Anderson is the director of "Soldier." His previous films include "Event Horizon" and "Mortal Kombat." Based on those, and now especially on the incompetent, amateurish mess that is "Soldier," it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the first idea how to tell a story, or even how to make a good movie.
He wastes an interesting premise, from screenwriter David Webb Peoples (the writer of "Blade Runner" and "Unforgiven," the latter an Oscar-winner). He wastes a surprisingly effective performance by Kurt Russell, who does a remarkable job showing the human feeling awakening beneath the stoic, near-robotic surface of the trained-from-birth title character. (What he's doing in this turkey, we'll never know.) He wastes the talents of a highly experiences artistic and technical crew, all of whom of have done much better work in previous films.
He wastes them by making an inept and frequently even laughable grade-Z action snoozer. The plotting is clumsy, the subtext obvious -- and I don't know when I've seen a movie so clearly expensive that looks so cheap. Visually, it's like an ultra-low-budget made-for-cable flick, something on the level of a late-80's Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle you might see on Showtime at 3am. This cheap look is difficult to reconcile with the fact that they obviously spent gobs of money on the thing, but somehow Anderson pulls it off.
A big, stupid, post-Apocalyptic action movie is one of the easiest genres to pull off. "Waterworld" was bad, but at least it was marginally watchable. "Soldier" is absolutely awful, and Paul Anderson demonstrates he can't even do a brainless testosterone movie. Catch it when it shows up on MST3K in a couple of years, but for now, avoid, avoid, avoid.
He wastes an interesting premise, from screenwriter David Webb Peoples (the writer of "Blade Runner" and "Unforgiven," the latter an Oscar-winner). He wastes a surprisingly effective performance by Kurt Russell, who does a remarkable job showing the human feeling awakening beneath the stoic, near-robotic surface of the trained-from-birth title character. (What he's doing in this turkey, we'll never know.) He wastes the talents of a highly experiences artistic and technical crew, all of whom of have done much better work in previous films.
He wastes them by making an inept and frequently even laughable grade-Z action snoozer. The plotting is clumsy, the subtext obvious -- and I don't know when I've seen a movie so clearly expensive that looks so cheap. Visually, it's like an ultra-low-budget made-for-cable flick, something on the level of a late-80's Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle you might see on Showtime at 3am. This cheap look is difficult to reconcile with the fact that they obviously spent gobs of money on the thing, but somehow Anderson pulls it off.
A big, stupid, post-Apocalyptic action movie is one of the easiest genres to pull off. "Waterworld" was bad, but at least it was marginally watchable. "Soldier" is absolutely awful, and Paul Anderson demonstrates he can't even do a brainless testosterone movie. Catch it when it shows up on MST3K in a couple of years, but for now, avoid, avoid, avoid.