BROKEN ARROW
Review by John Beachem
* * * 1/2
Directed by: John Woo Written by: Graham Yost
Vic Deakins (John Travolta) and Riley Hale (Christian Slater) are two top notch air force pilots on a training mission involving a stealth bomber and two nuclear warheads. While things are going fine at first, Deakins suddenly tries to kill Hale and take over the plane. Gunfire ensues and the plane crashes, but not before both pilots manage to eject. Hale lands safely and meets up with park ranger Terry Carmichael (Samantha Mathis), whom he convinces to help him. Meanwhile, Deakins is in league with a group of terrorists who want to steal the two nuclear warheads and get millions from the government. The president, realizing there's a broken arrow situation (that's when we lose nuclear warheads. Apparently it happens quite often), sends in a recovery team. What he doesn't realize is how carefully Deakins has planned for everything the government is going to throw at them. Now the only people who have any chance at stopping Deakins are Hale and Carmichael, and they're running out of time.
Here's a little tip to all future writers out there: when your script is a blatant attempt to cash in on recent genre success (in this case the success of films like Speed), don't include words like "broken" in your title. So, does Broken Arrow live up to its title? Is the film truly broken? Not exactly, but it's certainly in need of some repairs. All the requisite elements for a classic '90s action flick are here (I didn't think it was possible for the words classic and '90s to appear in the same sentence). We've got betrayal by a friend, a love interest that begins with mistrust, a few shoot-outs, at least one really big explosion, and a villain who acts obscenely calm no matter what might be happening around him. So, with all the necessary elements present, what could go wrong? Well, in some ways, having all the necessary elements is exactly what goes wrong. There are simply zero surprises in this movie (aside from the appearance of Howie Long, but that doesn't exactly count), and it's in desperate need of a few. Is the film still enjoyable? Yes, but in the same way sitting down in your favorite beat up, knocked around, but broken in easy chair is enjoyable. You know it's bad, you know it should be replaced, but you just can't help yourself.
Obviously the acting in a movie like Broken Arrow isn't of supreme importance, but I feel it's worth mentioning anyway. John Travolta leads the way with his usual over-the-top performance, though thankfully this time around it suits the character. I'm sure this man can act in another way, he showed he could in Pulp Fiction, but he seems to feel obligated to act maniacal in everything else. It works here, but it won't always, and it's going to get on peoples' nerves in time. I've always found Christian Slater to be a rather underrated actor. People seem to label him as a Jack Nicholson imitator and not give him a second thought. I'm not saying the man is a great actor, but he's certainly a good one, and he occasionally borders on greatness (True Romance for example). This isn't one of those times, but Slater does what he can with some wooden dialogue and a cliched character, and manages to keep us entertained. Samantha Mathis (Pump up the Volume) does a spectacular Sandra Bullock impersonation in the movie, but that's not exactly a good thing. As I said, Howie Long shows up, but don't worry, he has about five lines so he's tolerable. Delroy Lindo (Gone in Sixty Seconds) and Frank Whaley (Swimming With Sharks) both make brief appearances, but Whaley is given one of the film's really good lines after being told what a "Broken Arrow" is. He gets a shocked look on his face before muttering "I'm not sure what's scarier, that we have one right now, or that it happens so often you actually have a term for it."
Perhaps what I find most disappointing about Broken Arrow is Graham Yost's (who also wrote Speed... what a surprise, eh?) script. It's not that it's a bad script, it's simply that it takes no chances. Yost is obviously content to write something very similar to Speed and let John Woo work his magic (which he does, but more on that later). Not only are there no surprises, there's very little excitement this time around. The script places the actors in predictable situations, and they respond to these situations exactly as we expect them to. The actors all seem to realize they're in a film that's little more than a rehash, and they act accordingly. Is it possible I'm expecting too much out of the script that it throw some surprises at us? I suppose it could be, but I don't think so. Alright, script aside, are there any other flaws to the film? Well, the suspension of disbelief factor runs just a little bit high. We're expected to believe things like a nuclear blast underground would have zero effect on the surface, that a nuke is so light it can be dragged up the stairs by one person, and of course that the military doesn't monitor those who deal with nuclear weapons all that closely. Now, I can look past those things, but I can suspend my disbelief pretty well. Your average movie goer might have a harder time with it.
What makes the film work despite these things working against it is John Woo's ability to direct an action scene like few men can. I'm not saying his direction is flawless, mind you. The film's pacing is a little off, jumping frantically from scene to scene at times before suddenly slowing down for no apparent reason. Still, that's easy to forgive when you see what Woo can do with a scene as simple as a shoot-out in a mine. It's really quite mesmerizing, watching men jump from cover to cover, blasting everything in sight and switching from slow motion to real-time movement every now and then. There's something poetic about these scenes, and I fear they can't be described adequately. Also working in the film's favor is an enjoyable score by Hans Zimmer (Gladiator), and particularly a quaint little bit he wrote which plays every time Travolta appears on screen. Broken Arrow does run a bit too long at 108 minutes, which could easily have been chopped down to 90. I'd recommend the film to those of you who love Woo's style of direction, Travolta's style of overacting, and Graham Yost's style of re-using the same script over and over again. I give the movie three and a half out of five stars.
Comments? Send to: johnbeachem@dependentfilms.net
Past reviews can be found at: http://us.imdb.com/ReviewsBy?John+Beachem
* * * * * - One of the best movies of the year. * * * * - Great flick, try and catch this one. * * * - Okay movie, hits and misses. * * - Pretty bad, see it at your own risk. * - See this one only if you enjoy pain.
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