Cast:
Kurt Russell (Sergeant Todd "3465"; Jesse Littlejohn as 8-year-old Todd; Wyatt Russell as 11-year-old Todd), Jason Scott Lee (Caine 607), Jason Isaacs (Colonel Mekum), Connie Nielsen (Sandra), Sean Pertwee (Mace), Jared & Taylor Thorne (Nathan), Mark Bringelson (Lieutenant Rubrick), Gary Busey (Captain Church), K. K. Dodds (Lieutenant Sloan), James R. Black (Riley), Kyle Sullivan (Tommy), Corbin Bleu (Johnny), with Sara Paxton (Angie), and Michael Chiklis (Jimmy Pig) Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (#1670 - Mortal Kombat, #1688 - Alien vs. Predator, #2158 - Resident Evil)
Review:
Sure, let's have another movie to test my bias for select presences in movies and also movies that came out either before I was born/when I wasn't old enough to stumble onto it on a DVD shelf. It may interest you to know that the movie was written by David Peoples. He was the co-writer of Blade Runner (1982) and other films such as Unforgiven (1992) and 12 Monkeys (1995). Soldier, much like Unforgiven, had languished in development hell for years. Evidently, at one time, Clint Eastwood was tapped to be involved with filming (you might remember that Eastwood had directed/starred in People's script Unforgiven [1992]) before it eventually fell down to Paul W. S. Anderson and Kurt Russell. While claims have been made that it was envisioned as being a side-sequel to that film, Peoples has denied this, stating that he wrote it in 1984 after having seen The Terminator and wanting to make a movie with a tough guy who actually is the hero, and yes, yes, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, 1991, but hey, Soldier came out in 1998 (at any rate, a movie that shows the combat history of someone at the "Shoulder of Orion" along with getting a "Plissken Patch" is probably just having fun with stuff). The regimen of workouts for Russell led to delays in starting production (which apparently led to Anderson using the time to do Event Horizon [1997]) that also led to planned locations being unused due to bad weather in favor of sets; reportedly, Anderson did a re-write of the film, with Peoples claiming to have not seen the film. Released in October 1998 (a month where the most noted movie released that month was Antz) on a budget of $60 million, the movie was a flop that made less than a fourth of its budget back (dollars aren't everything, of course, but consider the timescape). Anderson's next theatrical project came with Resident Evil (2002) while this happens to be the last script done by Peoples to have been made into a movie.
I'm sure you've heard of a movie with a battle of "obsolete" versus "new" before, and I'm sure you've heard of a Western or two involving a weapon finding a family beyond the bullets. Sure, the adversaries are the bare minimum, and sure the environments are pretty set-bound. You've got a training sequence (told with as little dialogue as possible) to show the trained soldiers from birth in 1996 to the future...of 2036. I guess it depends on how much you take the movie seriously in what it gives you: Is it familiar to those who've seen one too many Westerns like Shane [1953] (only instead of having that little kid whining about coming back, the soldier simply kicks ass and stays around)? Sure. Is it filled with a few too many cliches? Maybe. Do you know where it is going to go where one man seeks to take fellow soldiers to hell? Yea. Did I enjoy this? Yes, I did. So, there's Kurt Russell in a role with as little words to say as possible learning about actual society and defending it by killing as many faceless dudes as it takes to keep himself and others alive. Sore foot or no sore foot, he wasn't going to let it get in the way of a big paycheck and goddamnit, I like his moxie in a movie that is saved from outright mediocrity because he really is that damn good here. He may have been in his late forties here, but he still has the physicality and the presence to make this an interesting character to see grow from a broken weapon to a guy with the semblance of a soul that people want to be around. The adversaries are not exactly given much to do to combat that as tools of a new order of brutality, mainly because Lee doesn't get much to say (as one does from a super soldier that gets their eye gouged out early before getting back to action) and Isaacs is more of a pencil-necked blowhard, but I like their stuff anyway in confrontation with the inevitable. Nielsen and Pertwee lead the ordinary folks down on the desolate lands (which look pretty neat at times) with mixed results - "soldiers deserve soldiers" basically sums up that yea, there's some folks worth saving, but yeah, our eyes are focused on that one guy no matter what. It's a 99-minute adventure that can be fun depending on how many cliches is enough in an obvious action movie. As a whole, the action sequences (such as for the climax) mostly hold things together for a movie that either falls by the wayside for those who don't fall for its cliche charms or has just enough enjoyment to actually make you believe that the film is worth a check. As a clear fan of Russell and a person who likes their action movies of varying levels of ambition, this one is decent enough to say it might be worth your time.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Next up - Kristofferson.
*I always try to find time to find a link to an interview or something for research or for fun, so enjoy a Peoples interview - Janet and David Webb Peoples at Cinequest I will say this one quote is kinda funny from Peoples: "Hollywood encourages violence". Well, yes! Isn't that the fun of moviemaking? What's next, wanting movies to have less sex?
