Tag films

I watched ‘Superman’ – and it was okay

seancarslake 1 Comment

James Gunn’s ‘Superman’ was released in cinemas last week to mixed – yet in some ways consistent – reviews and has been vigorously broken down and analysed on numerous online channels and podcasts over the past few days.

I managed to catch a session of this movie yesterday and approached it with an open mind – not wanting to be overly-critical, but also not setting my expectations too high.

This is not a great movie; nor is it a disaster. In fact, a lot of the praise that this film has received can be justified, and likewise so can the flaws and weaknesses pointed out in some of the negative reviews. But overall – and this is my own verdict here – I would describe this reboot of Superman as being all over the place and a bit of a mess, yet it turned out to be a fun movie that I found quite likeable.

Without giving any elements of the plot away, I will tread carefully and provide an honest appraisal of what I experienced from this movie. Toward the end of this article, I will put up a spoiler warning and then offer a few more detailed remarks.

I will start positively by saying that David Corenswet was excellent as Superman. He looked and acted the part, but I think the way the film was written meant that his charm and charisma took a little while to shine through. But eventually it did.

Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane was also well-cast, as was Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor – but I don’t think the super villain’s part was penned as sharply as it could have been. The ideas were alright and some of Luthor’s schemes were decent, but the fast-paced screenplay often didn’t allow his moments of evil genius to settle before moving on to the next scenes.

In fact, this a common criticism of James Gunn, mainly around moments of gravitas or emotionally-heavy exchanges in his films, in which he overuses levity – often in the form of a weak joke or some type of slapstick – to underline the scene. To be fair, this style can often work well in a film and it’s great to make the audience laugh – but it is not as effective as often as Gunn thinks it is and many times in this movie he fails to let these character-building scenes slow down a little and run their course.

You may have read similar criticisms in other reviews, and these are legitimate gripes. But to me these issues were a minor disappointment and fit nicely into my ‘it could have been better’ overview of this film. Whilst I think that Gunn overplayed the use of jokes in this movie, it was not a deal-breaker for me – for it was clear that his vision for Superman was aimed at a younger audience.

There has also been a lot of negative talk about how bloated and overflowing this film is with other meta human characters, such as the ‘Justice Gang’ and Luthor’s goon squad featuring Ultraman and The Engineer, not to mention the mysterious ‘Hammer of Boravia’ – but I’ll have more to say about this chap later. The main criticism that has been echoed around the internet is that it is hard for Superman to be the star of his own show with all these other powered-up folks running around, which is a fair call.

This all boils down to Gunn’s decision to start the movie right in the middle of a shit storm – which it is revealed was partly Superman’s fault – and simply pile all these characters into the story at breakneck speed and allow the audience to figure it out as it plays along. Sometimes jumping into the deep end works (note: ‘Pacific Rim’) and sometimes it doesn’t, but I am of the view that James Gunn set things up satisfactorily and there was ‘just’ enough continuity and reasoning to explain each rapidly-moving jump to the next.

Would I have preferred a little more time for the characters to develop, a touch of plot clarity, and perhaps some moments to build a solid platform in which to propel the film forward? Yes, of course – but I was somehow able to overlook these basic storytelling flaws and ended up enjoying the film. I guess if I was to offer up an explanation for my leniency, then it would be that the overall charm of this movie had somehow won me over.

The visuals and aesthetics were bright and colourful, the jokes – when on point – were good, the performances all around were convincing, and the overall story was serviceable.

Therefore, I’m going to be a little generous here and give ‘Superman’ a six out of ten. I found it to be a very likeable movie; a risky take on a well-known and established superhero – one that I don’t think James Gunn was able to pull off completely.

However, I can’t go any deeper into my assessment of this film and offer a more detailed critique without mentioning spoilers, so consider this a fair warning for those who are yet to watch ‘Superman.’

**** SPOILER ALERT ****

Judging by what I wrote above the warning notice, it is safe to assume that I enjoyed the movie and was quite fair towards James Gunn’s treatment of such an iconic IP such as Superman. But it’s important to note that I described my final score as being a ‘generous’ six out of ten – when in truth if I was marking this correctly should have given it a five.

Again, I must underline that I liked this film, but it lost some serious marks over a number of issues – with the treatment of Superman’s true parents Jor-El and Lara topping the list. That entire scene regarding their damaged message, and it being interpreted in such a diabolical manner may have worked as a plot mechanism, but to not be debunked as a Luthor hoax at the end of the film and allowed to stand as fact was a serious own goal and a betrayal of Superman’s origin story.

The ‘Justice Gang’ worked okay for me, and I liked Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner. Mister Terrific was a cool superhero and I don’t think he was bigger than Superman in this movie as other critics suggest. I couldn’t get my head around Hawk Girl, though – and if one of these extra superheroes could have had a spell on the sidelines to help ease the clutter then I would have nominated her.

The ‘Hammer of Boravia’ came and went in an instant, yet was able to beat up Superman twice in the first ten minutes of the film before never seeing him again. I was hoping for a rematch at the end of the movie, but a scene inside Luthor’s control room clearly showed Ultraman being the man underneath this mysterious villain’s mask.

Now onto the humour, where – like much of the film’s content – it felt like it was thrown against a wall in the hope that some of it might stick. That does sound a little harsh, but that was exactly how hit and miss some of the gags were in this film. For example, I laughed aloud when Luthor’s guys released the baby Kaiju out of its box and made an offbeat remark as the tiny creature scurried away – along the lines of “Don’t worry. It will get bigger.” I thought Green Lantern knocking out the Boravian tanks with a giant middle finger was also pretty good. On the flip side, Superman’s robots were unfunny and the monkeys tapping away on the keyboards were a wide miss. I’m neither here nor there with Krypto, but the appearance of a drunken Supergirl at the end of the film to collect her dog was totally dumb.

Another scene that I would describe as ‘misplaced Gunn wit’ was the bizarre sequence where Superman and Lois are having a deep discussion in her apartment whilst the ‘Justice Gang’ are battling a giant alien outside the window. Seriously, would Superman sit there talking to his girlfriend instead of helping the other heroes fight the creature? I think you know the answer.

This film easily could have been a seven or an eight out of ten, had James Gunn toned down his style of movie-making and his trademark quirks – if only as a mark of respect for such a famous character as Superman. I think he could have satisfied both the younger and older demographics had he tightened things up a little and showed some more restraint with his liberal splashing of attempted comedy in almost every scene.

So, I’ve had my say – and I must admit that this was a very difficult film to review, but I hope that I have done so fairly and in an objective manner.

Again, ‘Superman’ gets a six out of ten from me – despite its flaws.

And as an end note, if I was to compare it to the other blockbuster film released this month – ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’, then James Gunn’s ‘Superman’ wins hands down!

All photos and screenshots are courtesy of DC, Warner Bros and various online sources.

‘Diamonds Are Forever’ shines brighter than I remembered.

seancarslake Leave a comment

‘Diamonds Are Forever’ is often the first name that comes up when discussing the weakest entries into the James Bond series. There are other dubious titles as well, such as ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Die Another Day’, but Sean Connery’s comeback film from 1971 somehow remains in a category of its own.

Are these reviews fair? Does this movie deserve such a reputation? Well, this older version of myself decided to re-watch ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ for the first time in thirty years to find out.

My recollection of ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ over time echoed on a couple of points; the first being that Sean Connery had aged a lot since his last Bond movie (only four years earlier) and my second observation was that some crazy stuff went down in this film. Now having watched it again, I think Connery looks good and the movie is far more insane than I remembered – which is a great thing!

I’m not sure what the production team were smoking at the time, as some of the places and situations James Bond finds himself in are outrageous – especially when compared to the other films in the series. The previous entry – ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ – is the polar opposite to this show, and it’s difficult to compare the movies in any way. For starters, ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ features a campy version of Blofeld as the main villain, two ‘flamboyant’ assassins leaving a trail of dead bodies, countless one-liners that feel better suited to a Burt Reynolds film, and to top it all off most of these capers take place in ‘Sin City’ itself – Las Vegas!

‘Diamonds Are Forever’ was Sean Connery’s sixth outing as James Bond, and he was paid a reported $1.25 million dollars for his efforts. Such a high figure for the time reflected the chaos caused by George Lazenby’s sudden departure – but that is another story. Behind the scenes, the screenplay was written by Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz – with the film being directed by Guy Hamilton and produced by Albert R Broccoli and Harry Saltzman.

John Barry provided the soundtrack, and I thought his modern score worked well with this movie. Shirley Bassey performed the title song, which is a rather catchy tune that follows the older style of opening themes but adds some newer nineteen-seventies sounds.

The film’s pre-credits sequence features Bond on the hunt for Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Having violently dealt with a couple of his minions, 007 eventually squares off with his old nemesis as he is about to undergo face-altering plastic surgery.

Once Blofeld is (seemingly) put away permanently, James Bond returns to active duty and is given an assignment to track illegal diamond shipments out of South Africa, and to discover who might be stockpiling them and why. Bond is sent to Amsterdam and goes undercover posing as the dangerous smuggler Peter Franks, before following the trail to the United States – Las Vegas and California specifically.

Of course it could never be as simple as thieves stealing precious gems, and the plot evolves into a SPECTRE operation where a satellite uses diamond-charged lasers to destroy targets on Earth.

As this film took such a sharp turn away from the usual James Bond formula, I won’t offer too many comments about the storyline or the style of the direction and editing. I think the more interesting aspects of ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ are the quirky characters and bizarre scenes that took place within this movie, so I will focus on some of these instead.

Let’s start with the casting of Charles Gray as Ernst Stavro Blofeld, whose campy portrayal of the super-villain is very different to what we saw from Telly Savalas and Donald Pleasence. This same actor had appeared in ‘You Only Live Twice’ as Bond’s contact in Tokyo, which makes him an odd choice to play the main bad guy here.

Gray is perhaps best known for ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’ – particularly the ‘The Time Warp’ song – where he delivers the famous line “It’s just a jump to the left.”

Gray turns out to be pretty good as Blofeld, as he projects considerable menace behind the appearance of a well-spoken British aristocrat. He delivers some cracking lines and in one scene is dressed up in drag (see photo above), making him the most ‘likeable’ incarnation of the SPECTRE boss we have seen.

Moving on, it is now time to discuss Mr Wint and Mr Kidd – two of the most memorable henchmen ever seen in a Bond movie.

From walking hand-in-hand, to finishing each other’s sentences; what was going on between these two was evident after their opening scene in the film. This never-seen-before dynamic for a Bond movie added more layers to the bizarre treat that is ‘Diamonds Are Forever’.

But make no mistake, this pair were ruthless killers and built up quite a body count throughout the movie. As far as the plot was concerned, Wint and Kidd were tasked with eliminating anyone who came in contact with the diamonds, and they did so via a number of effective measures – from scorpions to explosions.

Mr Wint, seen in the photo above, was played by Bruce Glover who sadly passed away only a few weeks ago in March this year. He is the father of actor Crispin Glover.

Mr Kidd was played by jazz musician Putter Smith, and was cast in the role after director Guy Hamilton saw him performing on stage.

The list of memorable characters in this movie does not end there, for who could forget the weird fight scene between Bond and the fearsome duo of Bambi and Thumper?

Just when you thought this film could not go any further off the rails, they come up with something like this. While this scene was completely bonkers, it added a ton more fun to what was already an enjoyable spectacle.

By this point, any idea that this was a run-of-the-mill 007 flick had long gone out the window.

Then there is the moon buggy chase scene. Yes, you read that correctly.

What happens here is Bond interupts a lunar landing simulation and steals the astronauts’ buggy, after which he is pursued through the Nevada desert by goons in cars and three-wheeler bikes.

We also have the mobsters working for Morton Slumber, the Las Vegas funeral director and part of the diamond smuggling operation. These are really cool characters, and I should point out that the thug in the back seat (see photo below) is played by horror movie legend Sid Haig.

The main gangster, played by Marc Lawrence, is credited as ‘Slumber Inc Attendant’ in this film. However, he would appear three years later dressed in similar attire in the opening scene of ‘The Man With The Golden Gun’ – but this time the character was named as ‘Rodney’.

Is it the same antagonist in the Bond universe, or is this a case of casting the same actor to play the same type of role in two separate movies?

Then there is the infamous gorilla scene.

This is a great trick, provided it is taken with a grain of salt as the lightweight carnival act that it is supposed to be. However, in this day and age the idea of a black woman transforming into a primate – regardless of the context – would scare the wits out of any major movie studio.

And last but not least, I have to mention the Bond girls, especially Jill St John who starred as Tiffany Case. This character is quite a departure from 007’s previous love interests, and delivers some outrageous lines in this film, perhaps none more so than “Blow up your pants!” – which was directed toward a pesky kid at the Circus Circus casino.

Interestingly, both actresses who starred in ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ – Jill St John and Lana Wood (who played Plenty O’Toole) – share an off-screen connection to the actor Robert Wagner. Lana Wood is the younger sister of Natalie Wood, who was famously married to Wagner until her drowning death in 1981. St John tied the knot with Robert Wagner in 1990 and they are still together today.

Moving on, I also have to mention some of the oversized and futuristic sets featured in this film. I felt a bit of a Stanley Kubrick vibe whilst appreciating these aesthetics, and I now have to wonder if the simulated moon landing scene in this movie was perhaps a nod to the master director.

‘Diamonds Are Forever’ is somewhat of an anomaly in the James Bond series, as the original playbook was well and truly discarded, forever changing the way these films would be made. Part of this would have been the producers wanting to quickly move on from George Lazenby, doing so by re-hiring Connery and throwing caution to the wind when it came to the writing and casting of this movie.

It was a huge risk at the time, but one could argue that this dramatic change in direction worked as James Bond films went from strength-to-strength throughout the seventies and eighties, and are just as popular at the box office today.

‘Diamonds Are Forever’ was not the movie I remembered from my previous viewing back in the early nineteen-nineties. I have to say that all these years later it was far more enjoyable and entertaining than I expected it to be, possibly as a result of experiencing it with an older and more appreciative mindset.

However, I still found a few issues, with some of the characters becoming a bit of a blur, due to so many things happening at once. For instance, the motivations of the part-time comedian Shady Tree and the delightful Plenty O’Toole were not entirely clear to me, and I got a little muddled with the fast pacing of this film. However, these are tiny gripes and I probably missed a few key plot points as I was laughing too hard.

Perhaps the most obvious flaws in this film come via some fairly ordinary dubbing, and this is most evident in the pre-credits sequence. Connery’s voice sounds too loud and out of place, and in one scene has been possibly sped up. Then there is the Japanese guy who manages to tell Bond that he needs to go to Cairo, despite being choked and having his mouth wide open at the time.

Some of the special effects are a bit slack as well; mainly the explosions that were added in post production. I don’t recall these types of shots being as noticeable in previous Bond films, but it didn’t detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie.

‘Diamonds Are Forever’ was one of the most entertaining flicks I have seen in a while. To be fair, I went into this with very low expectations – which might have swayed my opinion slightly – but nevertheless I found this to be an excellent entry into the Bond series.

This film is very self-aware; from the odd characters and loose dialogue, through to the strange locations and crazy action sequences. Avoiding the usual 007 settings such as the Bahamas, or a classic European city – not counting Amsterdam – also works an absolute treat.

When Bond does visit the gaming floor of a casino, instead of playing Baccarat he tries his luck on the Craps table. In fact, there is very little class and style in this movie that you would normally associate with James Bond, with everything from the fight scenes to the car chases being bigger and louder than what we are used to seeing.

The historical significance of ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ should not be understated either, for this entry moved so far away from a winning formula – at great risk I might add – and ended up serving as a ‘reboot’ that paved the way for Roger Moore and a more lighthearted and action-comedic take on the dashing secret agent.

The best advice I could give anyone wanting to revisit this film is to take it on face value, and enjoy it for the outrageous caper that it is. If you try and compare it to any of the previous films in the series and hope for something similar, you will be disappointed – as I was back in my younger years.

I’m going to rate ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ purely on how much I enjoyed the film, and not take into consideration the essential ingredients needed for a James Bond feature, as everything is turned on its head here.

With that being said, I give this movie a score of 8 out of 10 – with an extra half a point added for the hovercraft!

All posters and screenshots courtesy of Eon Productions and United Artists.

Robert Wagner and Jill St John photograph is courtesy of Getty Images (2014)

Image from ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’ is courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

‘For Your Eyes Only’ – An ageing Bond set to a disco beat!

seancarslake Leave a comment

My latest James Bond review takes me back to 1981, and to revisit a film that I had not seen in years – around thirty years in fact. I will be honest, ‘For Your Eyes Only’ was a movie that I could never get into when I was younger, so it will be interesting to see if I still think it’s crap, or if it manages to rise dramatically up the ranks.

‘For Your Eyes Only’ followed on from 1979’s far-fetched ‘Moonraker’, and promised a return to a more classic, grounded Bond adventure. Instead of space shuttles and laser guns, we now have a plot involving lost military equipment, with Greek smugglers and the good old KGB thrown into the mix.

I think what initially put me off this film was the age of Roger Moore, who was really starting to wrinkle up. He was becoming less-believable as the suave secret agent – and what was more ridiculous were all the women half his age falling all over him. Moore was getting by purely on charisma and charm at this stage – as well as huge box office takings – and would actually go on to make two more Bond films after this.

If you compare the screenshots above – taken four years apart – one could argue that Moore was already showing his age in 1977’s ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’. He was around fifty then, which meant that he was aged fifty-three during the filming of ‘For Your Eyes Only’.

My other criticism of this movie would be the musical score, which was arranged by the legendary Bill Conti. The disco beats are so out of place at times, and they even ‘funk up’ the Bond theme itself, which I think dates the film instantly. Conti’s score is very similar to some of his work in ‘Rocky III’ – particularly the training scenes – and it doesn’t work in a Bond movie.

However, the theme song by Sheena Easton is a different story altogether. This would have to be one of the best Bond tunes of all time, and so popular was Easton during the early 1980’s that she actually appears in the opening sequence – the only singer ever to do so.

‘For Your Eyes Only’ was directed by John Glen – in his feature film debut – and would be the first of five consecutive Bond movies where he was at the helm. The screenplay was written by Bond stalwarts Richard Maibaum and Michael G Wilson, with Albert R Broccoli producing.

The film starts with an opening sequence featuring some impressive helicopter stunt-work and the implied return of an old Bond villain, although his name is never mentioned. As great as this scene is, I still can’t get my head around the ‘delicatessen in stainless steel’ line. I can only assume it was intended to be a joke, for I have no idea what it means.

The locations in this film are superb, and the story moves between Spain, Cortina in Italy, and then onto the Greek Isles before the exciting finale at a mountain top monastery. Each setting features some incredible action sequences, with car chases, ski pursuits, underwater fights and insane rock-climbing all brilliantly brought to the big screen.

The cast supporting Roger Moore is solid. Carole Bouquet plays Melina Havelock, the love-interest who knows how to handle a crossbow. Topol and Julian Glover star as rival Greek smugglers Columbo and Kristatos respectively.

What gives this film added depth are the handful of secondary villains – or henchmen – who are quite ruthless and nasty, so a lot of credit must go to these actors, one of whom was Charles Dance in one of his earliest roles. In fact, the performances of Dance, John Wyman and Michael Gothard are simply superb, even though their characters have little to no dialogue.

This film would also serve as a changing-of-the-guard for the character of ‘M’, with Bernard Lee – who had been in the role since ‘Dr No’ – passing away in 1981. For this movie, the boss of MI6 was Chief-of-Staff Bill Tanner (James Villiers), and ‘M’ would be reintroduced in the following movie ‘Octopussy’, where he was played by Robert Brown.

Moving onto the structure of the movie itself, the pacing and plot of this feature are brilliantly executed, and the direction of Glen – as well as the editing – brings everything together neatly. It must be said that there is a ton of action in this film – with chases and fights coming at almost every turn. The stunts on show here are second-to-none, with no CGI back in those days, so what you are seeing is real – except for the green-screen action close-ups of Roger Moore.

Of particular note are the underwater scenes, for they were outstanding and pretty much had everything – from submarines, to shipwrecks, to submerged temples and man-eating sharks. There was some incredible cinematography here, even by today’s standards.

It wouldn’t be a Bond movie without a few laughs thrown in, or at least attempted-laughs as is the case here. I felt that the gags were a little off in this film – or perhaps they are just dated – from odd lines such as the delicatessen remark to overacted and goofy near-misses.

The one moment that I found genuinely funny is when Bibi – a teenage ice-skater with a crush on James Bond – sneaks into his hotel room and throws herself at him. Of course, nothing happens but Bond’s throwaway line about ‘buying her an ice cream’ is priceless!

At the other end of the scale, the Margaret Thatcher spoof is ridiculous, although it probably got a few laughs back in the day. Let’s just say this scene hasn’t aged well.

But despite the hit-and-miss humour, ‘For Your Eyes Only’ gets top marks for its explosive sequences, stunning locations, exceptional villains and brilliant direction and cinematography. However, the bizarre-at-times disco/funk score, combined with a lead actor that was too old for the role, does take a little shine off what is otherwise an excellent movie.

Don’t get me wrong, I really like Roger Moore as Bond. However, there is no denying that he was showing his age in this movie.

So, after watching ‘For Your Eyes Only’ again for the first time in more than thirty years, my opinion of this film has risen considerably. It is nowhere near my favourite Bond outing, but it no longer resides in the same sphere as ‘Die Another Day’ or ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ – or dare I say it – ‘No Time To Die’.

This movie had thrills and high-octane stunts aplenty, and was able to seamlessly move from one location to the next without skipping a beat. Roger Moore is a top leading man, although I stand by my comments about his age, and the supporting cast deliver great performances in this film. The underwater scenes are amazing, the bad guys will get under your skin, and if you love disco music then you will enjoy the soundtrack as well.

I don’t like disco so much, but ‘For Your Eyes Only’ gets a solid 7.5 out of 10 from me.

Screenshots courtesy of Eon Productions.

‘Soldier’ – The 1998 Kurt Russell cult-classic.

seancarslake Leave a comment

I will put this out there right away; this film was panned by critics and seriously bombed at the box office when it was released in 1998.

Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon, Resident Evil), the movie is based around the genetically modified – but ageing – futuristic soldier Sgt Todd 3465 (played by Russell) who is literally dumped like unwanted garbage onto a distant planet inhabited by scavengers and refugees.

I thought the film was okay when I first watched it around twenty-five years ago. The cast was pretty good – with Gary Busey and Jason Isaacs starring alongside Russell – and the special effects and battle scenes were more-than-passable.

Kurt Russell was in amazing shape for this film, as the requirements of his character dictated. Over his career, he would have been in decent condition for some of his roles – Snake Plissken in ‘Escape From New York’ springs to mind – but his physique in this movie is on another level. Check out the screenshots below.

But perhaps what is most intriguing about ‘Soldier’ are the references to ‘Blade Runner’, posing the question: – Are these two films set in the same cinematic universe?

I know this discussion is old hat for science-fiction aficionados, but I shall continue to present some evidence for those unaware of the possible connection.

The first thing I will point out is that David Peoples – the writer of ‘Soldier’ – also co-wrote the screenplay for ‘Blade Runner’. With that in mind, let’s move on to the film itself and see where the crossovers take place.

If you follow the arrows in the above capture you will note ‘Nexus’, ‘Tannhauser Gate’ and ‘Shoulder of Orion’ – and for most sci-fi fans, there is no explanation required here.

But for those unaware; the term ‘Nexus’ is used in ‘Blade Runner’ to categorise a series of replicants and the two places named are mentioned in Roy Batty’s famous monologue at the end of the film – which is one of the greatest passages in cinema history.

In this screenshot, you can see what looks like a ‘spinner’ from ‘Blade Runner’ among the rest of the garbage on the planet Arcadia 234.

There is also a conversation that takes place between the two settlers Mace and Sandra (played by Sean Pertwee and Connie Nielsen) who shelter Sgt Todd in their home. Once again, ‘Tannhauser Gate’ is mentioned.

However, if you once again look at Todd’s military record and focus on where the arrow is, you will see four references to characters Kurt Russell has played in other movies. In my opinion, this comedic touch all but removes any seriousness with the connections to ‘Blade Runner’.

For the record, and for those who aren’t movie buffs, I will explain exactly where these tongue-in-cheek commendation names originated from: – Russell played Gabriel Cash in ‘Tango and Cash’, Snake Plissken in ‘Escape from New York’ and ‘Escape from LA’, Jack O’Neil in ‘Stargate’, and R. J MacReady in ‘The Thing’ (but spelled incorrectly in the screenshot).

In one last piece of trivia regarding ‘Soldier’ – Kurt Russell’s son Wyatt played the twelve-year-old version of Todd 3465 in the movie.

My understanding is that ‘Soldier’ has become a little more appreciated over the years, which is good to know as it is a fairly solid sci-fi flick – and definitely worth watching.

It’s good value just for Kurt Russell alone, but looking back I have to say that this movie has more of a ‘Pitch Black’ or ‘Riddick’ vibe to it – and not so much ‘Blade Runner’.

As far as the action sequences are concerned, the combat scenes, firefights and explosions are right up there – a lot better than what we see today and less reliant on CGI effects.

I would have given this film a solid pass mark when it first came out, but now I’ve upped the score to a 3.5 out of 5.

See the official trailer below, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailers YouTube Channel.

Screenshots and photos courtesy of Morgan Creek Productions and People.com