I saw this movie back in 2004 and I liked it (or so I thought).
After a few years I had the opportunity to watch it again. The strange thing was, although I remembered how it ends, I couldn't find a logical path of what happens in the movie and what was true and what wasn't.
Today (June of 2016), after I watched Connie Nielsen in another movie, I remembered the existence of "Basic" (and how she looked good with her short blond hair and the uniform) and I sought it to watch it, but again, although I remembered the last couple of scenes and the resolution of the film, I still couldn't remembered how the plot evolves.
What I'm saying is that the movie is incoherent and the narrative is (purposely I guess, to give a sense of continuous twists) confusing. I also find it less satisfying in todays standards despite the obvious chemistry between John Travolta and Connie Nielsen.
To realize how confusing the plot is, take a look at the contents in Wikipedia. Usually in a movie, there is a "Plot" section with a summary or a more detailed description of the plot. Here you have ...subsections of the plot as follows:
1.1 Dunbar's story
1.2 Kendall's story
1.3 Dunbar's second story
1.4 Kendall's second story
1.5 Pike's final explanation
1.6 Final twist and explanation
I don't recall any other movie to have such a structure in its topic in Wikipedia!!
The thing is you are trying to follow what is happening (especially in the first viewing) and you even might have a suspicion about who the actual bad guy is, but the convulsive script combined with John McTiernan's erratic direction, have as a result a movie that is ultimately confusing.
If you see it superficially you will probably enjoy it. Travolta's character has an attitude of a "know-it-all" maverick investigator, Connie Nielsen looks really good, and the end is designed to think of it as rewarding and satisfying.
But if you look more closely and give it a second thought you will see clearly that this movie is more like a disappointment.
**P.S.: The atmosphere and the theme of the movie, plus the similar lead role of Travolta, but with Madeleine Stowe instead of Connie Nielsen, reminded me of The General's Daughter (1999). A better movie if you ask me.
After a few years I had the opportunity to watch it again. The strange thing was, although I remembered how it ends, I couldn't find a logical path of what happens in the movie and what was true and what wasn't.
Today (June of 2016), after I watched Connie Nielsen in another movie, I remembered the existence of "Basic" (and how she looked good with her short blond hair and the uniform) and I sought it to watch it, but again, although I remembered the last couple of scenes and the resolution of the film, I still couldn't remembered how the plot evolves.
What I'm saying is that the movie is incoherent and the narrative is (purposely I guess, to give a sense of continuous twists) confusing. I also find it less satisfying in todays standards despite the obvious chemistry between John Travolta and Connie Nielsen.
To realize how confusing the plot is, take a look at the contents in Wikipedia. Usually in a movie, there is a "Plot" section with a summary or a more detailed description of the plot. Here you have ...subsections of the plot as follows:
1.1 Dunbar's story
1.2 Kendall's story
1.3 Dunbar's second story
1.4 Kendall's second story
1.5 Pike's final explanation
1.6 Final twist and explanation
I don't recall any other movie to have such a structure in its topic in Wikipedia!!
The thing is you are trying to follow what is happening (especially in the first viewing) and you even might have a suspicion about who the actual bad guy is, but the convulsive script combined with John McTiernan's erratic direction, have as a result a movie that is ultimately confusing.
If you see it superficially you will probably enjoy it. Travolta's character has an attitude of a "know-it-all" maverick investigator, Connie Nielsen looks really good, and the end is designed to think of it as rewarding and satisfying.
But if you look more closely and give it a second thought you will see clearly that this movie is more like a disappointment.
**P.S.: The atmosphere and the theme of the movie, plus the similar lead role of Travolta, but with Madeleine Stowe instead of Connie Nielsen, reminded me of The General's Daughter (1999). A better movie if you ask me.