Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever

1/2 out of ****

I'm not typically a particularly demanding moviegoer when it comes to action films; just give me well-choreographed mayhem set amidst a plot that makes a little bit of a sense or a few engaging characters and I'll probably be reasonably pleased. Ballistic fails to follow even that, which explains why the film bored the hell out of me. I'm almost hesitant to say this, but the latest straight-to-video Jean-Claude Van Damme schlock might actually be better than Ballistic, which was arguably 2002's worst film (I've never seen Rollerball).

There's something of a plot here, but I'm not entirely sure what the hell was going on. Antonio Banderas plays FBI Agent Ecks, Lucy Liu is Agent Sever, and the two of them are duking it out because they somehow have crossed paths with a wealthy man (Gregg Henry) who is determined to smuggle a small electronic device that can assassinate its intended victim via heart attack. Mixed up in it all is Talisa Soto as Banderas' supposedly dead wife, only she's not really dead. Much mayhen ensues.

Ballistic is directed by Kaos, a Thai filmmaker who apparently wanted his movies to live up to his name. This is his first American feature and he shows almost no ability in crafting an action sequence. Martial arts fights that should get the adrenaline-pumping are so stiltedly choreographed, it'll inspire either laughs or yawns. Kaos also goes overboard on the slow motion, ensuring there's never an opportunity for the fight scenes to build momentum. And this is the only film I can think of where the people involved in a car chase actually follow the speed limit!

I feel a bit sorry for the cast here, particularly Lucy Liu, whose martial arts talents are squandered here. To date, she hasn't been much of an actress, but she looks and convincingly acts tough so such a role here must have seemed like a good idea. For Banderas, this is the third film where he has trouble with mysterious women. I've heard of typecasting, but never to such a ridiculous extent. The only thing keeping this guy's career afloat is Robert Rodriguez and that Spy Kids franchise.

Start out with the Lucy Liu character. Wear a long coat and slacks everywhere you go. Look into a mirror and erase every expression you have. Speak about once every few hours.

Then you can do the Banderas character. Don't shave. Muss your hair. Put 15 jumbo olives in your mouth when you speak. Shuffle when you walk.

Oh yeah special effects. Let the gas on your stove run for about 10 seconds without lighting it. Then light it. Say "Boom". Repeat 100 times.

You can get a copy of the script really easy: Buy 10 comic books. Tear a couple of pages out of each one and staple the pieces together. Be sure that they don't fit too well together. They don't even have to be right side up.

If you do this, you won't need to rent this stinker.

Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment. In a movie like this, the producers don't pay expensive actors to act or to create realistic performances or to use their talents to win our sympathy. No, they pay these actors for face and name recognition, so when a movie like Ballistic: Banderas vs Liu comes along we don't have the inconvenience of learning about characters and plot. Hell, we don't even have the inconvenience of wondering, "Is this actor hot while all this excitement rushes them by?" Name recognition, baby, it's all marketed by name recognition.

And why should they let actors acting take up precious moments from the rooftop chases, the explosions, the gunfire, and posing like models? Everyone already knows these actors right? No need to develop anything more than flimsy excuses for action/motivation, right? Sarcasm aside - I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I think Ballistic would have been a better, more sophisticated, film if they scrapped the plot and cliché character developments and just went for 90 minutes of uninterrupted Banderas and Liu gunning at each other backdropped by a slow-mo explosions.

This film would have to scale a cliff before reaching the level of plot intricacies and intelligence that just thrive in Michael Bay films.

We get a crappy plot and crappy characterizations anyway just in case we don't have a favorite actor to root for. We get ultra cliché scenarios that anyone who has been to a theatre in the last fifty years will pick up on. Oh no, a child's been kidnapped – we're supposed to sympathize with the boy. There's the old (young?) has-been former cop (FBI guy in this movie) who lost his motivation – we're supposed to sympathize with him and the loss of his family. And then there's--oh, but wait? What are these plot revelations? What are they pointing towards? Gasp! They're making the already obvious villain even more obvious! Me? I was rooting for the aliens from Independence Day to come down and blow them all up, but the bastards got stuck in traffic.

Somewhere in the movie is a subplot about a nano-assassin, but I cared about that as much as the movie does.

And since we're being honest, I admit this is a great film to watch after a night of provocative and cultured cinema to recalibrate your personal scale to the realities of the industry. Like I explained to the guy at Blockbuster, "I just got a box-set of Hitchcock, been watching those back to back, and the other day I watched De Palma's Femme Fatale. I need something trashy before I become a full-blown film snob." So I walked out with Ballistic and Shark Attack 3, went home, and turned off my mind for a marathon of stock footage and needless gunfire/explosions . . . and all was well.

Tasked with destroying each other, an FBI agent and a rogue DIA agent soon discover that there's a much bigger enemy at work.

The film has been called one of the worst movies ever made. At the box office, the film made $19.9 million on a $70 million budget. With a total of 116 reviews, the highest for a film with a 0% score, "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" is the worst reviewed film in the history of Rotten Tomatoes.

The first thing wrong, really, is the title. Not knowing who Ecks or Sever are, why do I care if they are versus each other? Just call the film "Ballistic" so it doesn't sound like a sequel to a movie nobody saw. I'm guessing some ticket sales were lost because of the misconception of it being a sequel.

Of course, that would not make it a better movie, but it would at least be less confusing.

I liked the trailers, I hoped for the best and then sat in dumbstruck horror as one of the worst films ever made (as in so bad its painful to watch bad) unspooled before my eyes. Rumor has it that the film makers know a thing about movie making. I know the cast does, but what wanders across the screen looks like the dailies of a really bad TV commercial put together by someone with no sense of film structure. I'm told that this has something to do with two assassins fighting each other after some one is kidnapped, but I'm not certain since things just sort of happen for no real reason. I would like to think that this movie was a big joke on the movie going public but no one would want to spend what it cost to make this movie as a joke, especially when there was no hope of ever getting the money back in ten thousand life times. A void unless your eyes need to experience cinematic blunt force trauma applied to them.