How’s it Feel to Be in Charge of a Third Rate Movie?
This weekend's review: Second in Command.
I suspected going in to Second in Command that it was going to be a brainless action movie. It just had the vibe of being a vanity project for Jean-Claude van Damme to show off his fighting skills and little else. And while I was mostly correct on that score, there are still a few things worth talking about.
The story takes place in the country of Moldavia, which has recently moved from Communism to Democracy. The new president, Yuri Amirev (Serban Celea), was fairly elected, but the ex-leader of the country (who never appears and I believe only gets mentioned by name a few times) doesn’t want to give up his power, so starts trying to stir up trouble in an attempt to get Amirev ousted or killed. Because of all the unrest, not only are there a lot of reporters on hand looking for a story, but the American embassy has sent for Commander Sam Keenan (van Damme) to be the military attaché. Keenan arrives just in time; during a protest outside the President’s home, a sniper planted inside the house by the ex-leader fires on the crowd, causing a riot. Keenan immediately mounts a rescue effort and successfully gets Amirev to the Embassy, but now this means the Embassy is under siege, and while it has several soldiers on hand, weaponry is at a minimum. The embassy staff find themselves having to deal with both a survival situation and a rescue operation, as they need to try to get the civilians to safety. There are other complications too, like the fact that Keenan’s girlfriend, a reporter named Michelle Whitman (Julie Cox), is present. And then there’s CIA agent Frank Gaines (William Tapley), who’s heard of Keenan’s reputation for going in guns blazing and therefore disagrees strongly with Keenan’s plans. Though I think once someone’s fired an RPG at an embassy and killed the Ambassador (who named Keenan his temporary second in command shortly before his death, hence the movie’s title), guns are probably going to be blazing sooner rather than later.
As I said, the movie plays out pretty much exactly how you’d expect with a summary like that. You’ve got the internal conflict of Gaines vs. Keenan, some romantic conflict with Keenan taking risks to protect or save Whitman (though refreshingly, there’s no interpersonal conflict between the two of them), and an external conflict that guarantees several fight scenes where van Damme can display his fighting prowess. Still, there are a few things that keep it from being too by the numbers; admittedly, not all of them are good, but at least they serve as talking points. For a start, some of the camerawork is weird. Not only does it randomly slow things down for no good reason, but the protest scene alternates between being shot with professional lighting and camera equipment to being filmed on what appears to be a handheld camera. Now, since Whitman and other reporters are covering the protest, I’m guessing we’re supposed to see this as point-of-view shots. But some of the handheld shots are at angles that don’t make sense, and the transitions between the two types of cameras feel arbitrary and therefore jarring. Fortunately, they drop that conceit after the riot ends, so I wasn’t constantly distracted by the changing quality of the picture. I’m also a bit confused by the timing, at least in one instance. The people in the embassy have to hold out for help, which will either come in the form of American soldiers flying over to Moldavia in helicopters or the Moldavian army, which was doing some fighting in the forests. We occasionally get ETAs for both groups, and as we near the end of the movie, we’re told that both groups are an hour away. I’m no expert on machinery, but I would have thought helicopters were faster than tanks. I’m sure there’s some sort of explanation for it, but I’m sure I’m not the only layman who would look at that and go “wait a minute…”
Then there’s the lack of development for the bad guys. As I said, the one who’s really behind all this doesn’t seem to be an active participant in the fighting, instead relying on his henchman, a bald man named Tavarov (Velibor Topic). And while Tavarov gets to make threats via radio and stand around looking menacing, he doesn’t have much of a character otherwise. In fact, during one action scene Keenan kills a bald man, and I thought that meant he’d disposed of Tavarov and now we’d see more of the ex-leader. Instead, Tavarov was still alive, and I was left wondering who that other bald guy was. The casting department probably should have found someone else for that part; I still would have wondered what role the dead man had had in the scheme, but I would have been less confused. On a semi-related note, I question the decision the filmmakers made to shoot and frame Gaines in ways that strongly implied that he was a traitor working for the ex-leader in some capacity. I won’t spoil whether I was right or not, but either way, I think it was a mistake. If he is a traitor, then the movie’s tipped its hand; if he isn’t, then it feels pointless and the bad sort of red herring. Then again, maybe this was all in my head-I’ve seen far too many movies and TV shows (24 was notorious for this) featuring spies in the organization. And besides, the CIA kind of has a reputation for being shady in media…
There are also some good elements, though they’re admittedly few and far between. During Amirev’s rescue, two of the soldiers are left behind, and need to survive behind enemy lines. But this also allows them to be the eyes and ears of the Embassy, as well as provide aid in other ways. This is material that could carry a movie in its own right, though sadly it’s not used as much as it could be. I also like one of the escape plans that feature using the ancient tunnels under the Embassy, though that one is probably more because I have a soft spot for scenes that require stealth. Then there’s the moment where the soldiers have to improvise weaponry, which is another trope I enjoy, but which once again is mostly glossed over. The acting is generally decent, even if there aren’t any real standouts. The movie has the guts to kill characters you normally wouldn’t expect to die in stories like this. And the action scenes do successfully give you bang for your buck, sometimes literally. I haven’t seen a lot of Jean-Claude van Damme’s work, but he does appear to be a capable fighter. Certainly I understand the appeal of him much more than I do Steven Segal, who hasn’t actually done all that much fighting in the movies of his I’ve seen…
While the movie overall wasn’t really my cup of tea, it might appeal to you if you want an action movie with a little bit of bite. The plot may not be fleshed out, but you get enough of the broad strokes that you can follow along, and the various small details can keep you from feeling like it’s completely same-old, same-old. Go for the action instead of the story, and you’ll probably have a reasonably good time. I’d probably wait to watch it until a hot summer day or a cozy winter night, though; it’s a movie best saved for when you don’t want to expend a lot of brainpower.
I suspected going in to Second in Command that it was going to be a brainless action movie. It just had the vibe of being a vanity project for Jean-Claude van Damme to show off his fighting skills and little else. And while I was mostly correct on that score, there are still a few things worth talking about.
The story takes place in the country of Moldavia, which has recently moved from Communism to Democracy. The new president, Yuri Amirev (Serban Celea), was fairly elected, but the ex-leader of the country (who never appears and I believe only gets mentioned by name a few times) doesn’t want to give up his power, so starts trying to stir up trouble in an attempt to get Amirev ousted or killed. Because of all the unrest, not only are there a lot of reporters on hand looking for a story, but the American embassy has sent for Commander Sam Keenan (van Damme) to be the military attaché. Keenan arrives just in time; during a protest outside the President’s home, a sniper planted inside the house by the ex-leader fires on the crowd, causing a riot. Keenan immediately mounts a rescue effort and successfully gets Amirev to the Embassy, but now this means the Embassy is under siege, and while it has several soldiers on hand, weaponry is at a minimum. The embassy staff find themselves having to deal with both a survival situation and a rescue operation, as they need to try to get the civilians to safety. There are other complications too, like the fact that Keenan’s girlfriend, a reporter named Michelle Whitman (Julie Cox), is present. And then there’s CIA agent Frank Gaines (William Tapley), who’s heard of Keenan’s reputation for going in guns blazing and therefore disagrees strongly with Keenan’s plans. Though I think once someone’s fired an RPG at an embassy and killed the Ambassador (who named Keenan his temporary second in command shortly before his death, hence the movie’s title), guns are probably going to be blazing sooner rather than later.
As I said, the movie plays out pretty much exactly how you’d expect with a summary like that. You’ve got the internal conflict of Gaines vs. Keenan, some romantic conflict with Keenan taking risks to protect or save Whitman (though refreshingly, there’s no interpersonal conflict between the two of them), and an external conflict that guarantees several fight scenes where van Damme can display his fighting prowess. Still, there are a few things that keep it from being too by the numbers; admittedly, not all of them are good, but at least they serve as talking points. For a start, some of the camerawork is weird. Not only does it randomly slow things down for no good reason, but the protest scene alternates between being shot with professional lighting and camera equipment to being filmed on what appears to be a handheld camera. Now, since Whitman and other reporters are covering the protest, I’m guessing we’re supposed to see this as point-of-view shots. But some of the handheld shots are at angles that don’t make sense, and the transitions between the two types of cameras feel arbitrary and therefore jarring. Fortunately, they drop that conceit after the riot ends, so I wasn’t constantly distracted by the changing quality of the picture. I’m also a bit confused by the timing, at least in one instance. The people in the embassy have to hold out for help, which will either come in the form of American soldiers flying over to Moldavia in helicopters or the Moldavian army, which was doing some fighting in the forests. We occasionally get ETAs for both groups, and as we near the end of the movie, we’re told that both groups are an hour away. I’m no expert on machinery, but I would have thought helicopters were faster than tanks. I’m sure there’s some sort of explanation for it, but I’m sure I’m not the only layman who would look at that and go “wait a minute…”
Then there’s the lack of development for the bad guys. As I said, the one who’s really behind all this doesn’t seem to be an active participant in the fighting, instead relying on his henchman, a bald man named Tavarov (Velibor Topic). And while Tavarov gets to make threats via radio and stand around looking menacing, he doesn’t have much of a character otherwise. In fact, during one action scene Keenan kills a bald man, and I thought that meant he’d disposed of Tavarov and now we’d see more of the ex-leader. Instead, Tavarov was still alive, and I was left wondering who that other bald guy was. The casting department probably should have found someone else for that part; I still would have wondered what role the dead man had had in the scheme, but I would have been less confused. On a semi-related note, I question the decision the filmmakers made to shoot and frame Gaines in ways that strongly implied that he was a traitor working for the ex-leader in some capacity. I won’t spoil whether I was right or not, but either way, I think it was a mistake. If he is a traitor, then the movie’s tipped its hand; if he isn’t, then it feels pointless and the bad sort of red herring. Then again, maybe this was all in my head-I’ve seen far too many movies and TV shows (24 was notorious for this) featuring spies in the organization. And besides, the CIA kind of has a reputation for being shady in media…
There are also some good elements, though they’re admittedly few and far between. During Amirev’s rescue, two of the soldiers are left behind, and need to survive behind enemy lines. But this also allows them to be the eyes and ears of the Embassy, as well as provide aid in other ways. This is material that could carry a movie in its own right, though sadly it’s not used as much as it could be. I also like one of the escape plans that feature using the ancient tunnels under the Embassy, though that one is probably more because I have a soft spot for scenes that require stealth. Then there’s the moment where the soldiers have to improvise weaponry, which is another trope I enjoy, but which once again is mostly glossed over. The acting is generally decent, even if there aren’t any real standouts. The movie has the guts to kill characters you normally wouldn’t expect to die in stories like this. And the action scenes do successfully give you bang for your buck, sometimes literally. I haven’t seen a lot of Jean-Claude van Damme’s work, but he does appear to be a capable fighter. Certainly I understand the appeal of him much more than I do Steven Segal, who hasn’t actually done all that much fighting in the movies of his I’ve seen…
While the movie overall wasn’t really my cup of tea, it might appeal to you if you want an action movie with a little bit of bite. The plot may not be fleshed out, but you get enough of the broad strokes that you can follow along, and the various small details can keep you from feeling like it’s completely same-old, same-old. Go for the action instead of the story, and you’ll probably have a reasonably good time. I’d probably wait to watch it until a hot summer day or a cozy winter night, though; it’s a movie best saved for when you don’t want to expend a lot of brainpower.