U.S. Marshals:
The Sequel That Should Have Got Away

It's interesting to note that the last time Tommy Lee Jones played Deputy Marshal Sam Gerard he won an Oscar® for Best Supporting Actor. The film, The Fugitive, had a fair amount of success, no doubt in part to Jones' portrayal. In an interesting experiment, the creators of the sequel to The Fugitive decided to spotlight the supporting character in a similar situation. Interesting idea. Bad follow-through.

The biggest hinderance to U.S. Marshals (and there are more than a few) is the lack of imagination in the script. The whole movie reads like a high-school student's term paper that he cribbed from an encyclopedia. There are plenty of ideas, but no original ones. There are some characters, but none of them are memorable. Worst yet, the movie doesn't do anything but become a pale imitation of the original and waste a first-rate actor like Jones.

In the sequel, Sam Gerard is chasing Mark Sheridan (Wesley Snipes), a man suspected of the murder of two State Department agents. In a scene reminiscent of Con Air, Sheridan is to be transported to New York for trial. Gerard is along for the ride, guarding another prisoner bound for the Big Apple. When the plane crashes, Sheridan escapes (not unlike Harrison Ford's train ride in The Fugitive). Gerard takes control of the situation and begins a manhunt that will lead him from Illinois, through Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and New York.

Helping Gerard are a "crack" team of U.S. Marshals. They function only as a chorus to his every command, carrying out his orders like a bunch of gophers. One wonders if they are actual marshals or just interns. To our disinterest, the State Department has assigned one of their people to work with Gerard. Robert Downey, Jr. plays Royce, a DSS agent who (gasp!) has his own agenda.

Adding to the insipidness of this cast is Kate Nelligan as U.S. Marshal Walsh, Gerard's boss and (possible) love interest. I qualify that last remark because there is only one scene in which Walsh in an unguarded moment tells Gerard, "I love you." Is that an attempt at characterization or just a touchy-feely moment? I can't imagine a boss saying "I love you" and not getting into some kind of litigation.

To top it all off, Jones doesn't get to do anything but walk through a series of chases and shootouts while mulling over the possibility that Sheridan isn't really the bad guy in all this. Excuse me? Aren't we stretching credibility here? It's like Die Hard all over again. What are the odds this man would be put in this same situation twice in his life? It would have been infinitely more interesting to see Gerard tracking someone who genuinely deserved to be hunted down and put away. Why rehash the past?

More importantly, the audience never cares about Sheridan the way they did about Gerard's earlier prey. We suspect that Sheridan is set up, but we don't care if he gets caught. The ambiguity of his situation keeps us from siding with his character. By the time we find evidence of his innocence, we just don't care. There's no collective sigh of relief like in The Fugitive.

Speaking of which, I thought it entirely cliché (although not surprising) to see Sheridan manage a miraculous getaway from the roof of a building by swinging on a rope. The creators no doubt hoped to instill in audiences that same sense of awe they felt when Dr. Richard Kimble jumped into the raging waterfall in The Fugitive. As far as I'm concerned, it's a cheap gimmick which had already lost its effectiveness after being seen repeatedly in movie previews and television commercials.

Rereading this review, I realize I have been very critical in comparing U.S. Marshals to The Fugitive. Some may think I should judge it on its own merits. Had it been an original movie and not a sequel, I would have rated it the same. However, I would have been less disappointed.

MY RATING: 3 out of 10.

RATED: PG-13
RUN TIME: 128 min.