Chains of Gold

When Chains of Gold came out is was dismissed as a vanity project. I don't get it. While the film is far from perfect its very well made and has some good performances.

Travolta is sympathetic as hell as Barnes, the social worker.

The supporting cast are good and is stacked with familiar faces and the Miami setting is exotic and adds production value.

The script is never likely to feature on any best of lists, but it gets the job done and the direction is solid and the pacing is fast.

As I said I really don't get the hate. The pic is entertaining and Travolta is always watchable and there's some good action scenes.

Chains of Gold is a fun watch.

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.

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.

I'm assuming that John Travolta decided to take things in his own hands at the time of making this movie, seeing that his career was in a slump at the time. I assume that because Travolta is credited as being one of the four screenwriters of this movie. It must have hurt when the finished product was shelved for some time before being dumped directly to cable TV, though I'm pretty confident that the movie wouldn't have done well if it had been released to theaters. It's pretty apparent this was a low budget movie, with such attributes as poor photography and dimly lit sequences. In fact, despite all the swearing, violence, and drug scenes, the movie feels like it was made for TV. The screenplay contains some howlers like interracial gangs, but it's a mostly dull and slow-moving affair. Bernie Casey and Hector Elizondo are good, but there's only so much they can do in their limited roles. As for Travolta, while he's been good in other movies, you wouldn't know it from his performance here. His swearing, getting uppity and saying such things as "How dare you?", crying, and bulging eyes suggest a director who was reluctant to reign him in for some unknown reason. The only reason to see this is to try and figure out how this got re-released (on DVD) a few years ago.

If you see this movie on the video shelf at a video store, rent it. It is definitely worth seeing.