Genres

Visitors Review

Matt Reedy 2012-05-17 07:51:00

Not just an action film.

While the film undoubtedly contains most of the elements of a topaction film, there is more to it than that.John Travolta delivers and excellent performance as the fighterpilot-turned-terrorist, and the role affords him some of the best linesthat you are likely to hear in a film (although you have to see most ofthem to understand). "I say Goddamn what a rush!" is just electrifyingwhen delivered by Travolta.Of course there are holes in the plot, and the 'two plucky heroes'format may be getting worn, but Woo and his cast make it work, anddeliver a film that is sure to set your action muscles a-tingling!

2012-05-16 19:06:33

Hell Of A Movie

John Travoltra And Christian Slater give a great performance together and I Don't care what anyone says you must be stupid to give this movie a bad rating because of everything it has to offer. This movie offers alot of action, entertainment and thrilling on your seat action as well .

Andrew Hernandez 2012-05-16 18:45:52

My first intro to Woo was great!

I did not know who John Woo was when I first saw this movie in the theatres.But I loved this movie. I watched it four times on the big screen. And thiswas even before I knew that Woo's HK works and later films were twice aextravagant.I've heard that Woo's fans didn't like this movie because it was too tamefor him. (Limited double gun action and so forth) While I would have likedthis movie even more if Woo went all out like in THE KILLER or HARD-BOILED,he showed that he doesn't need to depend on bullet ballet film making tocreate cool action scenes. Relying on a "gimmick" is what kills some filmmakers, and Woo is a man who doesn't need to rely on his creation.(WINDTALKERS is another film that doesn't need HK styled action to lookgood) I was glad that his other traits were able to go on film. The standoffscene with Christian Slater and Samantha Mathis where he has the gun and shehas a knife was put to great effect. And even though it seems odd that apark ranger would know a thing or two about combat, it made sense forMathis' character since she was that type of "actiony" person. (I'd befighting and shooting it out if I were a park ranger.) The use of slowmotion was cool too. All of the sequences of things blowing up were awesome,and didn't rely on CGI as movies of today do. (Even though some of them useit correctly.) Of course the performances of the actors were all great. Whatelse can I say other than John Travolta's vilainous performance was slick,and that Slater made a great action hero? (I hope he's the star of anothercool action film. It was nice seeing his brief role in WINDTALKERS, but heneeds more.) Samantha Mathis was really cool. Wo says he's always wanted tomake a strong female character, and he really came close with her. The moviealso features one of the best Hollywood fight scenes with the showdownbetween Slater and Travolta. Even after the "Asian Invasian" seeing thisfight scene is still a good watch. This is still on my list of best actionfilms.10 of 10

JohnWoo50 2012-05-16 10:46:55

John Woo..... is there anything he can't do?

**SPOILERS**Wow. That's just about the only thing I can think of bydescribing thismasterpiece of an all American movie! This certainly qualifies under the"Mindless Action" catergory but in the end it plays out well. I am a diehard John Woo fan, through good and bad (though I have yet to see a badfilmof his) he has always pulled through to my expectations. After a strongHollywood debut by directing 1993's phenomenal Hard Target it was aboutJohnWoo's time to show that he has what it takes to make a big budget Hollywoodaction movie. And it shines through beautifully. It was obvious that inthismovie Woo didn't focus a lot of his "Shoot-outs that look more like a slowmotion ballet" that we have seen in his earlier Hong Kong films and hisextraordinary Hollywood film Face/Off which would come out a year later.Butto a lot of people disliked this movie because it didn't contain hiscertainstyle of gunplay really overlook the smaller things. I'll get back to thosein a little bit. The plot is a relatively good one that's basic, but isn'tbasic enough to make us think that the writers thought that seven yearold'swill be viewing this movie. But this type of basic plot is seen quite oftenin John Woo movies because he knows that people arn't going to see hismovies for top notch plots but for seeing a movie that is full of his viewsand beliefs about how an action movie should be made. Well anyways, themovie starts out with a boxing match between two competing United StatesAirForce pilots. Vic Deakins (John Travolta in a very well played out role)andRiley Hale (Christian Slater in not his best role - True Romance and TheContender take that honor - but still played out convincingly). Well by theend Hale is KO'd by Deakins and we move right into the main plot. Now I'veheard many senseless babble about how the whole beginning was unnecessaryand a waste of time but you have to realize that the writers and John Wooput that there in order to set up two things: (1. that Deakins and Hale aretough competitors and (2. it brings in the whole significance of the $20bill which turns up throughout the movie. Back to the plot. Deakins andHaleare ordered to fly a B3 stealth bomber on a simulation run over the Utahdesert to test out it's stealth capabilities and to take a map of theterrain. But what adds on to this flight is that they're carrying twonuclear warheads in their payload. Now apparently these are some big nukesbecause they're described as 81's, and I'm not too keen on my nuclearweapons but apparently these are some big nukes or as Christian Slatercallsthem "Ooooo 81's, crowd pleasers!" So they both fly out in the B3 and sinceI don't want to spoil the plot I'll just say that one of them has an evilplan brewing involving these two nukes. WARNING! SPOILER! DON'T READ ON IFYOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW TOO MUCH OF THE PLOT! One of them drops the nukesandejects the other while in turn he also ejects before crashing the $2billionaircraft. What follows is a barrage of action sequences that I feel playoutwell to suit the plot. There's a rush of side actors such as Delroy Lindoasthe unfortunate person who has the job to find out exactly what happenedthat night to the two pilots and two nukes. Samantha Mathis also appears asa strong hearted park ranger who's stuck in all this mess. AndunfortunatelyHowie Long makes his major Hollywood film debut in this movie (stick withsports casting buddy, acting's not your thing). But through the rush ofsideactors and action sequences we never forget what John Woo was accomplishingthrough this movie. You can see his gunplay really shine through during thewhole underground mine sequence where bodies gracefully flit about whilepumping other people full of bullets. Also I have to give him mycomplimentson the excellent direction and choreography through the whole final half anhour shoot-out on the train. SUPERB! Also I have to say that the finaldeathsequence in the movie is amazingly original (I'm not saying it's plausible)it's just something you wouldn't expect and really that's what you want inamovie. What you have to realize is that John Woo has made a solid, verysolid action movie here. Don't think about what he's done before, thinkabout the movie by itself as an action movie. You can still find Woo'sdirectorial touches to the movie. Such as the feeling of partnershipbetweenTravolta and Slater in the beginning, and the whole significance of the $20bill. Neither of them seem satisfied with doing something unless there's a$20 down. Look deep and you can find these things and a whole lot more.Alsothe scenery is very beautiful throughout the whole film. The serene desertlandscape with the jutting mountains painting the backdrop. I believe thatthe tagline is quite true to the movie "Prepare to Go Ballistic" whichreally describes how I felt upon seeing this movie. It's surprising,original, well thought out, well acted out (exclusion of Howie Long I'mafraid) and utterly beautiful as only John Woo can. 10/10

malkane316 2012-05-07 11:53:07

Quick Reviews!

This is the film which proved John Woo's adaptability to Hollywood.Broken Arrow goes for the simple plot, while keeping to Woo's runningthemes of brotherhood, and the hate/love homosocial relationshipsbetween men. And guns, obviously. Throw in the feisty, beautiful, andhighly talented Samantha Mathis and we have a winner. For Woo fans,there isn't much you haven't seen before, except now we have a biggerbudget and household names.Where this stands out from other Woo films is in its length and script.It is short, with fewer breaks in action and moments of reflection thanin his other movies, and the script, while simple, is accessible to alland full of great dialogue. No-one does cool like Christain Slater andJohn Woo, though i haven't seen Windtalkers yet. The action is the maindraw here, and it is some of the best produced by Hollywood in thenineties, moving from air to land to sea via various explodablevehicles with fluidity. Cue lots of slow motion glances, balleticgunplay, and massive explosions. Travolta and Slater have a pretty goodchemistry, as do Slater and Mathis. If you want classy action, givethis a look. 8 out of 10

2012-05-06 18:18:12

probably the worst film ever

where to start, well to get the good points out of the way first, john travolta does seem to have a knowing way of acting through really really bad scripts, i guess hes had ample experience.Slater as usual is poor, at least hes not quite so much into his Jack Nicolson impression this time round, but as hero material he just doesnt cut it.The script is appaling, this must be the most cliche ridden non-movie of all time. the demads made on the audiences stupidity reach new bounds.this is the definiation of a star vehicle as there is nothing else, i would find an episode of the a-team more demanding, and certainly better fun.i cant think of a film ive hated more really.

dvdrtrgn 2012-05-03 17:12:42

Benchmark of Bad

"Broken Arrow" serves as my wrap-around point for "so bad it's good"type movies. The BS plot and cornball action approach comedy but don'tmake it. Macho, pseudo-conflict is clichéd and boring.All in all, a terrible waste of everything: talent, time, money. Areworse flicks out there? Sure, but this one provides for me a goodbenchmark of movie making gone bad. It's been my measuring stick foryears. "Hey, you like that movie Broken Arrow?" (Yes/No) If the answeris No, I won't assume the answer comes from an idiot. Works great. Tryit yourself at home.Behold the creatively bankrupt and authentically broken entertainmentapparatus that is Hollywood!

2012-05-02 23:40:30

The Arrow need to be fixed

This review is from: Broken Arrow [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) OK movie but a bit slow in spots. More violence and much more nudity would improve the plot.

2012-04-29 14:07:32

broken movie

What more can you ask for... John Travolta, John Woo and a big budget! Sounds like a match made in Hollywood Heaven.Woo's excellent action shots, interesting editing and surreal imagery notwithstanding, this was one loser of a film when it came to the story.The whole premise is absolutely moronic to begin with... but even putting the perposterousness of the story aside, the behavior of the actors is over-acted, cheesy and just plain stupid.Great action, but not enough to make this film stand on the merits of being an action flick. Those seeking a testosterone rush will feel like they got a lot of tease, but very little substance in the end and those looking for action with a touch of intelligensia will be wanting for another film.There are some folks who will listen to pulsing, loud rap music simply because of the way it makes their woofers throb in their car, not really caring for the song or the lyrics... such is the appeal of this film.. scattered smatterings of eye-candy explosions hither and yon, and not much else.

princess919 2012-04-28 20:35:03

It's the villain who makes this movie so good.

It has to be said that I was forced to watch this movie by an oldboyfriend of mine, it really didn't look like my kind of thing but JohnTravolta's excellent performance had me hooked.Travolta is the kind of villain all movies should have, from hisfantastic one-liners to the final showdown at the end he makes themovie worth watching.Slater makes a good hero but he is definitely not equal to Travolta buthis teaming up with Samantha Mathis (as the innocent civilian who comesalong for the ride) is well done and the two have obvious on screenchemistry.On the whole a good movie but it would have been nothing withoutTravolta.

Chinmay Borkar 2012-04-22 18:01:19

A Good see altogether

The film has some excellent dialogues, special effects and scenes, whicharea must see. It's a good flick to watch, and John Travolta steals the show.Samantha Mathis has a very small role. Christian Slater is good as usual.Other actors have performed on-the-average.

2012-04-22 10:02:06

Deja vu? THUNDERBALL!

Broken Arrow is a virtual retread of the James Bond classic, Thunderball. In both movies, a criminal syndicate plots to steal two nuclear warheads and threaten the world. Broken Arrow doesn't even bother to change the number of warheads stolen. Like Thunderball, the bombs are stolen from a high-tech bomber by a pilot who is not what he seems(In Thunderball, the villainous agent was made into the image of the man with access to the bomber through surgery.). Also, the villain doesn't meet his demise in a hokey boxing match. Why does Travolta do this? He has a machine gun laying around somewhere, so why doesn't he kill Slater and get it over with? There is also the device for setting off the bomb. In Thunderball it looked like a cylinder. Broken Arrow replaced this with a cell-phone like remote. Nothing is developed. The reason I gave Thunderball....er..Broken Arrow three stars is because it is fun and nothing else.

gibby-8 2012-04-16 08:37:52

Worst film of 1996. Woo works better with a smaller budget.

There is nothing quite like a bad action film and Broken Arrow is not abadaction film it is something exponentially worse, it is an average actionfilm. Die Hard was a phenomenally good movie with humour in the rightplaces and violence in abundance yet the the appeal of the film made itaccessible for all. On the other hand Stephen Seagal movies can becomenuggets of delight when viewed with the right amount of derision but thatisbecause they don't try to engage anything except the viewer's need to seefight scenes and explosions. This is where Broken Arrow fails; by takingaludicrous script, two mismatched actors and poorly conceived and executedaction sequences it attempts to induce the audience to care about theconsequences of a comic book Travolta stealing a nuclear missile. Had itbeen content to portray Slater in a much more mundane conflict withTravoltathe results would probably have been more satisfactory.

2012-04-15 14:16:56

A good action film

After John Woo's move to Hollywood, things got a little bit shaky for a while with this John Travolta/Christian Slater action flick. And while the action is good, the story feels like it was taken from a pile marked "unused Steven Seagal ideas". That said, Travolta is effortlessly cool, slowly making his way back to the top with films like Pulp Fiction after the slump of the 80's. Woo's flair for impressive action and stunts is evident, as Slater is out to try to stop Travolta from detonating a stolen missile (hence the film's title).We're in familiar territory, but it's a Woo movie, so the action is thankfully better than the average action flick. Samantha Mathis is the love interest for Slater's character, but she's as cardboard as they come, the plot is rather brainless and some unconvincing techno-jargon ruins the film's credibility. But the action saves the film, with the ever-present things exploding and helicopter chases making this one a solid, if not always-realistic action flick.

2012-04-15 13:39:53

Great Movie

this movie is great it's action packed and has a great cast. John Travolta is great in this movie. he plays an awesome villian. Christian slater is also great in this movie. If you have not seen this movie then i recommend you do

2012-04-15 10:30:00

Travolta makes an alright movie, "good"

John Travolta really makes this movie. Their are a lot of things good going for this movie. 1. John Travolta is awesome in this movie. He plays the bad guy perfectly. I love his attitude as well as the words he speaks. He truly shined in this part.2. The action was non-stop and very well done. If you like good action movies, then you will really enjoy this movie.3. John Woo is the director, and shows why he is the premier action movie director.4. Howie Long: Who would have thought that Howie could play this role even though it was small this well. He played it so well that he recieved more acting parts in future films. But while it was good in all those parts, it lacked in these making a 3 star for me rather than a 4.1. Christian Slater proves here that he has no business playing a hero lead. He is ok here, but why do I think when I'm watching this movie that Travolta could kick his ass.But over all this is a great movie, and is worth the discounted price.

Angry_Arguer 2012-04-13 23:51:14

Exploding Helicopters

This movie has a serious obsession with this nuance. Let's count itup...hmmm...four? Four exploding helicopter! Please correct me if I'mwrong, but isn't four TOO MUCH! Not even "Face/Off" in all its excess wentthat far! That should get the FAA involved.That aside, "Broken Arrow" is an absurdly stupid movie that falls victim tothe Woo method. The Woo method, of course, involves solving any problems inthe script with action sequences. This doesn't help, unlike "Face/Off"(that's another story), and the blatant stupidity of the plot is an enormousturn off. Christian Slater tries being an almost Indiana Jones-typecharacter, but he's too cocky and invincible for there to be much sympathy. John Travolta tries being villainous, but he does better as CastorTroy.Overall, not a good way to spend your time when there are so many bettermovies available. 2 out of 5 stars.

2012-04-13 06:52:22

Generic.

Well, the movie often is pretty funny. Christian Slater, John Travolta, and even Howie Long have cute bits to contribute. But this is a John Woo movie, and, man, where's the action! One little gunfight, and six or seven typical big explosions. Wow. Not anywhere near his usual standards.

Robert J. Maxwell 2012-04-12 05:46:09

Engaging waste of time.

There are so many stupid action movies out there -- mind-numbing,explosion-filled, cartoonish, slow-motion-bodies-falling, gore, uglyguns, special f/x, mismatched heroic couple of mixed sex, wisecrackingvillain -- and I've SEEN so many that I'm beginning to be able to tellthe difference between them.This is one of the better ones. The plot has John Travolta as thesmiling treacherous heavy, and Christian Slater as the true-bluecaptain in the USAF out to spoil Travolta's plot to blow up Denver witha kidnapped nuclear device. There is a cute red head thrownfortuitously together with Slater. She has nice plump lips, big blueeyes, and the tightly tailored slacks of a Park Ranger. Very nice. Wewatch her from below as she climbs the ladder on the side of a boxcar.There's no reason for her to be IN the movie except to have her climbboxcars, roll down sandy hills, and so on.But then there's no particular reason for ANYTHING to be in the movie.What I mean is that if you found it necessary to leave the room for aminute or two -- a knock on the door, a tug on the trigonal, whatever-- you would find that you hand't missed much when you returned. Noneof the characters changes in any way. There is no dialogue worthremembering. There are some unusual special effects but if you'vemissed one example it's okay because another is right around thecorner. I particularly enjoy the scene in which the exploding bombtakes out the helicopter.I've sat through this thing three times and I am now convinced it hasturned the higher reasoning centers of my brain into tofu. That's why Igenuinely like it. I like it for Travolta's toothy reptilian grin, forSlater's imitation of Jack Nicholson, for the ripoffs from "IndianaJones," for the gorgeous Utah scenery, for the rocketing diesel train,Lake Powell, the redhead climbing the ladder, the fist fights, thebouncing Humvees, the civilian who proudly announces he used to be alieutenant in the ROTC at Yale, the redhead climbing the ladder, thebodies of people who tumble in slow motion towards the camera as afireball explodes behind them (three times), the redhead climbing theladder.I just like it, that's all. Anybody up for some sesame oil?

Mika Pykäläaho 2012-04-11 13:23:28

My ass remains unkicked

Really, is this the work of a true genius? Is this the film of a greatestaction movie director in this planet? It is, but unfortunately it doesn'tshow. This is the 2nd Hollywood flick masterful John Woo, my man from theeast directed and I admit it's lots of better than the poor "Hard target"(1993) - his American debut with Van Damme. Of course that's notmuch.Final sequence is great fun, Slater is...well, himself and Travolta is justas cool as he always is but really, it's not my point. When I first saw"Broken arrow" I liked it very much but I wasn't aware of what John Woo hadalready done in his Hong Kong years. Now when I know, this flick seems sodull and lame. How can a guy who directed some of the best action filmsknown to man do something as basic as this? It's a big mystery tome."Face/off" was a proper masterpiece (at last) and kicked ass as hard andnaturally as an action film from Hollywood can do it but "Broken arrow"didn't succeed in the effort of kicking mine. It's not all that bad but thefact that it's Woo's work doesn't make it a good either. The man has createdcertain expectations by directing the finest action movies of the world andevery time he makes a film that's not actually a masterpiece, he fails. Sadbut true. I guess I have to look "Broken arrow" as a tiny little practice,Woo's attempt to adapt himself into the ways of Hollywood.