Swordfish Reviewed - Dreck Meets The Matrix

Swordfish (2001)

Wowie kazowie, what a lousy movie.

We have The Matrix's flavor and style to thank for this ugly flick, which at .75 cents brand spanking new, was over-priced.

The Matrix was a classy one-of-a-kind movie, that used ugly drab coloration to make a point. It succeeded brilliantly in this. Brilliantly enough to bring about a long horrible spate of doofus-like imitation everywhere. TV ads were copies of it, people aped the style of dress and presentation ad nauseum, like chimpanzees conditioned by Pavlov…the whole thing was tiresome beyond belief.

And then there is Swordfish.

Since many other souls, 492 of them at IMDb (as of 05-14-06) have already written about Swordfish, I don't feel it necessary to add a synopsis. If you really need one, go there.

It starts out at the very beginning, as merely annoying visually, and goes downhill from there. The influence of The Matrix is unpleasantly obvious in the drab color scheme, which goes so far as to turn people green upon occasion (OUCH), and all the twiddly computer jazz we're supposed to be awe-stricken by.

Give me a break.

I have two names: John Travolta. Don Cheadle.

While I would by far prefer to see Travolta cavorting about as Tony Manero in Saturday Night Fever, it still must be said that he's always fun to watch. He's larger than life, and in his youth, was a very pretty boy. I respect his ability to work hard at a role, and he consistently gives me what I want. Entertainment. He is not a great actor. He’s an entertainer. That’s good enough for me.

I do not seek depth and profundity in movies (especially those coming out of Hollywood). And I am always pathetically grateful when, unexpectedly, I find it. In the main, I want to be amused and entertained. I want the nepenthe a movie can give me without any harmful side effects. Done, and done, time and time again by Travolta.

Don Cheadle is so solid, so good, and so competent, it breaks my heart to see him in this piece of tripe.

Also, honorable mention must be given to Rudolph Martin as Axel Torvalds.

That having been said, I will remark that Halle Berry's gratuitous semi-nudity, and excessive camped up performance as a manipulative sex goddess was so over the top in terms of bad acting, I was amazed enough by it to be able to stay awake 'til the bitter end. She must have had some steep bills to pay or an eye on a luxury yacht that would look nice with her on it. Maybe something more practical, like a new mansion. It has to have been for the money. What else could make a woman willing to demean herself so thoroughly in mainstream cinema?

The transparency of her character was offensively obvious; I knew what she was about within seconds of her first appearance. Only the village idiot would have been tricked into imagining she was one of the "good guys".

This is a terrible film. There was a 12-minute short at the end, with alternate endings, and standard producer-director enthusiastic drivel thrown in for good measure. They were possibly the least tiresome 12 minutes of the movie.

The elected ending was weak and stupid. Holly, (Camryn Grimes) the daughter of the hero, who had been through unimaginable hell emerges sane, unscathed, and even able to be strong for Papa, remarking that, "it's going to be alright..." Oh yeah?

And let's not forget Hugh Jackman, who grimaces, furrows his brows, and occasionally smirks his way through as the desperately devoted papa. Ho boy! Is this guy an actor, or a movie star?

Movie stars are not necessarily required to be good actors. What they need is "IT". A dedicated coterie of swooning female, or drooling male followers never hurts, and can catapult a salamander to stardom. Studio heads are not aficionados of great art. They are businessmen sitting in the counting room counting up their money.

Oh feh. This is an old flick, already forgotten. No need for it to be battered into the ground any further by one who, incidentally, tends to be the Devil's advocate, and champion of underdogs where heavily panned movies/actors are concerned.

A. Murray
January 31, 2006