dombrewer

SPOILERS

I read the book when I was quite young (mainly because the cover had a particularly evil looking vampire on it) and I managed to see the film a few years later but it has been well over ten years since then. Only tonight I revisited the film again with some excitement and high expectations. What a huge let down.

Michael Mann is probably one of my favourite directors - I consider 'Heat' and 'Manhunter' to be two of the best thrillers going, and 'The Insider', 'Thief', 'Last of the Mohicans' and 'Ali' are all well made, beautifully shot films too. What on earth went wrong on this one? Mann really has no excuse for the unstructured mess we are presented with seeing he was directing his own screenplay, based on strong source material, with high calibre actors and a decent sized budget. $6 Million is not as low budget as you'd think in 1983, let's not forget one James Cameron managed to make an enduring classic for the same amount a year later with effects that still stand up today. The quality of picture and sound is lamentable - the latter so muddy it is often impossible to hear the dialogue properly, which turns out to be something of a blessing. Only the cinematography raises the bar, and is the sole reason this film is remembered (and even revered amongst the terminally cult) and even that is actually only so-so.

The acting is acceptable considering the appalling script they had to work with. Irish Gabriel Byrne plays a Nazi Major with an English accent, Robert Prosky plays a Romanian priest with an American accent, Alberta Watson plays a Romanian Jewess with a Canadian accent, and poor Ian McKellen plays a Romanian Jewish Doctor with an American accent (almost certainly because Watson couldn't do a Romanian accent or a British accent and McKellen had to convincingly play her father). Only Jurgen Prochnow manages to act a role with his own accent, and it's no accident that only he comes across as having any personality at all. It's quite fun to notice Wolf Kahler with a single line of dialogue as one of the ill-fated SS squadron (more famous for having his face melted at the end of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', and for saying "Excellente" in the long running Ferrero Rocher ad). Alberta Watson and Scott Glenn are both truly awful as the 'meet-one-minute-inexplicably-have-gratuitous-sex-the-next' mis-matched couple. You get the feeling Watson was only cast because she was prepared to strip naked and Glenn because he needed to look moody and implacable. Which he does. Actually, that's all he does.

The whole film is so poorly paced and executed it feels like the action takes place over the hour and a half you're watching the film. In this instance an extra 30 minutes would have improved the film 110%. The first deaths happen within ten minutes of the film starting and everything is rushed as fast as possible to the conclusion from that point - and what a conclusion. It's a dry ice and laser effect extravaganza with no tension, no drama, in fact no conflict at all. The Talisman that green blooded, contact-lensed Glenn slots onto his staff is pretty clearly a flashlight with a cross stuck on it. The villain himself, when not rushing about as a blue special effect dismembering stormtroopers, appears as a comically rubbery red-eyed bodybuilder. The vampire with God-like powers of the source material would have far more interesting.

The Tangerine Dream score is unmemorable and even more intrusive than usual, and that's saying something. Here it is inappropriate, and often extremely annoying. All tension and pace are completely thrown out of the window by the incessant synth wailing away in the foreground. The funniest (and stupidest) point of the score is the final cue which somehow turns into "Walking in the Air" from the animated kid's short "The Snowman". No, honestly - check the soundtrack listings, they actually credit Howard Blake. The only explanation for this would be a potential lawsuit after T.D. pinched the theme. There's no way Michael Mann could have wanted the end of his mystical romantic fantasy Nazi horror effort to finish with a piece of music associated with young boys singing about Christmas intentionally. When I recognised the theme I laughed out loud at the sheer preposterousness of the link.

There is much to mock in this effort and little to praise, and although it does have a uniqueness due to a few decent actors, large scope, and annoying 80s synth score, it really isn't worth your time. Seeing Mann chose to remake his shoddy TV movie 'L.A. Takedown' as 'Heat', perhaps he might be tempted to do this film again properly, until then, Keep well clear of this shameful mistake. A generous 5 out of 10.

SPOILERS. What a disappointment. After hearing much about this blink-and-you-missed it 80s apocalyptic love-story thriller, I finally managed to track down a battered old VHS copy, but my feeling now was I needn't have made the effort; it's been hard to find for a reason.

Anthony Edwards gives a credible performance in an otherwise ridiculous film. The director seemed intent on delivering the antithesis of the fluffy neon 80s teen fare but in the process blew up his own film by throwing logic and plot out of the window. It starts well enough and the middle section of the film is quite exciting, especially as the time begins to tick away and Harry is hampered at every corner from achieving what he sets out to do. Sadly it never progresses from there, as the constant set-backs just get annoying in their obvious contrivance and the film descends into ludicrousness.

Ultimately this is a seriously bleak film, especially as the "point" of this is the eternal nature of love, even one hour with your true love is better than nothing etc etc etc. This entirely fails to pay off as the script for the lovers is risible (they won't be diamonds, they'll be soup) and Mare Winningham is not up to the task of proving to us that she genuinely loves this man in the closing moments, rather that she is scared out of her mind (who wouldn't be) and will say anything. No one apart from Edwards gets to advance their character anyway, so Winningham is just dragged through the streets at 4am in a daze. A better tagline for the film would have been "If you had one hour left to live, would you waste it like Harry and Julie?".

I can't help thinking what a fascinating film this could have been if Harry had started all the panic and bloodshed only to discover he'd been wrong all along - that would have been a far more interesting ending to the one we're presented with. I found myself praying for a "it was only a dream" sequence at the end, and I deeply loathe those, so that only goes to show how little I appreciated this film. Avoid this like fallout.

Saw this terrific film today in an empty cinema and thought I'd better get my two cents in before this becomes a cult classic. I was initially drawn to the film because of the brilliant concept - what if there were people in the world with a gift that meant they could take away your luck by touching you? What would those people do with that gift? Exploit it? Play with it? Risk their money? Even their lives? Yes, all of these things, because it becomes the ultimate gamble.

In the positive - the acting is first rate from everybody involved. The cinematography I thought quite beautiful and perfectly set the tone, especially in (and beneath) the casino. The "luck testing" scenes are wonderful - funny in places, incredibly tense in others, always fascinating and something completely unique to recent cinema.

I would criticise either the script or the editing for making some of the important concluding plot points very unclear at the end of the film. The climax turns out to be a real head-scratcher. I love that, but I can see that some wouldn't.

For all lovers of intelligent cerebral movie making which thankfully is in fashion (Memento, Donnie Darko) this is a must see. 8/10

One of the few films I've seen this new century with barely a single redeeming feature. I'm only leaving a comment because I was so annoyed having watched it that I have to vent some spleen.

William Goldman should be forced to eat every single (excellent) book he has written on the craft of screen writing for the lamentable and shoddy mess. Lawrence Kasdan hasn't ever made a film I've really liked so he's partly excused. Morgan Freeman isn't.

Plot holes you can fly a team of assault helicopters through is one thing but ineptitude and dullness at this level of film making is inexcusable. Someone destroy the original negative. Please.

"I'm storing this one directly into the "utter s***" file of my memory warehouse!"

I watched this film again for the first time in many years, and what I thought was funny then, I still think is funny now. I expected to be slightly embarrassed and disappointed with it, but the years haven't taken away what made the film so appealing to me as a teenager - it has a witty, quotable script, the comic acting from all the cast is excellent and it has a real heart. It's not a great surprise to see it was directed by a comic master - Carl Reiner (responsible for all of Steve Martin's best films) he directs it a perfect pace and tone. It's not high art and he knows it, so he just has a ball with his cast. It reminds me in many ways of the first Police Academy - silly, good-natured and extremely funny.

Mark Harmon is totally charming and is so at ease in this film it's impossible not to be taken along by him with a grin on your face. All the students do a great job - Dean Cameron as Chainsaw is hilarious and who would have thought the sexy little blond playing Pam would grow up to be so scarily square-jawed as Georgia in TV's 'Ally McBeal'. What I really love are the small details that raise this film out of the usual 'drop-out high school' comedies. The horror fixation of Chainsaw and Dave is brilliant and produces one of the most memorable scenes in 80s comedy. Finally, and most importantly, Wondermutt is one of the all-time great screen dogs. The return of Bob is daft feel-good genius. If you haven't already, see this film, and if you have, see it again!

Spoilers I'd heard good things about this movie, but all in all I found it a massive let-down. I'm a big horror and thriller fan and expect a certain degree of style and originality in the films of this genre which I've really enjoyed - this, I thought, had neither. The whole concept was utterly ridiculous; a multiple murderer who has been under examination for six years in the least convincing secure unit you will ever see in film is visited by a hot-shot lawyer who attempts to solve his psychological trauma (in two days) and manages it by - wait for it - removing his handcuffs (ummm) and screaming and shouting 'why?' at him in a climactic scene. Yes, that will help. Related to this- some of the acting in this film is laughable. The central performance is solid, but all the rest is textbook eye-rolling TV movie acting.

Reality is no prerequisite for my enjoyment of a horror film but the failure here is the attempt to make sweet-faced Simon a convincing psychopath by obscuring the logic. It does the opposite. There is no answer 'why', because in genuine psychological terms it is all a fantasy anyway.

The blood issue seems to be a hot topic in previous posts - for my money it fails because it fails to chill in any way when the victims are gushing black stuff. Perhaps in Simon's memory of an event it would be effective but the film would have leagues more impact with the red stuff - even overly enhanced blood would have the desired effect of pointing out the unreality while still shocking and not making you want to puke up.

Finally - this is minus budget film making and as a result the camera work goes over the top trying to add as many effects as possible to cover up its inadequacies. The intentional drifting focus, excessively edited jump-cuts and such stuff seriously detract rather than enhance this film (and please, how many times do we need the 'I was only dreaming/imagining it' flashback before it bores to tears. You couldn't count the number of times it happens here). The director seems intent on reminding you that he's there at all times. He does have visual imagination but not the abilities to transfer them effectively to the screen. This film really wants to be "Silence of the Lambs" and "Psycho" but doesn't even come close. Not chilling, barely interesting. A very ordinary 4 out of 10.

I saw this film as a kid and really loved it, mainly because of the imaginative and funny uses of different animals competing in certain sports (i.e. Squid in the Bobsled, Otter for the swimming, Frog for the high jump, Bull in the boxing etc etc etc) but also because of the terrific soundtrack and songs by Graham Gouldman of 10CC. Watching it again as an adult on video I realised that there is so much more going on in the film - mainly that it was far wittier than i could have imagined as a child. The animals in many cases are affectionate digs at real sportsmen (i.e. the Hare competing against the Bull smacks of Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier), and the nationalities of the animals reflects brilliantly on their characters as well (in the marathon, the only frequently repeated event in the film, the goat is French and the puma is African (they fall in love!) the otter is Californian (of course) and surfs about on his tail. This is a wonderful film - expertly voiced over by Billy Crystal, Gilda Radner and Harry Shearer (of Spinal Tap / Simpsons fame) - full of humour and genuine affection towards sports, animals and animation (which is top quality throughout it should be noted) and as i mentioned before the songs are great - perhaps a bit dated now with the late 70s/early 80s production, but then a great tune never fails to touch you somehow, no matter how it is presented. This is recommended to fans of animation firstly, also to lovers of track and field events (they're all there) and to any fans of the previously mentioned artists (Crystal, Shearer, Gouldman). Here's awaiting a DVD and full critical appraisal!