(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A soldier trained from birth is deemed obsolete and dumped on a waste planet where he is reluctantly taken in by a community of defenseless, stranded wayfarers.”
I have a confession to make: my interest in further exploring Soldier (1998) has absolutely nothing to do with most of the elements that usually draw fans to their favorite motion pictures.
Now, in case you missed it, I’ve been brutally honest in that statement by admitting that I personally rank Soldier among my favorites. While it wouldn’t quite rank amongst what I’d christen my all-time favorites, I’d still argue that the film is easily one of my preferred B-Movies, clarifying that it isn’t quite ‘up to snuff’ to stand alongside some real industry highpoints and yet there’s just something about it that resonates with me. Frankly, it isn’t all that expertly made: writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson is an acquired taste among the wider B-Movie marketplace, which is to say his films and stories work well enough to be called ‘entertaining’ but not strong enough to demonstrate the kind of longevity that other entries enjoy. Still, what’s good about the picture – as well as what’s bad – will probably vary from viewer to viewer, so I’ll dispense with trying to analyze those portions and get down to the most serious of the brass tacks.
You see, its script is attributed to David Webb Peoples; and his is a name I know quite well. (A great many film aficionados likely know his work but probably don’t recognize his name.) As a screenwriter, Peoples has two of the single greatest flicks of note, and they’re curiously from genres that don’t often mesh together: he adapted Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?” into 1982’s Blade Runner (for director Ridley Scott), and he also delivered the script for Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) to the studio, penning the foundation for one of the greatest Westerns ever filmed. Knowing that he was largely responsible for such impressive benchmarks in all of filmdom, I find it oddly curious why Soldier kinda/sorta went nowhere at the box office and with audiences … but I have a theory. (Yeah, you knew I would.)
Though I don’t personally agree with this assessment, I’ve read commentary by those who suggest that Peoples’ Blade Runner and Unforgiven are two of the greater cinematic examinations about – ahem – toxic masculinity ever brought to the cineplexes.
From a characterization standpoint alone, such a complaint (if it is indeed a complaint) is valid. Blade Runner’s Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a futuristic recreation of the 1940’s private detective, and he comes with all the usual misogynistic packaging one would expect. Though he isn’t prone to engaging in the usual cynical back-and-forth on the male/female relationship, Deckard does have a scene wherein it’s strongly suggested that he had his (sexual) way with the replicant Rachel (Sean Young). (Essentially, he backs her against a wall in his apartment and muscles his way into her affections.) Audiences never see a physical assault; and because by all appearances the lady succumbs to his advances a reasonable person might suggest no ‘rape’ occurred. However, the insinuation remains that, initially, Rachel wasn’t all that interested in being the man’s conquest and needed a “man’s convincing” in order to realize she was attracted.
Unforgiven’s script does, however, include a brutal assault: a cowboy named ‘Quick Mike’ takes a knife to the face of Delilah, a prostitute, who laughs upon seeing the size of his – ahem – manhood. It’s this event that sets the entire plot in motion, one that involves Eastwood’s William Munny inevitably making his way to the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming, wherein a series of events unfold to galvanize the older gunfighter out of his moral stupor and take up guns to exact a measure of personal vengeance against the law officers of the town for their pervasively dastardly deeds. Because there’s an awful lot of narrative ground covered in Unforgiven, the fact that everything builds to a Wild West showdown – perhaps the screen’s crowning portrayal of toxic masculinity over the years – covers up any relevant discussion of toxicity because it’s written as if this was all justice being finally served. (Yes, two things can be true at once.) Still, the fact remains that men and the things they’ll do – sexual or otherwise – is central the film’s talking points.
Now …
Peoples’ script for Soldier – like it or not – definitely hits a great deal of the same notes, but methinks the fact that it was directed by Anderson – a storyteller not exactly interested in making morality the centerpiece around all that happens – is the biggest notable difference between what the screenwriter has done with these similar themes elsewhere. In Anderson’s hands, the story kinda/sorta devolves a bit, latching onto action set pieces and an almost comic-book-style intensity to keep forward motion in place and rarely stop for any meaningful character introspection. There are no deep, telling, and reflective moments to anything in Soldier: when primal impulses to fight or flight are in play, about the best Anderson can deliver is a sequence wherein the disgraced soldier Todd 3465 (played by Kurt Russell) teaches the young mute Nathan (played jointly by Jared and Taylor Thorne) to defend himself with a nothing more than a boot against an attacking poisonous snake.
Of course, none of this is to say that Soldier is only about giving Russell a chance to prove that he can do what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in just about every 80’s or 90’s era outing (though, yes, that is well proven). Peoples’ story focuses on a trained military assassin who – at the height of his prowess – gets thrown onto the scrap heap (literally) when a newer model of genetic engineering proves it has superior capabilities. What this new breed of super-soldier lacks inevitably is war-time experience; and that is something Todd 3465 has in abundance. In the final reel when the army relic comes up against an entire squadron of these newly-built plebes just trying to get some combat exposure, they can’t even compete with the original soldier; and they suffer about as notable a downfall as they deserve. Though Anderson and Peoples try to suggest this singular triumph could likely be owed to Todd’s developing emotions for the ragtag group who’s adopted him as their ‘savior,’ nothing could be further from the truth. Feelings have nothing to do with his response. The rescue of the planet’s downtrodden people is owed to the fact that Todd is the better, more brutal fighter and can prove it … but he’s not necessarily the better man. That’s up to the viewers to decide.
Curiously, Soldier failed to do the kind of box office one might expect from Peoples’ pedigree. Any bit of research will produce a variety of theories justifying why – i.e. Anderson was forced to shoot a great amount of the picture in-studio when pre-production had planned for big, outdoor vistas; the finished product wasn’t ‘cerebral enough’ as compared to what other storytellers were doing with Science Fiction and Fantasy at the time; etc. – and to each his own on that point. It’s definitely a smaller and more intimate tale than were Blade Runner or Unforgiven; and perhaps the fact that Anderson never thought to capitalize on such intimacy the audience just never responded. Still, those of us who appreciate cult filmmaking will always likely hoist it up and point to it as a sample of what can happen when the stars align. It’s just so perfectly imperfect on so many levels that we can’t help but come back for another visit when the feeling is right.
Soldier (1998) was produced by Warner Bros., Morgan Creek Entertainment, Jerry Weintraub Productions, Impact Pictures, and Morgan Creek Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure audiences that the film looks and sounds superb: there are some simpler special effects sequences that demonstrate the visual weaknesses of work from the era, but they’re nothing all that distracting. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Although the disc boasts an archival commentary track, it’s still worth a listen as Anderson and co-producer Jeremy Bolt recount a good deal of behind-the-scenes stuff that fans love hearing. (Also, actor Jason Isaacs shows up for a portion of the talk.) Additionally, the disc is loaded with some great, newly-produced interviews from cast and crew that also breath a bit of life into a flick that deserved a wider audience then and now.
Highly Recommended.
Over the years, readers of SciFiHistory.Net have beaten me over the head for liking several pictures they find beneath me; and yet I still don’t care: Soldier (1998) is a masculine thrill ride wherein ‘the old warrior’ proves there’s still plenty of fight left in him, especially when it’s needed most. While Anderson’s direction and the budgetary restrictions might forever give the feature a B-Movie quality, that can also said to be a great deal of what ‘charm’ from a bygone era looks like. Russell proves himself a capable lead once more, even when the script gives him nothing more than a few dozen words to say across a lean and mean 100 minutes. But action will always speak louder than words anyway; and – in this regard – may Soldier always serve admirably.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Soldier (1998) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A soldier trained from birth is deemed obsolete and dumped on a waste planet where he is reluctantly taken in by a community of defenseless, stranded wayfarers.”
I have a confession to make: my interest in further exploring Soldier (1998) has absolutely nothing to do with most of the elements that usually draw fans to their favorite motion pictures.
Now, in case you missed it, I’ve been brutally honest in that statement by admitting that I personally rank Soldier among my favorites. While it wouldn’t quite rank amongst what I’d christen my all-time favorites, I’d still argue that the film is easily one of my preferred B-Movies, clarifying that it isn’t quite ‘up to snuff’ to stand alongside some real industry highpoints and yet there’s just something about it that resonates with me. Frankly, it isn’t all that expertly made: writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson is an acquired taste among the wider B-Movie marketplace, which is to say his films and stories work well enough to be called ‘entertaining’ but not strong enough to demonstrate the kind of longevity that other entries enjoy. Still, what’s good about the picture – as well as what’s bad – will probably vary from viewer to viewer, so I’ll dispense with trying to analyze those portions and get down to the most serious of the brass tacks.
You see, its script is attributed to David Webb Peoples; and his is a name I know quite well. (A great many film aficionados likely know his work but probably don’t recognize his name.) As a screenwriter, Peoples has two of the single greatest flicks of note, and they’re curiously from genres that don’t often mesh together: he adapted Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?” into 1982’s Blade Runner (for director Ridley Scott), and he also delivered the script for Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) to the studio, penning the foundation for one of the greatest Westerns ever filmed. Knowing that he was largely responsible for such impressive benchmarks in all of filmdom, I find it oddly curious why Soldier kinda/sorta went nowhere at the box office and with audiences … but I have a theory. (Yeah, you knew I would.)
Though I don’t personally agree with this assessment, I’ve read commentary by those who suggest that Peoples’ Blade Runner and Unforgiven are two of the greater cinematic examinations about – ahem – toxic masculinity ever brought to the cineplexes.
From a characterization standpoint alone, such a complaint (if it is indeed a complaint) is valid. Blade Runner’s Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a futuristic recreation of the 1940’s private detective, and he comes with all the usual misogynistic packaging one would expect. Though he isn’t prone to engaging in the usual cynical back-and-forth on the male/female relationship, Deckard does have a scene wherein it’s strongly suggested that he had his (sexual) way with the replicant Rachel (Sean Young). (Essentially, he backs her against a wall in his apartment and muscles his way into her affections.) Audiences never see a physical assault; and because by all appearances the lady succumbs to his advances a reasonable person might suggest no ‘rape’ occurred. However, the insinuation remains that, initially, Rachel wasn’t all that interested in being the man’s conquest and needed a “man’s convincing” in order to realize she was attracted.
Unforgiven’s script does, however, include a brutal assault: a cowboy named ‘Quick Mike’ takes a knife to the face of Delilah, a prostitute, who laughs upon seeing the size of his – ahem – manhood. It’s this event that sets the entire plot in motion, one that involves Eastwood’s William Munny inevitably making his way to the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming, wherein a series of events unfold to galvanize the older gunfighter out of his moral stupor and take up guns to exact a measure of personal vengeance against the law officers of the town for their pervasively dastardly deeds. Because there’s an awful lot of narrative ground covered in Unforgiven, the fact that everything builds to a Wild West showdown – perhaps the screen’s crowning portrayal of toxic masculinity over the years – covers up any relevant discussion of toxicity because it’s written as if this was all justice being finally served. (Yes, two things can be true at once.) Still, the fact remains that men and the things they’ll do – sexual or otherwise – is central the film’s talking points.
Now …
Peoples’ script for Soldier – like it or not – definitely hits a great deal of the same notes, but methinks the fact that it was directed by Anderson – a storyteller not exactly interested in making morality the centerpiece around all that happens – is the biggest notable difference between what the screenwriter has done with these similar themes elsewhere. In Anderson’s hands, the story kinda/sorta devolves a bit, latching onto action set pieces and an almost comic-book-style intensity to keep forward motion in place and rarely stop for any meaningful character introspection. There are no deep, telling, and reflective moments to anything in Soldier: when primal impulses to fight or flight are in play, about the best Anderson can deliver is a sequence wherein the disgraced soldier Todd 3465 (played by Kurt Russell) teaches the young mute Nathan (played jointly by Jared and Taylor Thorne) to defend himself with a nothing more than a boot against an attacking poisonous snake.
Of course, none of this is to say that Soldier is only about giving Russell a chance to prove that he can do what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in just about every 80’s or 90’s era outing (though, yes, that is well proven). Peoples’ story focuses on a trained military assassin who – at the height of his prowess – gets thrown onto the scrap heap (literally) when a newer model of genetic engineering proves it has superior capabilities. What this new breed of super-soldier lacks inevitably is war-time experience; and that is something Todd 3465 has in abundance. In the final reel when the army relic comes up against an entire squadron of these newly-built plebes just trying to get some combat exposure, they can’t even compete with the original soldier; and they suffer about as notable a downfall as they deserve. Though Anderson and Peoples try to suggest this singular triumph could likely be owed to Todd’s developing emotions for the ragtag group who’s adopted him as their ‘savior,’ nothing could be further from the truth. Feelings have nothing to do with his response. The rescue of the planet’s downtrodden people is owed to the fact that Todd is the better, more brutal fighter and can prove it … but he’s not necessarily the better man. That’s up to the viewers to decide.
Curiously, Soldier failed to do the kind of box office one might expect from Peoples’ pedigree. Any bit of research will produce a variety of theories justifying why – i.e. Anderson was forced to shoot a great amount of the picture in-studio when pre-production had planned for big, outdoor vistas; the finished product wasn’t ‘cerebral enough’ as compared to what other storytellers were doing with Science Fiction and Fantasy at the time; etc. – and to each his own on that point. It’s definitely a smaller and more intimate tale than were Blade Runner or Unforgiven; and perhaps the fact that Anderson never thought to capitalize on such intimacy the audience just never responded. Still, those of us who appreciate cult filmmaking will always likely hoist it up and point to it as a sample of what can happen when the stars align. It’s just so perfectly imperfect on so many levels that we can’t help but come back for another visit when the feeling is right.
Soldier (1998) was produced by Warner Bros., Morgan Creek Entertainment, Jerry Weintraub Productions, Impact Pictures, and Morgan Creek Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure audiences that the film looks and sounds superb: there are some simpler special effects sequences that demonstrate the visual weaknesses of work from the era, but they’re nothing all that distracting. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Although the disc boasts an archival commentary track, it’s still worth a listen as Anderson and co-producer Jeremy Bolt recount a good deal of behind-the-scenes stuff that fans love hearing. (Also, actor Jason Isaacs shows up for a portion of the talk.) Additionally, the disc is loaded with some great, newly-produced interviews from cast and crew that also breath a bit of life into a flick that deserved a wider audience then and now.
Highly Recommended.
Over the years, readers of SciFiHistory.Net have beaten me over the head for liking several pictures they find beneath me; and yet I still don’t care: Soldier (1998) is a masculine thrill ride wherein ‘the old warrior’ proves there’s still plenty of fight left in him, especially when it’s needed most. While Anderson’s direction and the budgetary restrictions might forever give the feature a B-Movie quality, that can also said to be a great deal of what ‘charm’ from a bygone era looks like. Russell proves himself a capable lead once more, even when the script gives him nothing more than a few dozen words to say across a lean and mean 100 minutes. But action will always speak louder than words anyway; and – in this regard – may Soldier always serve admirably.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Soldier (1998) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed