Nella tana del serpente

When Chains of Gold came out is was dismissed as a vanity project. I don't get it. While the film is far from perfect its very well made and has some good performances.

Travolta is sympathetic as hell as Barnes, the social worker.

The supporting cast are good and is stacked with familiar faces and the Miami setting is exotic and adds production value.

The script is never likely to feature on any best of lists, but it gets the job done and the direction is solid and the pacing is fast.

As I said I really don't get the hate. The pic is entertaining and Travolta is always watchable and there's some good action scenes.

Chains of Gold is a fun watch.

An enjoyable film in my mind. Travolta is especially good in a movie about a social worker's determination to save his friend after he is kidnapped by the drug dealers that he worked for. Sure, this is hardly a perfect movie, but it will entertain you for 95 minutes.

Powerful performances and great thrills make this movie one you have to see. If you get the chance to see it, don't pass it up.

Good luck finding this - they're selling it on a cheapie DVD in Australia. One of the most obscure entries in Travolta's career, its one of those rare opportunities to see him looking this skinny.

Its absolute trash, of course, the kind of preachy exhibitionism that characterises mid-day movies, soap operas and tele-features.

*

The progression of Travolta's career seems to be characterised by almost total randomness. What is the explanation for the decisions John Travolta has made? Even his biggest, best decisions had a degree of randomness: from TV sweathog Vinne Barbarino to disco king in Saturday Night Fever? From family-movie icon in Look Who's Talking to hit-man in Pulp Fiction? Don't tell me these were the only roles available to him - not true. After Saturday Night Fever, he was the hottest thing since James Dean. He would have been offered a million scripts - hundreds of them probably great, so why the strange bomb Moment by Moment? And after Grease, when he lucked-in again, he could have had any script in Hollywood, so why the strange western drama Urban Cowboy? , he was the hottest thing since The sad truth behind this randomness is that Travolta bases his decisions of what role to take on the Hollywood religion of scientology. So instead of good characters or good dialogue in the script, good directors attached, or his agent's advice - he appeals to whatever mystical devices scientology suggests. Travolta claims that scientology knows best because it was responsible for his great decisions in the 70's (Grease, Saturday Night Fever and Welcome Back, Kotter). But in truth, scientology has been responsible for about five hits (those three, plus Pulp Fiction), and about thirty misses.

Travolta is a great actor, with terrific looks (even in expanded form) - so why is it that his career has been a series of almost random ups and downs, every now and then accidentally scoring a hit script, but mostly toiling away in rubbish like Perfect (1985), Two of a Kind (1983), Staying Alive (1983), White Man's Burden (1995), Michael (1996), Phenomenon (1996), Lucky Numbers (2000), Battlefield Earth (2000), Basic (2003). It was the same problem with Brando. Terrific actor, great looking (even in expanded form), but he picked roles based on the highest bidder. Money, instead of script and director quality. Contrast these guys with someone like Jack Nicholson - a pretty good actor, with terrible looks - but he's become a legend! He's been in scores of incredible films, one after another! What separates him? Terrific decisions - perfect decisions for that time of his life, and for his image, and for a projection of how good the final movie might be.

*

Only scientology could explain someone, even someone with not much weight in Hollywood, agreeing to do this script. Poorly written, it indulges in all the possible clichés of melodramatic trollop - and then is executed in the most trashy manner possible.

Still, Travolta is not poor. He makes us believe this crap, which is a real feat.

4/10 for Travolta, and that's very very generous.

John Travolta is social worker Scott Barnes, a person adamant about keeping the kids of some innercity area of California from giving into the rampant drug circles that work the street. He's been working the job for so long, he knows the dealers by name, and they know him.

The job gets personal when a close friend of his, a 13 year old boy named Tommy (Joey Lawrence), starts dealing. Unfortunately, Tommy has already become much more involved in the "Youth Incentive Program," which is the name for the dangerous clan of cocaine dealers that run the area. Travolta figures that he owes it to Tommy to help him, seeing this as an opportunity to redeem himself after having accidentally killed his only son in an accident where Scott was drunk.

Scott, the bold idealist that he is, goes undercover in one of the most dangerous drug rings (which reminds me a lot of Shredder's underground gang from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie), hoping that he can rescue Tommy from their grips before it's too late.

Though the message is good, considering it is a powerful statement especially where kids are messing up their lives in being hooked on this stuff (they run like rats in the daylights to protect their stash) because they're sold on the false philosophy that they'll become filthy rich. Likewise, it illustrates the failures of the system as Scott tries so hard for other government agencies to help him out and put an end to the mess that he's witnessed for so long. But, it does in part seem a little too unrealistic, detracting from the importance of this message somewhat, as Scott, by himself, tries to disguise himself and his motives from a very ruthless leader (Benjamin Bratt) and his even more ruthless gang of drug dealing thugs. When the stakes are high, these guys will do whatever it takes to protect their product and their money. But is Scott able to do much more to protect Tommy?