(...and seriously, a heavy spoiler follows:)
First: Seagal dies some 30 minutes into the film. Of course I, as a certified Seagal-hater, salute that fact and award a point to filmmakers. They couldn't escape catering to his ego, though, so his character was given an inappropriately high rank (in his other films he also always has some fancy title: ex-CIA, ex-Seal, whateversoundscool... oh, vanity). But, still... what a refreshment to see him off. Indeed I would never have seen this movie had it not been for a film critic who had given away the main spoiler. For me it wasn't a spoiler, it was a glimmer of hope. The fact that in the same accident, that killed off Lt. Colonel Austin Travis (chorus "Haaaalelujah"), Joe Morton's character is left crippled, which in turn crippled Morton's notorious overacting tendencies, is worth another full point.
Second: Seagal is actually very decent inside those 30 minutes. Luckily he was given mainly procedural dialog so his range of acting skills wasn't challenged. That way I was able to acknowledge that the man indeed has a screen presence, somewhat akin to John Wayne. It would be actually nice to watch him if he was any good. Too bad that he probably felt discouraged for being killed after giving his only decent performance so after this movie it was business as usual for him.
Third: Killing off what the audience supposed would be the main character may have been an amusing gimmick, may have been a nod to Hitchcock but was foremost a strategic element in building up a proper suspense. Now you knew you weren't in for a typical shoot-em-up flick that would see Seagal slapping bad guys around and spewing unfunny one- liners. You were instead wondering how the hell was Kurt Russel's character (a snobby analyst, despised by fellow rescuers) gonna save the day and wouldn't he also buy the farm in the process.
Perhaps another gimmick was casting of David Suchet. His fame mostly rises from portraying somewhat geeky and benign detective Poirot, and it presented such an effective and eerie contrast to make him the chief villain. He proved extremely convincing as charming, intelligent and brutally determined terrorist.
Another thing convincing is the plot. It may have felt a bit outrageous and far-fetched in 1996. but not unfeasible. It certainly doesn't feel that way now, no need to say why.
These elements, along with good (but not exceptional) direction and presence of beautiful Halle Berry, is enough to recommend "Executive Decision". I wonder how it will fare some 50 years from now, on its own merit, free from the context of audience knowing the cast and having expectations based on the knowledge. Perhaps not that bad, as it doesn't have that many flaws. Of all the "Die Hard" clones (which this movie is) this is one of those that captured the spirit of the original well in terms of putting an involuntary and unfit hero (in this case a group of them) to utilize what ever he's got and overcome the adversaries in a closed space.
First: Seagal dies some 30 minutes into the film. Of course I, as a certified Seagal-hater, salute that fact and award a point to filmmakers. They couldn't escape catering to his ego, though, so his character was given an inappropriately high rank (in his other films he also always has some fancy title: ex-CIA, ex-Seal, whateversoundscool... oh, vanity). But, still... what a refreshment to see him off. Indeed I would never have seen this movie had it not been for a film critic who had given away the main spoiler. For me it wasn't a spoiler, it was a glimmer of hope. The fact that in the same accident, that killed off Lt. Colonel Austin Travis (chorus "Haaaalelujah"), Joe Morton's character is left crippled, which in turn crippled Morton's notorious overacting tendencies, is worth another full point.
Second: Seagal is actually very decent inside those 30 minutes. Luckily he was given mainly procedural dialog so his range of acting skills wasn't challenged. That way I was able to acknowledge that the man indeed has a screen presence, somewhat akin to John Wayne. It would be actually nice to watch him if he was any good. Too bad that he probably felt discouraged for being killed after giving his only decent performance so after this movie it was business as usual for him.
Third: Killing off what the audience supposed would be the main character may have been an amusing gimmick, may have been a nod to Hitchcock but was foremost a strategic element in building up a proper suspense. Now you knew you weren't in for a typical shoot-em-up flick that would see Seagal slapping bad guys around and spewing unfunny one- liners. You were instead wondering how the hell was Kurt Russel's character (a snobby analyst, despised by fellow rescuers) gonna save the day and wouldn't he also buy the farm in the process.
Perhaps another gimmick was casting of David Suchet. His fame mostly rises from portraying somewhat geeky and benign detective Poirot, and it presented such an effective and eerie contrast to make him the chief villain. He proved extremely convincing as charming, intelligent and brutally determined terrorist.
Another thing convincing is the plot. It may have felt a bit outrageous and far-fetched in 1996. but not unfeasible. It certainly doesn't feel that way now, no need to say why.
These elements, along with good (but not exceptional) direction and presence of beautiful Halle Berry, is enough to recommend "Executive Decision". I wonder how it will fare some 50 years from now, on its own merit, free from the context of audience knowing the cast and having expectations based on the knowledge. Perhaps not that bad, as it doesn't have that many flaws. Of all the "Die Hard" clones (which this movie is) this is one of those that captured the spirit of the original well in terms of putting an involuntary and unfit hero (in this case a group of them) to utilize what ever he's got and overcome the adversaries in a closed space.