Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

TheLittleSongbird John McTiernan showed that he had a lot of talent for directing in his early career. 'Die Hard' to this day is one of the landmarks of the action genre as well as being a wonderful film in general, and 'Predator' and 'The Hunt for Red October' are also great. 'Die Hard with a Vengeance' is very enjoyable. Sadly, the 2000s in particular saw his career do a 180, with 2002's dreadful 'Rollerball' making one shocked that it actually came from him.'Basic', from 2003, turned out to be McTiernan's most recent film before his personal life and legal troubles got in the way. It is certainly much better than 'Rollerball', then again almost anything is and it is difficult not to make anything better. However, there is still that disappointing sense that such a promising career start declined as drastically as McTiernan's. Is 'Basic' a terrible film and as bad as critics have said? Not quite. Could it have been much better? Yes. It suffers from the opposite problem of 'Rollerball', that film had the feeling of not that much effort was put into it whereas 'Basic' suffers from trying too hard.There are good things. 'Basic' actually starts off well, there was a little tension and has enough to make one intrigued in wanting to continue. It is a slick looking film, despite scenes being darkly lit even for a film where there are a lot of night-time scenes, giving a genuinely moody and gritty thriller look.Klaus Badelt provides an atmospheric music score. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Connie Nielsen and Tim Daly make the most of what they have and actually do quite well, Travolta in particular seems to be having a good time while not overdoing it.However, McTiernan seems out of sorts and lost here, and he shouldn't have been because 'Basic' is not a change of pace film like 'Medicine Man' was. He should have been the perfect person to direct considering the genre, but clearly bit off far more than he could actually chew, he struggles to make the film compelling and loses control. The script is sluggish and over-stuffed, with many awkward moments, suffering too from trying to do far too much.Despite starting off well, 'Basic' derails quickly and gets increasingly tedious and convoluted to the point of incoherence. The final act in particular almost single-handedly wrecks the film, it tries to take on far too many twists and pretty much every single one of them attempted is confusing and ridiculous and then it ends on such an incomplete-feeling note. Taking away the twists, the story actually is pretty basic and thin, giving the sense that the piling on of the twists was trying to disguise that the story was very bare bones underneath. There is no reason given to allow anybody to care for the shallow characters or the severely flawed story, while Harry Connick Jr feels out of place and Giovanni Ribisi is in parody mode that one can't take him seriously.Overall, not a waste of time but could have been much better because the potential was there. 4/10 Bethany Cox

FlashCallahan An Army sergeant takes six of his troops on a training mission into the Colombian jungle and only survive. When the rescue mission arrives, they see one soldier killing another and carrying a wounded comrade. As the interrogation begins, the soldier refuses to talk to anyone other than another Ranger. The investigating officer protests, but her commanding officer brings in a former Ranger and current DEA agent to help. The agent is currently on suspension from DEA for allegedly accepting a bribe.....Basic is all over the shop with style over substance. The film has so many cuts and edits, and even more flashbacks, you forget about the actual story halfway through the second act, and just enjoy Travolta in one of his last, quite good roles.He really thinks that this is groundbreaking stuff, and it is almost a pseudo-sequel to The General's Daughter.So the film consists of him and Nielsen going back and forth talking to the survivors, whom each give a different story.The flashbacks consist of Jackson at this shouty best, in the pouring rain, threatening Giovanni Ribisi.Sexuality of some of the troops is hinted for the betrayal, but his is soon forgotten about in favour of Travolta trying to look buff in his tight black T-shirt, when in fact, he looks like he could do with a good dose of laxatives.It's short, and fun to watch, thanks to the performances and the direction, but the story really goes nowhere, and the ending is just laughable.

geneguerrero This review is about 13 years late but I really have nothing better to do right at this very moment. I've seen the trailers at the time when this movie came out and was intrigued but never got to the theater or rental store to check it out. I did however find this at a pawn shop for $1 and thought "Oh what the hey. May as well check it out". Basic, directed by John McTiernan (Die Hard) and starring John Travolta and bad muthaf*cka Samuel L. Jackson, is a movie centered around a DEA agent investigating the mysterious disappearance of a famed US Army drill instructor. One of the main selling points that fooled me into buying this movie was one of the reviews stating it was "seductive and electrifying with non stop action!". And I enjoy most of John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson's movies. But I felt none of those words in that review. It was boring and confusing. After 10 minutes, all you know is that someone may have did something bad and we as the audience will need to stick around till the end to find out why. Well I got the end and still didn't know what the hell just happened. I viewed it a second time and was bored again after 10 minutes. The writer tried to put together a military thriller mixed a little with "The Usual Suspects" style mystery but it wasn't as interesting or exciting. To me, the only cool scene in this movie was when John Travolta decided to stop messing around and took a suspect he was interrogating out to a helicopter hangar and threatened to shove the suspect's face into a moving helicopter propeller screaming "You want to see what happens when you lie!" I wanted to do the same to the person that put that review on the back of the DVD cover - "Electrifying with non stop action!" SMH. I want my $1 back.

Dr_Sagan 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 story1.2 Kendall's story1.3 Dunbar's second story1.4 Kendall's second story1.5 Pike's final explanation1.6 Final twist and explanationI 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.