Bruce Willis still does the greatest stares in the action movie business; a scene when he is in an elevator with another bad guy is absolutely priceless, all smirks and "Do-you-feel-lucky?" contained in a mouth twitch.) Alec Baldwin makes an admirable foil, all gussied-up expensive-blue-suit social-elite evil bureaucrat, and there is a scene in his home with Willis where he doesn't actually use the phrase "Benefits of a classical ed-u-cation, Mr. Takahashi" but you know what the writers had in mind.

Some people have said this movie has an anti-government subtext, which is pretty stupid to say if you watch all the way through the movie (let's just say it's not against the whole government). There is a thing at the beginning vaguely similar to Ruby Ridge, but the guy leading the evildoers is clearly demented. I am of the opinion that this shootout is more to set the scene for Willis (a) not wanting Simon to die like a couple of kids did in the beginning of the movie and (b) having one of those chewings-out by a superior officer which seem to be unavoidable in movies today. Admittedly, there does seem to be a political message of some type trying to assert itself at several points throughout the film. It's not consistent or even identifiable though; I would just watch Willis bond with the boy and shoot bad people.

And, let's face it, how can you not like an action movie that:

• doesn't make the female who helps Willis and Simon on the run fall in love with Willis, or even act vaguely romantic towards him?
• doesn't make said female an exercise in T&A watching, which would have kind of spoiled the mood?
• lets Bruce Willis make crude fun of wine aficionados during an excrciatingly tense situation ("A bit corky")?
• contains a dead-on Bart Simpson imitation by a minor female character?

Well, maybe that last one is more personal.

Believeability: I think all of us are ready for a good government-conspiracy scare movie now. I mean, if there's a conspiracy for something as relatively unimportant as Bill Clinton's sex life, there could certainly be a conspiracy for a government supercode. Since I know jack diddley about autism I will not comment, except to reiterate my earlier point that it's nice to see a 9-year-old not acting preternaturally mature.

Tension: The thing about trying for actual emtional content is that if you succeed, your tension doesn't have to be entirely from the physicality of the action. Like in "Tomorrow Never Dies," I didn't care about Bond or Wei Lin during that motorcycle chase, but I was captivated by the sheer kinetic energy and use of space, etc. This film has none of that kind of tension, but you care more, because you care about what happens to the characters, instead of simply what happens.

Action: The one big action scene is very haphazardly directed, and it's hard to tell what the hell is going on in the crowd scenes. When it's just Bruce Willis fighting someone, he brings that whole Bruce Willis package to the table.

Attractive Man Count: Alec Baldwin might be too evil in this movie to be attractive, but then again he might not, so he's a 1, and Bruce Willis in this film is not there for his good looks.

Attractive Woman Count: Not really, although this is something of a selling point if you're watching this movie for emotional content. I.e., chicks in flicks with risks and tricks, but in more emotional films a woman better be attractive for a purpose.

Overall Grade: B+. A little softer than "Die Hard," but, really, none the worse for that.

TO MY CHICAGO PEEPS

Most of this film does in fact take place in the Windy City, and on one of the first visits I made to Chicago that I remember clearly I went down (with Mark) the exact stairs that the truly evil dude escapes down at one point. I am sure people who live in New York have little memories like this all the time, but it was pretty cool. I also swear up and down that the "Neuropsychiatric Learning Institute" Simon attends is a U of C building with a cheap sign nailed to the front (the architecture etc. is too similar) but can't tell which one.

That grade is way inflated because of all the bad reviews this movie got. It was a B- film at best. But it was better than people said it was, and worth a look if you're hard-pressed at the Blockbuster.

Action Movies Home

Movie Reviews Home

Spam-O-Matic Home