Basic

There's a whole lot of deep analysis going on here, but in the end, since so many others have analyzed this to death, I would recommend just watching it with an open mind and seeing if you find it entertaining.

I thought it original to a point, well acted out, and while predictable on a couple points, for the most part, leaving me wondering when we would find out the absolute truth of what the heck was going on...

Maybe later I will put something more in depth here, but for now, beware of the critics and their "plot holes," because in the end, aside from a couple very small glitches, this was pretty well done.

Tagged by many critics as overly predictable despite trying to be the complete opposite, BASIC is nevertheless a strong, original and entertaining film.

The cast, from big names John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson to lesser-knowns Connie Nielsen and Taye Diggs, ably unravels the mystery surrounding the disappearance of a reviled army sergeant during a hardcore training outing. The episode is recounted in as many ways by as many witnesses, an interesting method that has worked so well in other films such as COURAGE UNDER FIRE. It may all seem confusing at first, but gifted director John McTiernan gradually weaves everything together, though perhaps not as seamlessly as one would ideally prefer.

BASIC is not without its flaws, but they are not as glaring as one might think from professional reviews, or even many of the comments on this website. Its originality is welcome at a time when so many films follow the same cookie-cutter formula.

Before I express my more detailed thoughts about this film, I need to get something off my chest. I've read a lot of other user comments here about Basic and it's almost embarrassing! Half of the reviews here state that Basic is too confusing and hard to understand while the other half is so proud to say they managed to understand the movie. If you're a potential viewer, don't get scared off by these comments! Basic is not at all difficult to follow. If you have more or less an average IQ, you won't get confused for a minute…

On a more personal note, I think Basic suffers from a modern disease. Nowadays directors have the urge to fool the audience so much, they go over the top without realizing it. They're trying to prevent their movie is predictable, so they add so many twists to the plot that it really becomes illogical. So…NO, the clue of Basic isn't predictable, but the entire movie becomes `structurally predictable'. Basically, this means that… as a viewer… you stop being involved, because you automatically think a few more illogical twists have yet to appear, so why bother? And besides, I don't know about you but I've seen enough movies about the `perfect crime and/or murder' recently. All these films about solid and waterproof conspiracies are shoved down our throats so much lately, that it really becomes annoying. So, I'd say: Watch Basic for the above average acting performances and the few decent action sequences! The solid directing by John McTiernan also deserves a mention, even though his `hard-action' stuff like Die Hard and Predator are a lot more effective. John Travolta and especially Samuel L. Jackson don't have to convince us about their quality anymore. And Pulp Fiction already taught us they play in team perfectly.

If you're expectations on Basic aren't set too high, you'll enjoy it. It's a routine, but well-made film…no more, no less

Recalling what John Travolta did WELL as the dogged investigator in THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER (1999), he reprises that role in BASIC (2003). This is a more fun and less full-of-itself film.

He starts slow as the alcoholic Don't-Tread-On-Me military misfit/drop-out but soon reveals both a lot of spit-and-polish, and a load of talent as an investigator/interrogator. And again he teams up with a female, although I'd rather have seen him pair with Maddy Stowe again.

The film, for me, combined the best of RASHOMON (1950) wherein the same reality is seen differently by different participants in the same event.

And COURAGE UNDER FIRE (1996), the Meg Ryan / Denzel Washington film, which required Denzel to overcome strong squad loyalty, get tight-lipped, hard-trained men (and a woman) to talk, to piece together "what really happened out there."

Giovanni Ribisi as the wounded soldier in the hospital is so good -- he reminds me of Vincent D'Onofrio in SALTON SEA (2002): you have to look very closely to see that it REALLY IS Ribisi.

So the plot trips over itself. So what? I never said the film was perfect. I'm just telling you it's a hunk of fun.

"Basic" takes a lot of plot twists through the steamy jungles of Panama. They are often impossible to follow. No, literally. Impossible. As in they literally do not piece together. You can try to analyze them, but when you do, you find out there is nothing really to be analyzed. But the film, by confusing and tricking the audience, makes it appear as if something is there, which is almost as good as if something really is there. Therefore, the movie, though frustratingly difficult to follow at times, is entertaining. Confused yet? Yeah, that's what the movie will make you feel like.

The film opens up in a rain-drenched Panama jungle at night on an Army training mission headed by Sergeant West (Samuel L. Jackson). Most of the film--ALL of the film, for that matter--takes place at night, during a rainy hurricane, and adds to the nonexistant plot. What is so intriguing is that the plot isn't really there, but the writer tries to manifest one, and we feel as if we are staring at some nonexistant, material wad of words and flashbacks and images thrown together in a blender, the writer hoping for it to come out smelling of roses. But I already went over that, didn't I?

Flash forward to the next day. An Army chopper picks up two men from the training mission, one injured and one very much alive. The injured man, Kendall (Giovanni Ribisi), is sent to a hospital, and the alive man, Dunbar (Brian Van Holt) is sent in for questioning by the very sexy and very Southern Osborne (Connie Nielsen). Dunbar refuses to speak to anyone except a Ranger. So in comes Ranger Tom Hardy (John Travolta) to piece together the events surrounding the death of Sgt. West and his team.

The writer of "Basic," James Vanderbilt, has so many twists and turns that the film is impossible to keep up with. I like movies like these, where you see different characters telling their version of one event, but the mistake Vanderbilt makes is that he overuses the plot flashbacks in the middle of other events. It becomes hard to seperate present from past and what's real from what's not. So many revelations happen that I feel like I'm in the middle of the writer's mind, as he comes up with new ideas and tries to squeeze them in time after time after time. There is a limit to how many times you can use "surprise" revelation endings. Vanderbilt uses three of four in a row, piled on top of each other, time after time after time. Just as we think the plot twists are done, and we start to smile because we think we might finally understand the basis of the plot, something else happens, and we zoom in suspensefully on John Travolta's face as he, along with the audience, realizes something. Which leads me to something else.

The end of the film leaves more open than concluded. So many plot holes are never ironed out. With the ending being the way it is, you can look back at certain events and think, "Why did that surprise (so-and-so)," and "Why did that event happen as it pays no relevancy to the plot?" The answer to all this? Simple: It's called audience manipulation, and James Vanderbilt uses it a lot. He throws the audience a bone to keep them happy, continues with something else, throws another bone, and when it's all done and over, we're choking on all these bones and he doesn't realize it. Interesting how he said he named his character Tom Hardy after the Hardy Boys. If I recall, the Hardy Boy novels, which I was an avid reader of at one time, usually revealed a lot at the end. "Basic" tries to, but does not.

The film has an excellent director at its helm, John McTiernan. A man who chooses his projects carefully and wisely and, unfortunately, sometimes horribly ("Rollerball" was exceptionally bad). But "Die Hard" and "Predator" are two of my all-time favorite action films, "Predator" being my all-time favorite "alien" movie. Who wants McTiernan to return to his roots and film a "Predator 3"? It would be good, but don't count on it. Like I said, he chooses wisely, and if I assume correctly, he's the kind of director who doesn't like to return to old projects.

"Basic" confused me, but after the film was over and my mind was in a knot trying to figure out all the different plot twists, I realized how much fun I had being duped by this film. I laughed to myself as I came to realize that this movie has a paper-thin plot, and the filmmakers all tricked us by taking so many twists and turns and throwing so many confusion bones at the audience and making us believe that the underlying plot of the film was something deep. I really enjoyed this movie, even if I still don't really understand it fully. Then again, I don't think you're really supposed to.

3.5/5 stars -