|
 f you can ignore the first 6 minutes or so of 1993's
"Fortress", then the rest is relatively entertaining. In a nutshell:
in the near future, the U.S. is a fascist country that limits one child per
couple. Our leads, played by Christopher Lambert ("The
Point Men") and Loryn Locklin as a married couple, are sneaking out of
the country because Locklin's character is pregnant with their second child.
(The first, we learn, died at childbirth.) Now here's the thing: why in the
world would you go to such great lengths to stop citizens from leaving
the country who are pregnant (and has broken the one-child law)? Doesn't the
fact that they're leaving the country, thus no longer taking up valuable
(and limited) resources with their second child be a good thing? The
government should be opening up the borders for citizens to leave, not trying to
stop them!
Also, if the couple's first baby died at childbirth, then
the couple technically has no baby -- so how would having another baby --
but in essence, only one baby -- be taking up unnecessary resources? Did
all the resources get "used up" when the first baby was born and then
quickly died? Of course not, that's stupid. So shouldn't the couple be allowed
to have another baby because, frankly, they never had a baby to begin with? Now
do you see why the film's first 6 minutes, which has the couple literally
fighting their way out of the country, seem not only superfluous, but downright
silly?
Of course the whole one-child gimmick is nothing more than
a necessary plot point to send the Brennicks to a futuristic prison as
punishment. (Lambert's John gets -- get this -- 30-something years for his
"crime"!) The prison is privately run by the Evil Men-Tel Corporation
and is called the Fortress. It is gigantic, high-tech, and alas, full of
contradictions. Then again, "Fortress" is basically a B-movie made at
a time when the phrase "B-Movie" still didn't have quite the stigma it
does now. Back then, "Fortress" was a candidate for theatrical
release, but it would never have made it past the store shelves today.
Aside from the absurdity of stopping "one-child
criminals" at the border, the film's other ridiculous conceit is the
construction of the Fortress itself. Needless to say, it's impossible that the
Men-Tel organization could make any semblance of profit out of housing prisoners
in its 13-story underground complex. This place is just huge. What is the
Evil Government paying these Evil Corporation -- millions of dollars for each
criminal? That would seem to be the only way they can make a profit and thus
afford to keep the place open.
The other obvious bad idea is the prison's computer, which
can not only sense if someone is dreaming, but can see their dream as it
happens. You may think that if technology has advanced this far in the
future that someone might have invented a "cure" for criminality
rather than spend millions (probably billions) on a gigantic underground prison.
Then again, why am I trying to insert logic into "Fortress"? The
screenwriters sure as heck didn't bother to.
If you were to ignore all of the questionable writing in
"Fortress" (and there's quite a bit to ignore, unfortunately) then
"Fortress" is a reasonably entertaining movie. After John arrives in
prison, he's not all too bothered to be there since he thinks Karen (Locklin)
got away. But it turns out he was wrong, and Karen is in fact already in the
female wing of the prison. Worst, the prison's twisted warden (Kurtwood Smith)
has developed an unhealthy fixation with the lovely Karen, who is still carrying
John's child. In the future, where abortion is illegal, aborted fetuses are used
as -- well, why should I ruin it for you? The scene when Karen discovers the
Awful Truth is probably the film's funniest moments -- although I'm sure it
wasn't supposed to be.
"Fortress" was made on a moderate budget, so it
can afford some nifty toys and elaborate set designs. And although it's supposed
to take place in the future, many of the movie's technology are still not so out
there as to be impossible. With, of course, the exception of that roaming
computer eye that can "see" people's dreams. Now that's just plain
silly, and really turns what could have been a moderately passable prison film
into hopeless fiction. Lambert, the star, does pretty well as Brennick, although
it should be noted that his voice was "going" way back then. And Loryn
Locklin is very easy on the eyes, so those are pluses.
"Fortress" is not a bad movie at all. It's only
illogical when it tries to be too ambitious, but mostly succeeds when it sticks
to action and the prison breakout sequences. This is one of those movies that
would have worked much better if the filmmakers had held back a bit on the
extravagant nature of the prison. Couldn't a prison in, say, Antarctica work
just as well? Or one in an isolated desert? Why did it have to be a gigantic
underground complex? I think the answer to that question is a simple one:
because the "concept" sounded great.
|
