Ronin (1998)

Directed by John Frankenheimer
Screenplay by J.D. Zeik and Richard Weisz
Story by J.D. Zeik

Rating: 7.00/10.00 or ***

As far as action films go, Ronin is the pure definition. If there isn't action onscreen at the moment, the scenes cleverly build up to one. This is not to say the film is inundated with action. Far from it, actually. But director John Frankenheimer knows what an action film is, and in this film, everything is set up in such a way to somehow bring order to the proceedings of action, which in most other films of the genre, seem like an experiment with anarchy. Violence is inherently a state of disorder, but the good action films bring reason into the proceedings.

In Ronin's case, there is an interesting twist to this concept. All reason is removed from the film; instead, a briefcase is the center of attention. This is a Hitchcock creation, what is called a McGuffin. The briefcase contains something important. Its contents are unknown and never revealed. The contents aren't important. The point, here, is that everyone in the film cares about it and does their designated task to retrieve it, protect it, grab it, or hide it.

Generally, I'm a fan of this method of storytelling since it tends to focus all attention on the characters. This is where Ronin shines. Each character is memorable in many ways, and the actors who portray them are experts at their tasks. Robert De Niro plays Sam, whom everyone believes is ex-CIA; Jean Reno plays Vincent, who turns out to be Sam's greatest ally and the film's most important character; Natascha McElhone plays Deirdre, the mastermind behind the plan to obtain the briefcase; Stellan Skarsgard plays Gregor, the computer whiz; Sean Bean plays Spence, the "bombs expert" but really the exercise in showing the varying levels of professionalism in the caper crowd; and Skipp Sudduth, the driving expert. The supporting players are generally those interested in keeping the briefcase to themselves. Very well then. But we find that the jobs of the characters are not as important or memorable as their motives. This was a wise choice in approaching the film.

The film is a string of action scenes and betrayal reveals. Ronin has many twists and turns, all expected but not easily predicted. There are few moments of clarity with the characters. There shouldn't be. We are in a world of deception and con games. There are always questions and answers, but neither the questions nor the answers are accessible at the appropriate times. In terms of film evolution, Ronin gets everything right.

Ronin is also successful at suspending disbelief. Each scene evolves with a firm grasp of the viewer. One can question a scene's validity when looking piece by piece at the film, but each scene is an appropriate transition from the scene before it. Ronin evolves well despite being quite unrealistic. And that's really the point. An action scene should exist out of convenient necessity and not necessary convenience. Ronin is a film of the former quality and not the latter.

Most action films lack plot. Ronin is no exception. But here, plot is absolutely unnecessary because Frankenheimer cares about the characters, their motives, and their interactions. Anything else is simply a backdrop, the canvas. Without this emphasis, the film would be a complete bore, a pointless exercise in explosions and blood. It might as well star Van Damme or The Rock at that point. It doesn't, and it shouldn't.

Part of the film's success is the dialogue, a combination of matter-of-factness and of "business singing". It comes as no surprise that David Mamet (Richard Weisz) had a hand in the film's final words. His dialogue always sings, like music without instrumentation. The words flow (Think Glengarry Glen Ross or Heist.), and the atmosphere of the words is a complete complement to the film's style.

As far as Ronin's style, the movie is shot with a prominently serious attitude. Ronin is all business, much like the equally successful Heat. Action scenes are shown with an ease and a commanding order. Nothing is shot wildly or impossible to follow. And the characters in the scenes are all business. This allows the use of comedy sparingly. However, the comedy is generally effective since it is approached with quiet deadpan. In fact, I found myself laughing seconds after the joke occurred because it was almost impossible to tell the joke apart from the seriousness. This is not a complaint, either. This is how deadpan should work.

While Ronin is not great in any single matter, the film is solid in all aspects. Ronin is an above average motion picture of its genre. It could be used in film classes as an example of a good action film. Ronin is a concept, an example of how action can exist without plot. All that's needed is something nobody knows about. The pieces of the puzzle fall into place after that. What the filmmakers of Ronin realize is that by making the pieces of the puzzle the focal point, it doesn't matter what the final image looks like.

Romancing the Stone (1984)

Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by Diane Thomas

Rating: 7.00/10.00 or ***

Romancing the Stone is a campy version of Indiana Jones. Watching the movie makes me think of those Saturday matinees where it's just as fun to throw popcorn up in the air as watching the obligatory battle scenes. This movie begs its audience to have a good time. The film is unimportant and knows it. This often makes the movie a pure entertainment, and Romancing the Stone is just that.

There are many things this film gets right. For example, director Robert Zemeckis (perhaps more famous for Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, and Cast Away) and writer Diane Thomas (who tragically died a couple of years after the film was made) knew how to make female characters. The main star of the film is Kathleen Turner (whose performance in Body Heat solely made the film a standout). She plays Joan Wilder, a romance-adventure novelist who suddenly finds herself in a story she could have written. Ok, kind of corny, but Joan Wilder is shown as a crafty, adventurous, opinionated, independent woman. Not the obligatory romantic interest of the hero. The hero is Jack Colton (Michael Douglas), who is also developed cleverly. Colton is mysterious, spontaneous, and clever.

Many action films make stereotypical heroes and women-of-interest. I find these films boring and even somewhat sexist. This film is not. Consider the scene where Joan Wilder takes over cutting the tall plants in the jungles of Colombia. The film gives them both the same parts. Equal work. I thought this was a nice touch.

The villains are also similarly distinctive, even quirky. Danny DeVito plays Ralph, whose dialogue is as dementedly colorful as his overall demeanor. DeVito makes Ralph sympathetic because he makes his comedic dialogue an extension of his personality. Everything he says matches everything he does. It's hard to make a character sympathetic when his motives are purely for "getting ahead" no matter what the consequences to others. But DeVito pulls it off. (There is a curious similarity here to his character in Heist, and it works both times.)

Meanwhile, Ralph's partner-in-crime is Ira (Zack Norman). The scenes these two have together are quirky, fun, and an excellent counterpart to a separate clan of villains, led by Zolo (Manuel Ojeda). Zolo is the silent villain. Think of Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West, except evil. Silent villains are often scarier because they are by nature more mysterious. I tend to dislike characters who are given too much dialogue. Villains who talk only when necessary tend to earn the tension effortlessly. Another thing the film gets right.

The plot involves a lost stone in Colombia that all of the parties are searching for. Wilder and Colton want the stone as a bargaining device to free Wilder's sister, who was kidnapped by Ralph and Ira because she had a map giving the location of the stone. They want the stone for the money to leave the country, to live a life of luxury in America. Meanwhile, Zolo and army want the stone for the riches (power, drugs, you-name-it). The stone is the focal point of the story, but its discovery is appropriately overshadowed by the characters. Because this is what we want to see. The characters are multi-dimensional and unique. In the end, it's almost pointless who obtains the stone (though obviously the hero and heroine are preferred) because the characters, somehow, earn our sympathy no matter what the scale of wickedness.

Another reason the film works is that its scenes are built up in clever ways. At one point, Wilder chooses the wrong bus and ends up far away from her sister. This is, of course, a problem for Ralph and Ira. So they have to change plans accordingly. But it works into Zolo's plans (who tricks her into choosing the wrong bus). But Zolo must re-plan after the bus unexpectedly crashes into a supply of food/crops left on the road by Jack Colton.

This setup cleverly foreshadows the cat-and-mouse game to follow, which often seems beneficial to one clan of villains and problematic to the other. It's a triangle of interests, which works better here because it adds some unpredictablility that often is missing from just "good vs. evil" films.

Romancing the Stone is an 80s film. Its music and dialogue feel like listening to an 80s station on the radio. While this may be a turn-off for a few, it shouldn't be if your intention in watching this film is purely being entertained. The film is light fare, and the makers know it. There's no pretentiousness or self-importance anywhere. Romancing the Stone does what it sets out to do. It brings a romance-adventure novel to life. It's a search for the riches. It's got lost treasure, a map, cool (if campy) villains, and a couple we grow to care about. For a film in this genre, that's pretty hard to come by.