paulclaassen Wonderfully entertaining action adventure. Sean Connery is in top form and perfectly cast. He is just such a good actor. The action sequences are heart pounding and the film actually also has emotional depth. 'The Rock' is one of my favorite action films. It is also one of Michael Bay's highest rated films.

tryllekunstverk This was totally horrible in 1996, and is still totally horrible. The plot is written for 13 year old boys with hooded outfit bought at the nearest wall mart with FBI written on the back. Embarrassing to watch, and annoying to rethink as an adventurous possibility. Completely out of touch. A true turkey. A gift to the imbecile. How anyone can take pleasure in watching this is beyond pathological human understanding. Not only does the main character lack a focal point, or at least possess something to believe in - the main figures are all turning into clowns while working hard to be the "bad guys" and "good guys". I cannot describe the full disgust - and wonderful relief combined, while pressing the eject button on the DVD player.

Parker Lewis What an incredible ending The Rock had. You had a mutiny within a mutiny, and the action scenes at the end were incredible big time. The rocket man scene was something, and I wonder if North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has this in his DVD collection, given reports in 2015 that he executed a sleepy official with an anti-aircraft gun.The ending had a racist character, a soldier from the mutiny who made a disparaging remark against Sean Connery's character who is English. The soldier's father was Irish, but really Sean Connery's character was Scottish, so really there is a difference between the Scots and English folk. The Rock was made about 20 years before Nicolas Cage's starring role in Left Behind.

stageneral I don't look at IMDb until after I've seen a movie, but it's pretty rare that the IMDb rating is far off from what I would rate (or at least in the same general goodness or badness range). This is apparently one of those rare cases, though. I had to double check that I pulled up the right title when I saw a rating of 7.4 (at least at the time of this writing).I honestly can't understand what people see here. It's over 2 hours long, and I was watching the clock after the first hour, hoping it was getting near the end. I mean, it's a light enough action ride - I was leaning towards rating it a "5", but then the number of things that bothered me just kept mounting, and I finally decided "4" was more appropriate. Here's some of those things (I don't intend any significant spoilers, but clicked the spoiler alert just in case):The movie couldn't seem to decide whether it was a gritty war drama (lots of scowling, shooting, and F-bombs), or a slightly tongue-in-cheek action movie (comic relief characters, trying-to-be-witty dialogue). Heck, it even seemed like Nicolas Cage couldn't decide either, because he bounced back and forth between the two.Similarly, a fair amount of carnage during the shooting scenes, but Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery dove, walked, or swam away from everything, no matter how many people were shooting, or how big the explosive device, or how far their bodies were thrown.The characters were wooden and stereotypical. A flamboyant gay hair stylist? Some "Sir, yes sir!" Marines, the wronged ex-con, the never-been-in-the-field agent, the trolley driver, ...The plot was predictable and clichéThe drawn out shoot-em-up, crash-em-up sequences. I haven't seen so many cars trashed in a chase scene since the Blues Brothers. And geez, that Humvee didn't even get a broken headlight.In short, it was just one cliché scene after another, strung together over a tired and predictable story line. OK, I watched it in 2016. Maybe it was fresh in 1996 when it came out, but I find that hard to believe.