Why don't they make movies like this anymore?

Rating: 10/10 (27 May 2008)

In the past, many summer action movies were geared towards adults (at least in theory) with R-rated violence, and a lot of intelligent plot twists and good characterizations. Some examples were the "Die Hard" movies, "True Lies," and "The Rock." Sadly, those days are gone, with today's summer action movies being dumbed down and neutered to get every kid from the target audience into the theater (the fact that movies make a ton of money if they are good no matter what the rating still hasn't occurred to the producers).
"The Rock" represents a farewell to this kind of movie. It's very violent, but for the most part not very heavy. The story is compelling, and it has plenty of original ideas and characters that are actually intelligent. The actors do terrific jobs, and the action sequences are tightly done. There are some one-liners to be sure, but not enough to make the movie an action-comedy. It's one of those movies that is the definition of what a summer action movie is supposed to be.
The story formula is familiar, but the creators do enough with it that it seems fresh and alive. An angered general takes Alcatraz hostage and aims missiles armed with deadly gas at San Francisco. The US government sends a team of Navy Seals in to take them down. Joining them are a "chemical weapons specialist" and the one man who escaped from Alcatraz.
With names like Steven Segal and Arnold Schwartzenegger, two of Hollywood's most notoriously wooden actors (Schwartzenegger's "True Lies" being an exception), being some of the most famous poster-boys of the summer action movie genre, it would be sensible to guess that like most other action movies, acting is not a plus point. On the contrary, acting one of the reasons why this movie works so well. Every actor is believable in his role. Nicholas Cage, fresh off of his Oscar win for "Leaving Las Vegas," is perfectly understated in the fish-out-of-water role. He's a self-described "chemical weapons super-freak," but he's grounded enough for the audience to sympathize with him. John Mason may be a character that many talented actors could play, but after watching this movie, it's hard to imagine any other actor than Sean Connery playing it this well. I guess it makes sense for the original James Bond to still be doing this halfway into his sixties, but clearly age hasn't taken its toll on Connery at this point because he performs the role with a slick wit and the capability of firing a gun without reading glasses (haha). Probably the most important role here is that of General Hummel (Ed Harris). Though he's a villain, the way Harris portrays the character is key to the movie's success. As villainous as Hummel is for doing what he does, Harris plays Hummel with such passion that the character comes to life and he believes every word that he is saying. This is key because it makes the situation that much more serious, and it sets the tone for the rest of the movie. If you can't believe in what the villain is saying, than who cares? The supporting actors are great as well. John Spencer, William Forsythe, the vastly under-rated Michael Biehn, and a charming performance by Vanessa Marcil (why she doesn't get any big roles is beyond me, cause while not the best actress, she's certainly a lot better than many of the more popular beauties out there).
Bruckheimer favorite Michael Bay is returning after directing "Bad Boys," which while not bad, it pales at the likes of "The Rock" (then again, not much else can match up to this movie). Armed with a better script and a more compelling story, Bay makes it clear that when it comes to directing action movies, he is a force to be reckoned with. He knows exactly what he's doing. Every action sequence is expertly choreographed, and the pacing is perfect. Though the end has a distinct lack of intelligence that's not present in the rest of the film, I am more than willing to forgive because it's still tremendously exciting anyway. It's hard to imagine a movie that's more exciting or suspenseful than this.
As I said before, "The Rock" represents the last of its kind: the summer action movie for adults. Though few would disagree that the MPAA is notoriously easy-going when it comes to rating a movie based on violence, even the MPAA knew it couldn't get away with giving this one anything less than an R. There's a lot of violence here, and a lot of it is intense. Some of the scenes are hard to watch. I would definitely recommend at least previewing it first before showing it to anyone under the age of 15. Though this limits the target audience, this is a good decision because in order for suspense and excitement to take place, what happens on screen has to get our attention, and the in-your-face approach that an R rating allows accomplishes this. Additionally, the audience has to buy the premise, preferably within its own context. Sometimes this can be rather disturbing in some sense, but that makes the action believable, which is key for suspense. An action movie like this with a PG-13 rating loses that intimacy, which inevitably reduces the excitement level. This is a shame because some movies with the potential to be really exciting have been ruined by producer neutering (Jerry Bruckheimer has completely "sold out" by doing this for EVERY movie that he does now-"Pearl Harbor" would be a great example of this).
Fast-paced, relentless, and terrifically exciting, "The Rock" is probably the best farewell to the adult-oriented summer action movie genre that one could hope for.