Between a Rock and a Soft Cage

Rating: 6/10 (19 July 2010)

I was teeter-totting back and forth between 3½ and 4 stars through this recent viewing of 1996's The Rock, a movie: A> I haven't seen in a long time, B> Always loved and in fact, C> I originally gave it 4½/5 stars.
Well, time's a changin'. Or maybe I have. Or maybe Bruckheimer/Cage's enormously inferior follow-up Con Air kinda drove the following point to light.
It would be a huge surprise (disappointment) if this film got an endorsement from the large gay community in the very area its set in. And they thought Basic Instinct was bad.
I only point out the few, but extreme, scenes of homophobia because, well, it's just not right. (They elaborate in ridiculing homosexuals in Con Air, but that's another story/review.) It's not right, because it teaches the core audience, teen boys to mid 30s, that making fun of gays (or blacks, or any creed) is not only an acceptable practice, but funny! It's not and I digress The other problem I had was Cage. Over! Under! Acting seems to be his moto. Too bad "Good" isn't part of his forte. Man, he was distracting! Thankfully, not only did Connery act circles around him, but went beyond Cage's performance to balance out the film.
Get past the two negatives, and Action and Movie fans rejoice! There is, in fact, a way to combine plot with leave-your-brain-at-the-door action. But, I hate to say, they might have overshot it a bit. There was just too much.
Suffice to say, it's a Hannibal Lecter (Actually, Mason, played by Connery) story in which Goodspeed (unoriginal and inconvincibly played by Cage) takes on the aid of "The Prisoner with No Name" to break into "The Rock" when he was the only one to break out due to some treasonous/mercenaries who are threatening San Francisco with toxic green balls. And not from The Hulk.
Oh, there's a lot more: a distraught daughter, a confused and stupid and pregnant girlfriend, a dead wife, dimwitted military bozos who should be dead or discharged, soldiers on this side, that side, all with ulterior motives and much, much more. Sure, it's my quest to get intelligent action (SEE: The Bourne Trilogy, or The Dark Knight) but enough's enough.
That said, it's a fun movie. Connery makes it really worth wild even though he doesn't show up until the movie got going. But, unfortunately for him, the director, writer or idiot, kept him running around in circles, literally, in the final act. I don't blame Connery for that; I think he was just given poor direction. Sure, his character was supposed to be the iffy hero, but they had him trotting around like a buffoon until he did what we all knew he would.
Spoiler alert, the ending? Could it be any more Shawshank? If you can get past the homophobia (please do,) the enormously bad acting from Cage and oh, lest I forget, the far-too-many (director Bay's favorite) slo-mo scenes, the extensive action alongside Connery was good enough for a recommendation. It's always refreshing to re-visit pre-CGI movies. Don't call me old-fashioned. I like movies that took more time out of the computer room and into realism. With heart. Sorry, Avatar fans, we're still not there yet, so make action look real.