Dommage collatéral

OK, here is the premise. A fireman's (Arnold Schwarzenegger) wife and son get blown up when a terrorist (Cliff Curtis) is trying to destroy some target. He googles "terrorist" on his home computer, finds out who is responsible, and goes off into the jungle to capture him. He escapes. In the meantime, he hooks up with the terrorist's wife (Francesca Neri), wins her to his side, and they go off back to the States to catch him. If that is not the most unbelievable plot you can imagine, then there are some twists and turns that are even more incredible.

But, who cares? This is the Governator kicking some major butt like he did in True Lies, Commando, and many other movies that you and I watch over and over.

Italian actress Neri (Live Flesh) is hot, Curtis (Whale Rider) makes a perfect terrorist, and one of my favorites, John Leguizamo (Land of the Dead), plays a great part. Even Monk's agoraphobic brother, John Turturro, is here. Wow! But, it's all about the damage, collateral and otherwise, that draws you to the movie. The fireman turned terminator turns up the heat (red, of course) and proceeds to erase the terrorist.

The Goveranator, "On the Loose, with Dr. Seuss!" When I lived in Colombia, people would say to me: "I never go to those Hollywood movies, always projecting such a lousy image of Colombia!" Hard to refute that, eh! And how about this one? Is it worth seeing AH-NULD one more time? Must answer YES....and NO! Despite having seen a constant decline in the quality of his final films, they are still a cut above a lot of the action movies produced in Hollywood today. So, if the ACTION genre is your thing...The answer is "YES". For everyone else, I think the words "I "YO PASO" are the most apropos.

"Collateral", filmed BEFORE 9/11, with its Colombian terrorists detonating bombs on U. S. soil, passes from the category of Fiction to that of Fairy Tale! The bad guy here is a narco-guerrilla/terrorist named Claudio Perini, willing to sacrifice it ALL...for the "Cause".(All the Colombians I know named Perini are UP-STANDING law-abiding citizens) The most chilling aspect of this film, is a mother so perverse and diabolic, she sacrifices her only son, with the dispassionate air of someone taking out the trash!

Thusly, Hollywood serves up a distorted and grotesque image of Colombia in this movie. Seems to me like the ones experiencing the most "Collateral Damage" are the viewers of the film itself! 5.5*, rounded DOWN to 5*.

Ok, so we've all seen at least ONE Arnold movie - and you know what they say... "If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all."

This isn't necessarily true in the case of "Collateral Damage". We expect Arnold to run into a terrorist compound in the jungle, guns blazing, unlimited explosives, managing to not get hit by gunfire even while standing still in the middle of a field, one-liners running like water...

But THAT movie was "Commando". Remember?

Anyway, in "Collateral Damage" Arnold is actually a vulnerable character. He gets BEAT UP more than he beats up others. Now, while Arnold fans (myself included) prefer Arnold to be invincible, in this case it works really well. Not just because it moves the story along, but also because it makes the protagonist more believable. Ok, sure, Arnold saying "gracias" to some Columbian bus driver is HARDLY believable, but I think you know what I mean.

You will also find yourself saying "who is the REAL villain here?" on more than one occasion. Sure, terrorists kill. That's what they do. But why do you THINK they became terrorists to begin with? "Collateral Damage" touches on the subject briefly - enough to humanize the terrorist leader, even!

Most of the reviews I've read here have been negative... But those same reviewers were probably Arnold-philes who were expecting something along the lines of "Commando 2". As it is, personally I really enjoyed "Collateral Damage." If not a smart purchase, then it's definitely a wise rental. Check it out and see for yourself.

This action, is about a fireman (Schwartzenegger) who loses his family to a terrorist's bomb in LA, and then goes after the terrorist when the authorities do nothing, is OK! The pace is fast and the effects plentiful!

There are a few logical problems, like why is it the fireman, among thousands of security personnel in DC, that is the only one going after the killer, when the latter is trying to turn DC into an inferno?!

Lots of good actors, nice cinematography and special effects, in short better than average, but the misses are sometimes bad, like not getting Colombia's map correct! That he can travel on someone else's pass is also amazing.

But it is fairly logical, in its own context, so you don't mind the misses the first time you see it!

Not too bad for a hero, over 50 :-)!

"You can't take the law into your own hands!"

So says some guy from some government agency to Arnold. In the preview, this seems like typically horrible dialog for an action movie. However, I was surprised that, in the context that it was used, it wasn't too cheesy.

I saw a 'behind the scenes' thing on HBO and everyone involved was saying that this was something really different for Arnie. Why is it that people say that about every movie he's in? They're all the same! But that's okay. We're used to it. In 'End of Days' he played an alcoholic. We knew this, not because we ever saw him drunk, but because some one brought it up every ten minutes. These are things that we've come to accept about Arnold's movies. So stop telling us that this is something new.

At least, that's what I've felt for a while now. This movie is a little different. It's not a stretch, or anything radically different. But it isn't the exact same thing that Arnold's done before. It is, however, the same thing we've seen from other people before. It seems that he looks at what is popular, and he does his version of that. People like government agents, I'll do 'Eraser.' People like supernatural stuff, I'll do 'End of Days.' What's all this I hear about a movie with a twist at the end being brilliant? I suppose I'll do 'Collateral Damage.'

So is it good? Is it bad? It just is. One thing I am glad about is that is was rated R. I am sick of movies being cut down to PG-13 simply because some people feel that things should be accessible to the "family." Cutting stuff to do that ALWAYS detracts from the quality of a movie. I've actually heard directors say that they needed to take the energy level down on a scene in order to qualify. Why would you want to do that?

Yes, this movie's release was postponed. We all have our own opinions on that and nothing, not even seeing the movie, is going to change our minds.

One final note: Am I the only one who, when watching Cliff Curtis, can only think, "You know what I think? I think you're stealing gold." ?