A Brave New Katzworld (Score 1)

I've always wondered how many other people recognize Katz' writing style in the first sentence or two of the front page posting and then pointedly ignore whatever he posted. I definitely fall into that category of people.

The Katz Formula is pretty straightforward: "I'm a techno-journalist who finally gets the Geek community." And then there is the corollary: "Everything that occurs in the universe can only be properly understood from the techno-Geek perspective." How typical then to see Exit Wounds pigeon-holed as the harbinger of technologies ascension to the position of Most Important Plot Element in an Action Film.

I really enjoyed Exit Wounds and I liked the plot twist that connected one of the characters to the .Com technology craze, but Katz' perspective is predictably unbalanced. He seems to imply that the only interesting aspect of the movie is the technology focus and also that this is an entirely new area of interest for filmmakers and moviegoers alike.

That is idiotic.

Probably the most powerful use of technology in Exit Wounds is the use of surveillance technology. This is nothing new. Espionage has been a cornerstone of the action film genre for decades. "My name is Bond. James Bond." And if you want to see a movie that really focuses on technology as the linchpin of the plot, consider watching Sneakers, an excellent movie released nearly a decade ago. And yes, it even contains exciting "action" scenes!

It certainly would not be very hard to continue ripping apart the premise of Katz' article, but it seems almost unfair. It isn't hard to push someone off a building when they are leaning out over the edge of the roof. What I will respond to is the claim by Katz that the only good reason to watch Exit Wounds is for the technology.

I'll call the rest of this posting: "Why Exit Wounds is Worth Watching (A Non-Katz Retrospective)".

I've seen all of Seagal's movies. Not all of them are good, but I can say that Seagal is a very competent martial artist (He studied the Japanese martial art, Aikido, for years.) If you speak with someone who trains in this art, they will tell you that on-screen, his movement is very good. As a martial artist, he is interesting to watch. In Exit Wounds there are some nice scenes that exhibit his martial arts ability.

Another distinguishing quality of this movie is that Seagal is moving away from the idea of a superhuman protagonist. Katz said this, but then he said that this was done because technology is usurping the role of protagonist. That is just not correct. What Seagal is moving away from in this movie is the idea of a superhuman protagonist.

In this movie he faces some very difficult opposition. He takes more than a few good shots both physically and emotionally. In several fights, he does not win and takes some pretty good knocks. And then there are the--to me--very amusing scenes where he takes some decent emotional shots as well. Sending him to "Anger Control" counseling was particularly amusing.

Of course, the counseling sessions also introduce Tom Arnold who does--in my opinion--a decent job of being funny. Perish the thought!

This leads to the observation, that the character development in this movie is actually quite good. The best developed character in the movie isn't even Seagal. DMX' character has far greater depth and his story is quite compelling. I'll omit the details to avoid spoiling the plot.

Note that the previous paragraphs say absolutely nothing about technology and yet, they also describe what I liked most about the movie. Not everyone will share my perspective on the movie, but clearly, Katz' perception of this movie as nothing more than a vehicle for technology as superhero is just completely ridiculous. There was much more to this movie than Katz' disparaging commentary would lead one to believe.

I imagine if Katz wrote a review of Jaws when it came out, it would only have said, "'You're going to need a bigger boat.' See? This movie is all about technology."

A very sarcastic, Elo