Réclusion à mort

An enjoyable film in my mind. Travolta is especially good in a movie about a social worker's determination to save his friend after he is kidnapped by the drug dealers that he worked for. Sure, this is hardly a perfect movie, but it will entertain you for 95 minutes.

Good luck finding this - they're selling it on a cheapie DVD in Australia. One of the most obscure entries in Travolta's career, its one of those rare opportunities to see him looking this skinny.

Its absolute trash, of course, the kind of preachy exhibitionism that characterises mid-day movies, soap operas and tele-features.

*

The progression of Travolta's career seems to be characterised by almost total randomness. What is the explanation for the decisions John Travolta has made? Even his biggest, best decisions had a degree of randomness: from TV sweathog Vinne Barbarino to disco king in Saturday Night Fever? From family-movie icon in Look Who's Talking to hit-man in Pulp Fiction? Don't tell me these were the only roles available to him - not true. After Saturday Night Fever, he was the hottest thing since James Dean. He would have been offered a million scripts - hundreds of them probably great, so why the strange bomb Moment by Moment? And after Grease, when he lucked-in again, he could have had any script in Hollywood, so why the strange western drama Urban Cowboy? , he was the hottest thing since The sad truth behind this randomness is that Travolta bases his decisions of what role to take on the Hollywood religion of scientology. So instead of good characters or good dialogue in the script, good directors attached, or his agent's advice - he appeals to whatever mystical devices scientology suggests. Travolta claims that scientology knows best because it was responsible for his great decisions in the 70's (Grease, Saturday Night Fever and Welcome Back, Kotter). But in truth, scientology has been responsible for about five hits (those three, plus Pulp Fiction), and about thirty misses.

Travolta is a great actor, with terrific looks (even in expanded form) - so why is it that his career has been a series of almost random ups and downs, every now and then accidentally scoring a hit script, but mostly toiling away in rubbish like Perfect (1985), Two of a Kind (1983), Staying Alive (1983), White Man's Burden (1995), Michael (1996), Phenomenon (1996), Lucky Numbers (2000), Battlefield Earth (2000), Basic (2003). It was the same problem with Brando. Terrific actor, great looking (even in expanded form), but he picked roles based on the highest bidder. Money, instead of script and director quality. Contrast these guys with someone like Jack Nicholson - a pretty good actor, with terrible looks - but he's become a legend! He's been in scores of incredible films, one after another! What separates him? Terrific decisions - perfect decisions for that time of his life, and for his image, and for a projection of how good the final movie might be.

*

Only scientology could explain someone, even someone with not much weight in Hollywood, agreeing to do this script. Poorly written, it indulges in all the possible clichés of melodramatic trollop - and then is executed in the most trashy manner possible.

Still, Travolta is not poor. He makes us believe this crap, which is a real feat.

4/10 for Travolta, and that's very very generous.

Powerful performances and great thrills make this movie one you have to see. If you get the chance to see it, don't pass it up.

My review was written in November 1992 after watching the movie on Academy video cassette.

Earnest with a capital E, "Chains of Gold" is a failed attempt to deal with the ongoing drug/crime wave entrapping today's youth. This 1989 MCEG production was shown on Showtime last year and is now a Christmas video release.

Opening title card indicates the film was based on actual events, but the screenplay by star John Travolta and three other writers is corny melodrama.

Travolta portrays a do-gooder social worker in Miami with major guilt over the death of his son when he was too drunk to help. He's now taken under his wing a surrogate son, Joey Lawrence, who's deeply involved in local drug dealing.

When Lawrence disappears, Travolta becomes obsessed with finding the boy and saving him. Losing his job after a fight with a superior, Travolta decides to infiltrate the drug ring, led by evil Benjamin Bratt. To this end, he enlists the aid of an old flame, Marilu Henner, who's now working as Bratt's corrupt lawyer.

The film becomes utterly unconvincing when Bratt admits Travolta to his inner circle while having his henchman closely monitor the outsider. Of course Travolta bulls his way through to a violent, offing-the-baddies conclusion, but it plays as false.

Keeping his 1970s superstar charisma and physical abilities under wraps, Travolta is tiresome in this stolid, goody two-shoes role. Pairing with Henner strikes no sparks either. Film's best performance comes from Bratt, as the brash. 21-year-old fabulously wealthy drug kingpin.

Rod Holcomb's direction varies from overly low-key in the middle reels to egregiously hokey melodrama for the finale.

About a social worker who is set on bringing a kid out of the underworld and drug trade. He asks for help from the cops who dont care about one kid. He disguises himself and gets into the dirty underbelly of the trade, just to save a kid. This movie could be worse, the acting is horrible, and even the story seems out of whack. But if you have a 2 hours to spare, why not see what kind of movies Travolta was in before Pulp Fiction saved him. This movie isnt horrible, it does have it's highlights, and what could have been a good story about the drug trade. But sitting through a lot of bad acting override these. Not a recommended movie.