A lot has been said and written about this flick ever since its original inception. I think that it is testament to the longevity of TNMC that we started picking up news bits about this one right from the beginning and had the privilege to follow it to its debut in theaters. That, my friends, is pretty darn cool. If there is one thing that TNMC has stood for, it is mapping that fine line between entertainment and crap (as our slogan so eloquently dictates) and forging ahead beginning through end is something we can take pride in now. And contrary to popular belief, we really don't go looking for this stuff; we want to find the good stuff and communicate it to you, our dear readers. Yet, Hollywood likes to do weird stuff to us and provide us with crap and wrap it up in chocolate coating.
 Which brings me to this review of "Swordfish," which not surprisingly (and check out my bridge here) opens with our notably slender and non-Terl-like John Travolta stating that what mostly comes out of Hollywood is in fact crap. So will this movie become self-fulfilling prophecy, or does it have some wholesome goodness in it? Read on, my friends, read on.
Swordfish is your typical summer action movie with lots of gunplay, car chases, some spice thrown in for good measure, and an attempt at original plot. The basic premise is that our hero Stanley Jobson, played by Hugh Jackman, is one of the world's greatest hackers and is now banned by the FBI from using any computers for the rest of his life. Our antagonist is a gent named Gabriel who happens to bear a striking resemblance to Vincent Vega. He is a fellow who, according to one of his employees, lives beyond the boundaries of normal humans, and he wants Stanley to help him heist $9.5 billion. The payoff? Stanley will take a $10 million cut (which, when you think about it, is a pretty raw deal considering the payoff), which he can use to free his daughter from the evil clutches of his boozehound ex-wife and her new porn director hubby. What follows the setup is your usual set of twists and turns so prevalent in summertime and the ending question is whether or not it is all worthwhile.
Let's start with the two interesting characters. First, we've got our favorite paunchy disco-scientologist John Travolta. He has finally learned to tone things down a bit, and does surprisingly well in this role. He's the bad guy, obviously, and I get the feeling that he was trying to pull off what Alan Rickman did in "Die Hard." For the most part, it does work. He appears sharp, merciless, and even creates a background for himself that I found myself getting into. Next we have Hugh Jackman, who came onto the scene last summer in the move "X-Men." I think that Mr. Jackman has quite a future for himself because he possesses that certain charisma, that intensity, that elusive 'something' that box office stars have. He's pretty believable as Jobson and does a decent job in his interaction with his daughter.
And then we have Halle Berry. Her participation in this movie has been WELL documented for many reasons. Well, two reasons anyway. I think she happens to be quite striking and a fine actress (The Flintstones move excluded) but here's how I think the negotiations went down amongst the producers and casting committee to get her to do a wholly unnecessary but nevertheless eye-opening scene:
"So, it's never been done before, right?"
"Nope."
"Do you think we can convince her to do it?"
"Well, maybe. We've got lots of money to throw around here. Is the part interesting?"
"Well, not really, but she'll be sharing time with Travolta. What gal wouldn't jump at the chance?"
"But she's never done it before. Why will she do it now?"
"We gotta take a shot at it. I think we all owe it to ourselves to at least try. Throw some cash at her. Give her half a mil for five whole seconds of what Internet fan-boys and post-pubescent males alike have been scouring the web for over the past five years."
"Cool. Better make it a whole mil though; $500 G's for each one."
"Sweet."
And so we have Halle Berry.
And then we get to the intricacy of the plot. And indeed it is intricate, because as always, it starts with suspension of disbelief. Any time you've got a movie that deals with high tech stuff that 99% of the world does not understand, you've got to find that delicate balance between making it seem plausible with just enough of the right buzz words in the right places, but also simple enough that the masses will understand it. For the most part the movie does this adequately, but in several places turns rather hokey, so be on the lookout. The evil side of that "suspension of disbelief" concept is that if you step over the line, you look really stupid and this film does do that from time to time. The best thing to do at this point is to remind yourself that it's just a movie, they made a mistake, and just move on.
All of this is fine and good and typical of summer fare, but really, is there anything that distinguishes "Swordfish?" The answer is yes, at least in my mind. The plot stays on course well enough to keep you guessing and interested as to who is who, and for whom they work for. Also, it asks one of the most difficult questions that the U.S. government faces on a regular basis, and for this point the best movie I can compare "Swordfish" to is "A Few Good Men." It is courageous to ask this question and make it seem plausible without being too dramatic because it is in fact very serious. That question is, what is the cost…what are we willing to pay…to ensure the protection of the American way of life? It's an ugly question and there's no easy answer, yet there are people who must face that question every day. In fact, I was so impressed by it that I found sympathy for both the protagonist AND the antagonist, simply because they both fell into that shade of gray where we as human beings lie.
Perhaps I'm overstating the good at the neglect of the bad, but I feel that "Swordfish" is worth a look.
- Dogburt
Related Items:
|
