Once Upon a Spy (1980) – Review

The spy genre has seen many cinematic offerings, with the James Bond franchise being the most popular entry, but many studios and filmmakers have attempted to dip their wick into this money-making field, sadly, most of these have had lesser degrees of success, which brings us to ABC’s Once Upon a Spy, a made-for-television starring everyone’s favourite bartender Ted Danson.

The ad for this made-for-television movie stated “Attention James Bond Fans! This is your kind of movie!” which, if not the worst case of false advertising, it definitely stretches the bounds of reality quite a bit. The plot of Once Upon a Spy kicks off when NASA’s gigantic satellite-tracking mega-computer called the X-2. Somehow stolen computer leads to government computer genius Jack Chenault (Ted Danson) being brought in by sexy super agent Paige Tannehill (Mary Louise Weller) to meet with their boss “The Lady” (Eleanor Parker) who tasks him with investigating the disappearance of the computer as he is familiar with the work of its designer Dr. Webster (Leonard Stone). Chenault makes it clear that he isn’t a spy and detests the very idea of fieldwork – playing chess with his computer is his only real passion – but when Webster and his daughter are kidnapped right, before his eyes, things get a little more complicated.

 

Has anyone checked on the whereabouts of Blofeld?

But who is behind these nefarious crimes? Chenault deduces that a computer weighing in at about three thousand tons isn’t something you can walk away with – which is a fair point – and that the man behind this is most likely world-renowned scientist Marcus Valorium (Christopher Lee), a man who once worked on a cosmic ray-powered molecular condenser. A giant shrink ray, if you will. Logically, this means Valorium has stolen the computer and he has some kind of world-domination plan in the works. After a brief and volatile meeting between Chenault and Valorium – Valorium still bears a grudge against Chenault for winning a scientific award they were both nominated for 12 years earlier – the two begin a game of chess with the fate of the world at stake.

 

Holmes and Moriarty this is not.

What exactly is Valorium’s plan, you ask? Well, it seems that with his cosmic-powered shrink ray he plans to shrink dams and nuclear power plants to create a world of chaos. With a classic villain monologue he tells Chenault that in twelve minutes “The United States of America will begin a bright new day in their history. Chaos will replace incompetence and order will replace chaos. There will be an end to near wars and decadence and apathy caused by a foolish faith in democracy. An end of governmental confusion and bureaucratic bloat caused by the destructive notion of freedom and expression. The gifted few governed by the masses, untidy Chenault, very untidy. This country could be a great nation, but not anymore.” I will admit that is a very stirring speech, the fact that it doesn’t explain much of his plot doesn’t even matter as Christopher Lee can make anything sound good, unfortunately, hubris will result in him not double-checking co-ordinates and having both him and his facility shrunk getting shrunk instead.

 

Is this hubris or just sleeping on the job?

Stray Observations:

• The opening title sequence was a nice homage to the work of Saul Bass, the master behind the great Bond title sequences.
• Casting Christopher Lee as a villain in a spy movie was a little on the nose as he’d already played one in the Bond film The Man with the Golden Gun.
• The “clandestine” entrance to this super-secret intelligence agency is in The Tunnel of Love located at a fully operational amusement park. This is pretty dumb, even Scooby-Doo villains know it’s best to use an abandoned amusement park.
• Valorium kidnaps physicist Dr. Webster by having a helicopter fly over Webster’s car and snatch it with an electromagnet which is a complete lift from You Only Live Twice.
• Dr. Webster is kidnapped two days after his computer is stolen, but wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to be abducted at the same time as the computer theft?
• Chenault makes it clear to his boss that he is simply a computer nerd and wants nothing to do with fieldwork, but then he sets up a meeting with the villain and goes alone. This kind of blows the whole “reluctant hero” schtick.
• Chenault triangulates the location of Valorium’s base to within a twenty-mile radius but The Lady dismisses the abandoned observatory as a possible target, despite it being the only structure in the area, because we can’t end the movie with a simple airstrike.
• Valorium drops Paige Tannehill into “The Maze” so that she can participate in his version of The Most Dangerous Game. Why he built an elaborate maze under his headquarters will remain a mystery.

 

Why is she on the set of Space 1999?

Directed by Ivan Nagy, Once Upon a Spy isn’t so much a spoof of the spy genre – which had already been done beautifully by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry with Get Smart – this was a back-door pilot that was more in keeping with other contemporary shows of the time, ones that used the tried and true formula of 1980s television by pairing a novice with a professional for comedic effect, found in such shows as Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Moonlighting and The Greatest American Hero. Unfortunately, not only was the script both bland and contrived but Ted Danson and Mary Lousie Heller had absolutely no chemistry, which is a death knell for this kind of show.

 

“Due to that shrink ray, my penis is now only this big.”

The film’s plot is riddled with clichés and predictable twists, offering little in the way of originality or excitement and even as a movie from the 80s the humour feels dated and stale, relying on tired jokes and slapstick comedy that elicit more groans than laughs. Even the action sequences are uninspired, lacking the tension and thrill expected from a spy film. Composer John Cacavas does his best to create a John Barry-type Bond score but his work is constantly undercut by the film’s bland visuals and lethargic editing. Nagy’s direction does little to elevate the material, as the pacing is uneven and the tone inconsistent. The film struggles to find its footing, veering awkwardly between comedy and espionage without ever fully committing to either. As a result, Once Upon a Spy feels disjointed and directionless, leaving viewers wondering what the filmmakers were aiming for.  Simply put, Ted Danson vs Christopher Lee should have been a lot more fun than this.

 

There isn’t much love to be found here.

Danson’s portrayal of computer geek Jack Chenault is also disappointing, lacking the charisma and comedic timing that he’s know known for. His attempts at humour feel forced and clichéd, failing to evoke even a chuckle. In retrospect, we know that Danson is capable of much more, but his talents were wasted on this forgettable role and we can be thankful that this thing didn’t get picked up for a series. On the plus side, Christopher Lee is great at elevating even the least entertaining scripts – check out his performances in Captain America II: Death Too Soon and Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf – as he is a perfect example of man who has never simply phoned it in.

 

He may have phoned his agent to have a word or two.

Overall, Once Upon a Spy is nothing more than another failed and forgettable pilot, one that not only had little understanding of the genre they were trying to exploit but for got the key element of making a comedy, which is making it funny.  This is an entry in Ted Danson’s filmography that I bet he hopes no one remembers, but if you are a fan of Christopher Lee there will be some fun to be had with this outing.

Dolls (1986) – Review

Killer dolls have been a popular horror mainstay ever since Talky Tina murdered Telly Savalas in that classic Twilight Zone episode, so leave it to B-movie producer Charles Band to proclaim “Hold my beer” and give us a dark and gloomy mansion that was simply chock full of tiny toy terrors with dash of gore and death.

With producer Charles Band teaming up with director Stuart Gordon you knew you were in for a treat and Dolls does not disappoint.  Gordon was already well known for his work in the genre with such horror films as Re-Animator and From Beyond but with this entry he takes viewers into the realm of dark fantasy and it is a twisted journey filled with creepy dolls, atmospheric settings and a unique blend of horror elements. The story revolves around a group of individuals who find themselves stranded in a storm and seek refuge in an old mansion inhabited by a peculiar doll maker named Gabriel Hartwicke (Guy Rolfe) and his wife (Hillary Mason) and as the night unfolds these characters become trapped in a nightmare as the dolls that inhabit the house come to life and unleash their sinister intentions.

 

“How about a nice fairy tale to set the mood?”

While Stuart Gordon’s Dolls is a dark fantasy fairy tale it also has the classic “Old Dark House” setting, with a group of disparate people holding up inside a gloomy mansion, and in this story those visitors include David Bower (Ian Patrick Williams), his seven-year-old daughter Judy (Carrie Lorraine) and wicked stepmother Rosemary (Carolyn Purdy-Gordon), who not only does her best to channel every evil stepmother from Disney but also a little of Cruella de Ville as well. Of course, even at a meagre 77-minute running time the film needed more victims so we also have two hitchhikers, Isabel Prange (Bunty Bailey) and Enid (Cassie Stuart), who couldn’t have been more 80s if they tried.  They are picked up by the child-at-heart Ralph Morris (Stephen Lee) and are they are all brought to this scary abode to get their just deserts.

 

“Hey Isabel, Madonna called, she wants her outfit back.”

The stories told by the Brothers Grimm were cautionary tales for children, such as don’t take candy from strangers especially if their house is made of something as structurally unsound as gingerbread, but this film is more a warning to adults about not being complete asshats. While Judy is your typical evil stepmother David isn’t much better, wanting to ditch his daughter so that can run off and spend his new wife’s money – who needs a kid spoiling all his fun – and both Isabel and Enid are self-centred women who think that the world owes them something and will take whatever they want. It’s only Ralph who shows any sign of humanity and it’s his childhood love of toys and a budding friendship with Judy that will see him “safely” through the night.

 

“To infinity and From Beyond!”

Stray Observations:

• The movie opens with Judy sitting in the backseat of their car reading Hansel and Gretel which gives us an early clue that this is a modern take on a Grimm’s fairy tale.
• Even before we get to the creepy house full of dolls, Judy imagines her Teddy bear transforming into a full-sized monstrous bear that mauls her father and stepmother to death. Is this what we are calling foreshadowing now?
• The porcelain dolls with bloody sharp teeth reminded a lot of the killer dolls from the science fiction classic Barbarella.
• I don’t know if exploring bloodstained hallways on a stormy night, with a little girl in tow, can be considered brave but I do know you wouldn’t find me holding a candelabra and traipsing up and down dark attic stairways looking for someone who had presumably been dragged off by elves.
• It’s never explained why some dolls are hollow porcelain or plastic while others have organic skeletons beneath their facades.

 

Is this an answer to the question “How can you make dolls creepier?”

Apparently, the dolls have various magical origins and we have to assume some of them were animated by witchcraft while others are dark fairies, and the rest used to be terrible humans who were transformed into dolls to pay for their crimes. That we get no on-screen explanation of any of this isn’t surprising as the dolls weren’t initially meant to have an organic structure but director Stuart Gordon wasn’t fond of the dolls being wholly toys and came up with the idea of having organic skeletal systems underneath their porcelain faces to make them creepier. In fact, one of the notable aspects of Dolls is its imaginative and skilful use of practical effects to pull off each variety of killer toys. The dolls were brought to life through an impressive combination of puppetry, stop-motion animation and animatronics, giving them an eerie and lifelike presence on screen. The attention to detail in the doll designs and their movements adds to the film’s unsettling atmosphere, making them truly memorable and chilling entities.

 

Nightmare fuel, pure and utter nightmare fuel.

The film benefits from its Gothic and claustrophobic setting, with the mansion serving as a character in itself. Its dark shadowy hallways, creaking staircases and dimly lit rooms create an oppressive sense of foreboding, amplifying the tension and suspense as the characters navigate their way through the house. The production design and cinematography work hand in hand to create a visually captivating and atmospheric experience and the film thrives on building an unsettling ambience, with the mansion becoming a character of its own. The creaky wooden floors, dimly lit hallways and endless corridors add an air of suspense to every scene, additionally, the unnerving doll collection is both mesmerizing and terrifying, making for some genuinely spine-tingling moments. On the acting side of things, the performances in Dolls are generally solid, with the standout being Guy Rolfe as Gabriel the doll maker, his portrayal of a seemingly benevolent yet enigmatic character is both engaging and unsettling as is Hillary Mason in a very bewitching performance as the doll maker’s wife and partner.

 

A kinder, gentler couple you will never meet.

While Dolls does deliver on its horror elements, it also offers deeper themes and commentary. The film explores the consequences of greed, materialism and the mistreatment of others with the dolls themselves serving as allegorical figures, embodying the retribution that befalls those who succumb to these vices and this underlying message adds depth to the film, elevating it beyond a mere horror spectacle. The film also strikes a delicate balance between horror and dark fantasy, incorporating those elements of morality tales and cautionary fables into a reminder of the importance of compassion and kindness in a world that can sometimes be cruel and unforgiving.

 

Be good or be punished is a pretty basic lesson plan.

In conclusion, Dolls is a creepy and atmospheric horror film that showcases Stuart Gordon’s talent for blending horror and fantasy elements. With its imaginative use of practical effects, Gothic setting and deeper thematic undertones, the film offers an unsettling and thought-provoking experience for fans of the genre and remains a cult classic that stands as a testament to the creative and macabre vision of its director. This haunting and atmospheric horror gem from 1987  effectively blends the charm of childhood innocence with the terror of the supernatural and is well worth checking out.

Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1996) – Review

First of all, one has to admit that the original Lawnmower Man was no cinematic masterpiece – not to mention a terrible adaptation of the source material – but the dodgy CGI and an even dodgier grasp of science that plagued that film is nothing compared to the cinematic disaster that is Lawnmower Man 2. Imagine taking everything that made the original film somewhat interesting and flushing it down the digital toilet.

When sitting down to watch this sequel, after first girding your loins with enough alcohol, it’s important to understand that this film should be viewed as a stand-alone movie as it seems to have ignored most of the events of the first Lawnmower Man. Despite this film’s opening scene including a flashback of the previous one’s conclusion – with the destruction of Virtual Space Industries and Jobe escaping into the World Wide Web and the subsequent ringing of all the phones in the world that announces his birth as a Cyber-God – this sequel ignores all of that and has the villains of this piece getting a hold of Jobe’s “corpse” so that they can hook him up to their database so he can help them perfect the Chiron Chip.

 

“Being a Cyber-God seems like a lot of work.”

But what is this Chiron Chip we speak of? We are told that Dr. Benjamin Trace (Patrick Bergin), the founder of virtual reality and who invented the most powerful worldwide communications chip ever, but then lost the legal battle to secure the patent, and it is now in the hands of a villainous tycoon and virtual reality entrepreneur Jonathan Walker (Kevin Conway). Walker runs Virtual Light Industries and he quickly realizes the potential of the Chiron Chip to dominate a society that has now become dependent on computers. It’s Walker’s team who gains possession of Jobe Smith’s (Matt Frewer) horrible burnt body, to which they will reconstruct his face and have his legs amputated, but not to worry, he is told by Dr. Cori Platt (Ely Pouget), who is Trace’s former partner and lover and now turned corporate scientist, that “There is nothing to be afraid of, virtual reality will rehabilitate your mind and eventually your body.” Call me crazy, but I don’t think these guys understand science or biology.

 

“I bring you to the “Bullshit 3000” the most powerful plot device ever.”

Meanwhile, we have the return of Peter Parkette (Austin O’Brien) who in the intervening six years has become a computer hacker and formed a group of Artful Dodgers who live in an old subway car on an abandoned subway line of a very Cyberpunk Los Angeles. As one is expected to do in this kind of movie. It’s while hacking into the “cyberspace” that Peter reconnects with Jobe and is asked by his former friend to track down Dr. Benjamin Trace so that he can learn about a hidden Nano routine called “Egypt” in the Chiron Chip’s design. Lucky for humanity, Trace realizes that Jobe is quite insane and he refuses to give him access to something that powerful, needless to say, this doesn’t go over that well and Jobe explodes with the threat “Tell me what “Egypt” means, Doctor, before I get really FUCKING PISSED OFF!” and he then hacks into subway system’s computer to send another train crashing into theirs. Thus begins the battle between our small band of heroes, a mentally deranged Cyber-God and an ineffectual group of corporate morons who don’t understand what the fuck they are dealing with. So yeah, it will be a bunch of kids who save the day.

 

“We need to hack the planet.”

Stray Observations:

• Despite the film taking place in “The Future” the computer labs are all outfitted with crappy old computers from the 1980s, stuff that even Tron wouldn’t bother trying to save.
• How do you solve the problem of the actor who played the title character in the first film not returning for the sequel? Simple, just have a doctor deliver the line “They’ve reconstructed his face” and then cast Matt Frewer.
• Casting Matt Frewer as a rogue computer villain has serious shades of his most famous role, that of Max Headroom.
• The only actor to return for this outing was Austin O’Brien, who is another good example of “Child Actors” whose careers never quite survived puberty.
• The virtual world that Peter Parkette and friends hack into looks like a precursor to Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One and the OASIS.
• This film is set six years after the original movie – which took place in the present day – yet in that small time frame the world has somehow turned into a Blade Runner/Cyberpunk reality.

 

That is some pretty quick urban development.

While the original Lawnmower Man flirted with intriguing concepts of virtual reality and the human mind, its sequel dives headfirst into a pool of convoluted plot lines and lacklustre execution. Furthermore, the film’s visual effects are a testament to the limitations of CGI technology in the mid-90s and certainly not much of an improvement from the original film. Some may argue that the dated graphics add a nostalgic charm, but they ultimately detract from the overall immersion of the viewing experience. Scenes that were likely intended to inspire awe and wonder instead elicit unintended chuckles if not outright laughter. But where it really fails is when our heroes venture into cyberspace the filmmakers decided to composite live-action elements with CGI backgrounds as it looks just godawful. To say it’s not a convincing amalgamation of techniques would be the understatement of the century.

 

“Second star to the right and straight on till we pixelate.”

In terms of performances, the cast struggles to breathe life into their thinly sketched characters. Even the talents of seasoned actors like Patrick Bergin and Matt Frewer are squandered amidst a sea of wooden dialogue and one-dimensional motivations. Frewer himself does look to be trying to breathe some life into this standard “Evil Computer” role but he drifts a little too far into his Max Headroom persona at times and each time this happened it took me out of the movie. Of course, the real problem with this movie was in its script and its convoluted plot, which meanders through a nonsensical maze of virtual reality jargon and shallow attempts at social commentary. The storyline is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities, making it nearly impossible for us to become emotionally invested in the fate of the characters. The result is a mishmash of half-baked ideas and contrived conflicts that fail to bring things to a proper conclusion.

 

“I’m a cliché, in a silly plot and wrapped in bad graphics.”

Ultimately, Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace falls short of its lofty ambitions, delivering a half-assed sequel that insults the intelligence of its audience. It’s a prime example of how not to make a science fiction film, lacking both substance and style. Viewers would be better off avoiding this cinematic misfire and seeking out more engaging entertainment elsewhere, but if you want a good laugh and do have decent amount of alcohol on hand, than this can be a fun diversion to watch among like-minded friends.

The Lawnmower Man (1992) – Review

When it comes to movie adaptations straying from the source material no author has suffered more than Stephen King – even Kubrick’s amazing adaptation of The Shining earned the ire of the author – but in the annals of adaptations none are as far off the mark as the 1992 adaptation “The Lawnmower Man” which took the title from King’s short story and absolutely nothing else.

I’m not being hyperbolic when I say there is absolutely nothing in this movie that pertains to Stephen King’s short story – well, other than they both contain a lawnmower – as the people at New Line Cinema had optioned a script called “Cyber God” and simply placed King’s title on the production to cash in on the fame of that author’s name provides. Needless to say, Stephen King was a little pissed, so he sued the studio to have his name and title removed from the film and promotion, which they refused to do, and this resulted in the courts ordering them to pay the author a $2.5 million dollar settlement.

 

“I will settle for redrum!”

But what is this movie about? Just how different is it from King’s short story? The short story dealt with a man who unknowling hires a lawn maintenance man who works for the ancient god Pan, while the plot of the film revolves around Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Pierce Brosnan), a scientist experimenting with virtual reality and intelligence enhancement. Yeah, not what you’d call all that similar in the premise department. The conflict of the film stems from the fact that Angelo is working for a shady government agency known as The Shop, who wants his experiments focused on military applications – training a chimpanzee to be a killing machine – and when his best test subject is shot dead after escaping the facility, he decides to try to go off on his own as he believes “Virtually reality holds the key to human advancement.” Logically, this means he should jump right into human testing – because the ape thing went so well – so he hires a mentally challenged gardener named Jobe Smith (Jeff Fahey) as a test subject for his experiments, hoping to increase Jobe’s cognitive abilities using a combination of drugs and virtual reality simulations.

 

“How do you feel about trying a little mad science?”

As anyone who has read or seen the many adaptations of Frankenstein or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde things will not go as planned. As the experiment progresses, Jobe begins to display extraordinary cognitive abilities, surpassing even Dr. Angelo’s expectations. However, the experiment takes a dark turn as Jobe’s newfound intelligence and powers begin to spiral out of control, leading to unforeseen consequences. Not only is Jobe’s intelligence enhanced, but he also develops psychokinesis and telepathy and becomes increasingly unstable. Even worse is that he starts using these new abilities to seek revenge on those who have wronged him in the past. Then we have The Director (Dean Norris) of The Shop sending goons to capture both the good doctor and Jobe, which results in a lot of dead or digitized goons. It’s at this point that Dr. Angelo realizes the danger of what he has unleashed and tries to stop Jobe, but he finds himself powerless against Jobe’s growing psychic abilities. As Jobe’s powers continue to spiral out of control, he becomes a threat to the entire world.

 

He’s also a very sexy threat to the world.

If that is the plot of the movie what is King’s short story about? In the story, a man named Harold Parkette hires a mowing service called “Pastoral Greenery” and the man who arrives is a hairy pot-bellied individual who strips naked and eats the newly cut grass like a goat while controlling his lawnmower with mystical powers. Turns out this man works for the pagan god Pan, who grants substantial benefits to his followers if customers are sacrificed, which leads to Harold being chased through his living room and “mowed down” by the motorized menace. Yeah, I can’t say there are a lot of similarities between the short story and the plot of this movie because even though we do get an asshole being chased through his living room by a lawnmower there are certainly no pagan inferences to be found.

 

He looks more like a Power Rangers cosplayer than a worshipper of Pan.

Stray Observations:

• The screenplay tosses in the government agency known as “The Shop” which appeared in separate works of King’s, such as Firestarter (1980) and The Tommyknockers (1987).
• It’s too bad that Jeff Fahey never met Tropic Thunder’s Kirk Lazarus as he could have used the advice offered in that film “Man, everyone knows you never go full retard.”
• Geoffrey Lewis plays a groundskeeper in this movie and he also played a groundskeeper in Tobe Hooper’s adaptation of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot (1979).
• Dr. Angelo is supposed to be an altruistic scientist who wants to help humanity but he witnesses his neighbour physically abusing both his wife and son, on multiple occasions, yet never reports him to the authorities.
• At one point, Dr. Angelo places bombs rigged with timers and he tries to prevent Jobe from reading his mind and learning about them, this is either an homage or a lift from the classic Village of the Damned.
• Jobe’s customized lawnmower has a dual exhaust pipe that is aimed up at the user’s face, which would pump enough quantities of toxic carbon monoxide to give you a headache within minutes and poison you after prolonged use.

 

Luckily, telekinesis solves that problem.

Director Brett Leonard’s The Lawnmower Man is a prime example of a film that tries to dazzle audiences with its flashy special effects but ultimately leaves them with a hollow and unsatisfying experience. This is a misguided attempt at blending science fiction and horror that falls flat on almost every level, resulting in a film that is both laughably absurd and painfully dull. But the film’s greatest sin, however, lies in its egregious misuse of CGI and virtual reality technology. While it may have been groundbreaking for its time, the computer-generated effects in this outing will look hopelessly outdated and laughably amateurish to modern viewers – not that they looked all that great at the time either – and the so-called “virtual reality” sequences are particularly cringe-worthy, resembling something out of a low-budget ’90s video game rather than a cutting-edge cinematic experience.

 

If this is virtual reality sex I want no part of it.

Even if one were to look past its complete departure from Stephen King’s story and take it as a “CyberGod” story the film’s portrayal of virtual reality and its effects on the human mind is often exaggerated and a little silly at times, relying on outdated and unrealistic depictions of technology. While this may have been forgivable given the limitations of CGI at the time, it detracts from the film’s credibility and undermines its attempts at social commentary. The script regurgitates tired clichés and half-baked pseudo-intellectual babble and when Dr. Angelo rants at Jobe “This technology was meant to expand human communication, but you’re not even human anymore! What you’ve become terrifies me. You’re a freak!” they are laughably shallow and derivative.

 

“Kneel before CyberChrist!”

The performances in this outing are equally uninspired, with actors sleepwalking through their roles as if they can’t wait for the whole ordeal to be over. Jeff Fahey’s portrayal of the titular lawnmower man is particularly cringe-worthy, with his over-the-top mannerisms and wooden delivery robbing the character of any shred of credibility or humanity. The villains have fewer dimensions than what you’d find in an average Scooby-Doo cartoon and all the supporting characters wander in and out of the movie as if they were looking for the script or their agent’s phone number. When the final act kicks into gear, and Jobe attempts to infect the world wide web, you’ll be wishing you’d installed some Norton Anti-Virus or at least taken some anti-nausea medication.

 

We were actually supposed to take this seriously?

In conclusion, The Lawnmower Man remains an “interesting” entry in the history of CGI and virtual reality cinema, and while by today’s standards make it’s quite primitive it gets points for trying. However, the film’s flawed narrative execution and underdeveloped characters prevent it from achieving true greatness, not to mention the blatant abandonment of the source material. While it may hold nostalgic value for some viewers, it ultimately fails to live up to its ambitious premise and falls short of being a truly memorable or impactful film. Instead of wasting your time with this film I suggest you check out the short story “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes or its film adaptation Charly, which deals with similar subject matters but in more thoughtful and intelligent manner.

Meet Joe Black (1998) – Review

Doomed love affairs are a staple of the romance genre and in 1998 director Martin Brest and Universal Pictures brought us a romantic fantasy mystery film that did its best to provide an interesting take on the subject matter, sadly, it didn’t completely work.

Loosely based on the 1934 film Death Takes a Holiday, which itself was an adaptation of the 1924 Italian play La Morte in Vacanza by Alberto Casella, Meet Joe Black revolves around William Parrish (Anthony Hopkins), a wealthy media mogul who is celebrating his 65th birthday with a lavish party at his extravagant mansion. Despite his success in business, William is grappling with his mortality and the realization that his life may soon come to an end. Meanwhile, his youngest daughter Susan (Claire Forlani) has had a “meet cute” with a handsome young man (Brad Pitt) at a coffee shop – unbeknownst to her, directly after their cute back and forth he is struck fatally by multiple cars – later that night William gets an unexpected visitor, Death personified, who has taken on the human form of that newly killed young man so as to experience what it means to be alive. He offers William a proposition: he will postpone William’s death if William agrees to be his guide and show him the wonders of human life.

 

“I am Death, destroyer of dinner parties.”

William reluctantly agrees to this proposal, and now going by the name Joe Black, he begins to immerse himself in the world of the living. As Joe explores life as a human, he becomes enamoured with Susan but things are a little complicated as he’s wearing the Meat Suit of the guy she had kind of fallen for at the coffee shop. Unaware of Joe’s true identity, she is drawn to his enigmatic charm and profound insights into life. As Joe spends more time with Susan, their bond deepens, and he begins to question his role as Death. He starts to experience human emotions and desires, particularly his growing love for Susan. However, Joe’s newfound humanity complicates his mission, and he must ultimately confront the consequences of his actions.

 

Can true love survive Death?

Stray Observations:

• Death taking on a young and handsome personage is nothing new, a young Robert Redford played Death in the 1962 Twilight Zone episode “Nothing in the Dark.”
• Death’s knowledge is rather inconsistent, in one moment he is caught off guard by the saying “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” but in the next, he knows the idiom “Money can’t buy happiness.”
• When Susan asks Joe if he’s gay he responds “No” but can Death even have a sexual orientation? Or is his heterosexuality a leftover remnant from the body he’s using?
• La petite mort or “little death” refers to the sensation of post-orgasm as likened to death, but when Susan and Joe have sex is that even more literal?

 

Could this tryst result in a baby with the powers of Death?

Martin Brest’s Meet Joe Black explores profound themes about life, death, and the significance of human connections. It delves into the choices we make and the impact they have on ourselves and those around us. The emotional dynamics between Joe Black and Susan, as well as the relationship between Joe and William Parrish, form the core of the narrative. Unfortunately, the screenplay fails those core relationships. The love story between Joe and Susan isn’t so much tragically doomed as it is forced and non-existent. In 1934’s Death Takes a Holiday, he sacrifices his own happiness so that the woman he loves can stay and live with her friends and family, and when he reveals his true appearance to her as Death and tells her, “Now you see me as I am” her response shocks them all. “But I’ve always seen you like that. You haven’t changed.” And when he asks her “You have seen me like this?” she responds “Yes, always.” Death then declares “Then there is a love which casts out fear, and I have found it! And love is greater than illusion and as strong as death.” And the two of them then go off to the great beyond together.

 

That doesn’t quite happen in this film.

Instead of a powerful love story that transcends life in death, we have Susan refusing to recognize Joe as Death. He says “You know who I am” and she sputters, “You’re… you’re Joe.” So rather than two lovers truly recognizing each other and the depth of their love, we get a girl in denial and Death giving her the Brad Pitt meat suit he’d been wearing as some sort of consolation prize. This doesn’t even qualify as a bitter-sweet happy ending, it’s just lazy. And sure, she did have a connection with the guy at the coffee shop but she fell in love with Joe Black, who knows where this relationship is going to go after the credits roll. Worst is the fact that there is almost no screen chemistry between Brad Pitt and Claire Forlani, which I don’t fault the actors for as Pitt playing this supernatural being awkwardly operating his meat suit was a hard element to overcome.

 

Hopkins and Pitt had better screen chemistry.

Plot problems aside one cannot deny the cast all bring their best with the material provided. Anthony Hopkins shines as William Parrish, portraying the wisdom and vulnerability of a man confronting his mortality with remarkable depth. Claire Forlani’s portrayal of Parrish’s daughter, Susan, adds a poignant layer to the narrative, as her character becomes entangled in a rather complicated romance with Joe. I particularly love the character of William’s older daughter Allison (Marcia Gay Harden) who deeply loves her father even though she knows that she’s not the favourite. But it is Brad Pitt who really delivers the goods here, giving a hauntingly enigmatic performance as Joe Black, capturing the character’s otherworldly essence with subtle grace. His portrayal of a supernatural being dances between comic moments to those of pure malevolence – he is not one to be trifled with – and this performance also has that “Fish out of Water” element and reminded me of Jeff Bridges in Starman, with him moving around as if being in a human body is a new thing and experiences many things for the first time.

 

The joy of discovering peanut butter.

However, despite its strong performances and visual appeal, Meet Joe Black suffers from significant pacing issues and a lack of focus in its narrative. Clocking in at over three hours, the film struggles to maintain momentum, with numerous scenes feeling unnecessarily prolonged or repetitive. While the leisurely pace may be intentional to evoke a sense of contemplation and introspection, it often detracts from the overall impact of the story, leading to moments of tedium and disengagement. There is a subplot of Susan’s boyfriend Drew (Jake Weber) scheming behind her father’s back in some kind of corporate raiding plot, that should have been entirely jettisoned as the movie certainly didn’t need it as it added nothing to either the primary conflict between Joe and William or the love story between Susan and Joe.

Note: There is a two-hour version made to show on television and airline flights, which cuts out most of the plotline involving William Parrish’s business dealings. I’d like to see that cut.

In conclusion, Meet Joe Black is a visually stunning and emotionally resonant film but one that falls short of its lofty ambitions. While it boasts strong performances and moments of poignancy, its pacing issues and romantic failings cripple it. And while this film pales in comparison to Death Takes a Holiday it does have some great performances that elevate the material and remains a compelling exploration of life’s mysteries, albeit one that ultimately leaves viewers wanting more.