Hard Rain (1998)
Director: Mikael Salomon Cast: Christian Slater, Morgan Freeman, Minnie Driver, Randy Quaid, Edward Asner Rated R: violence
by Nathaniel R. Atcheson (nate@pyramid.net)
Here it is, the next chapter in the ever-so-popular DISASTER! genre. Hard Rain, however, goes the extra mile: it sets up a big burglary in the middle of the disaster, and then the characters have to deal with both situations simultaneously. There is a problem, though--the disaster looks good, but everything else in the film is bad. I truly believed I was seeing a real-life flood on screen, but in the end the implausibility of the situations and the depthlessness of the characters is what stuck with me. Somehow, I don't think this is what was intended.
Christian Slater stars as Tom, an armored car guard. The film jumps right into action, and we immediately see Tom, with his partner Charlie (Edward Asner), getting robbed by a bunch of guys led by Jim (Morgan Freeman) who "just want the money." After they make short work of Charlie (accidentally), Tom takes off with the money and hides it, while the bad guys chase him, of course, because they "just want the money." So, after Tom is smacked upside the head with a crucifix by Karen (Minnie Driver), he is put in jail for looting. He tells his story to the Sheriff (Randy Quaid), who leaves Tom locked up in his cell. It turns out that the sheriff wants the money, too, but he doesn't "just want the money"--he wants to kill everyone else, as well.
The screenplay, penned by Graham Yost, is garbage on a fundamental level. Here we have an intensely standard situation, and the only thing that makes it even remotely unique is the fact that it's set in a flood. The film takes approximately zero seconds developing the character of Tom, so right off the bat, when we're thwarted with all kinds of troubles for him to deal with, it's very difficult to care, since we don't know who this guy is (aside from what he looks like). The other protagonist, Karen, is given this same depthless quality, which doesn't help in scenes when she's chained to a banister in a sinking house, or any other scene in which she's in peril and we're supposed to be concerned.
I can just see some guys standing around yelling, "Ooooh, wouldn't it be great if Christian Slater hid under the water while jet skis went over him!?" "Wouldn't it be wild if there were big power boats crashing through enormous stained glass windows!?" "Wouldn't it be insane if damns and houses were broken into little pieces!?"
The film also goes into some strange territory by developing the bad guys more than the good guys. Jim (played with conviction by the ever-watchable Freeman), is at least given an expository scene before all the mayhem begins; later, we even see that there might be a more human side to him than this money-hungry old man. And then the sheriff, played with high camp by Quaid, is simply a force (he isn't even given a name). There is nothing human about him, and his actions in the film point towards confusion and psychosis. Like most everything else, he's present to drive the plot to its inevitable conclusion.
In addition, we're given moments that are simply absurd. Take, for instance, the scene in which Tom is locked in the cell in the police station. The water is rising quickly, and there's no way out. This scene is actually very intense, and one of the best in the film, but it ends with a cheap way out--the light in the ceiling just happens to lead to the roof; by the time he figures this out, Karen, who doesn't even know him at this point, is on the roof trying to get him out.
There's also a lot of things that I just didn't like. A big part of the conclusion takes place in a church, which, of course, includes religious symbolism; a bullet going through a stain-glass portrait of Jesus, the church burning in a Holy conflagration--these things are included, but are given no thought. Also rather irritating are the endless shootouts in the rain, with no mention of these new types of rifles and revolvers that can fire when completely submerged in water. The film also could have done without the attempted rape scene--there certainly wasn't any need, except maybe to show that a very religious woman doesn't mind stabbing a man in the bad of the neck with a pocket knife.
Okay, okay, the film is a mess. I'm sure you get my point. Here's the kicker, though--it's entertaining. The director, Mikael Salomon, seems to know what he's doing as far as images go. There are some really spectacular moments, like a scene in which the characters speed around the halls of a high school on jet skis. The flood itself is spectacularly filmed, and I never once questioned the fact that I was looking at a true disaster. In fact, there isn't a dry moment in the film. Every minute is drenched in water.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hard Rain started out as strictly a disaster film. I remember its original title being The Flood, so this leads me to believe that a lot of the gunfire and money grubbing here was an afterthought by the film makers. It's not a boring film--you'll watch it and probably enjoy it for the most part. But at the center is an emotional void, a complete lack in anything of substance. Hard Rain has an advantage because there haven't been very many films about water-oriented disasters. The only one I can think of in recent memory is Titanic, and that film succeeds in every way this one fails. Hard Rain is mindless fun, but it's *so* mindless that I walked out the theater wanting to apologize to my brain.
>From 0-10: 5 Grade: C
Visit FILM PSYCHOSIS at http://www.pyramid.net/natesmovies
Nathaniel R. Atcheson
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews