Welcome to the future of 2029. The world’s economy isn’t interested in your
old “money” anymore. The it thing now are emeralds, and the most important
illegal emerald kingpin of them all is one Sanchez Boon (C. Thomas Howell). Boon
is letting his emeralds cut by women with electronic gags only dressed in their
underwear, so you know he’s a very special kind of guy. He also thinks his
connection to the Agency (don’t ask me) are tight enough he can even kill one of
their agents without consequences.
Jewel thief Harry Maxwell (Scott McNeil) has chosen just the night when Boon
puts that theory to the test to rob the villain’s main emerald store. Harry’s
not too happy with how things are going down, for not only does he end his
strike of consecutive break-ins without murder when he has to gun down some of
Boon’s henchpeople but he soon finds himself involved in a series of firefights
and explosions. On the positive side, he finds instant action hero love – which
means the characters are going to sneer at each other and exchange unwitty
one-liners for half an hour or so – with one of Boon’s emerald cutting slaves,
one Pandora Grimes (Heather Hanson).
Said series of explosions and firefights somehow (and it’s really better not
to think about the plot mechanics here too closely, lest one’s mind might
just break) leads everyone onto a prison ship bound for titan with a cargo hold
full of weapons and cryogenically frozen criminals. Of course, Boon soon
un-freezes the criminals, becomes BFFs with super-evil
android-the-film-calls-cyborg Zee 4R (Kiara Hunter), and takes over the ship, so
that finally Die Hard on a space ship can begin.
Oh yes, it’s another Lloyd A. Simandl production, made by the purveyor of
only the finest Canadian cheese, and it’s got everything I have learned to love
and fear about Simandl’s productions of the era. Namely, this is an action film
so stupid, it might be possible to weaponize it and kill people – or at least
their brains – stone dead through prolonged exposure. Oh no, it’s already
happening to me!
So, we have a plot that makes little sense even if you’re giving it the
special action movie dumbness pass, takes place in a world whose technological
level makes no sense at all, is tacky at all get out, and never ever stops to
throw out at least one delightfully idiotic bit per minute. No scene goes by
that doesn’t either contain numerous explosions, guys holding their guns like
John Woo reject gangsta wannabes, needlessly exposed breasts, an awesome stupid
idea (quick example: the film gets some of its early exposition, like the
name of its protagonist out of the way by letting Harry dictate stuff
for his autobiography while he’s breaking into a highly secured
building), or if you’re really lucky all of that at once.
Then there’s the acting: McNeil mostly seems a bit embarrassed by the whole
affair, nearly visibly wincing throughout the psychotronic dialogue where nearly
every sentence is a surreal winner, while Hanson keeps up a never-changing look
of annoyance, whatever is going on around her, whether she’s flirting or
being threatened with torture. Hunter gives her sadist android gal by contorting
her face into all kinds of interesting grimaces like a nine-year-old’s concept
of how bad guys emote, an approach that seems perfectly appropriate to the
film’s idea of characterisation. Throning over them all is C. Thomas Howell,
putting on an affected voice that might be a particularly offensive idea of a
cliché gay voice but that just as well might be an attempt at a British accent
gone horribly wrong, providing Boon with the most cartoonish tics he’s capable
of thinking up, and chewing the scenery as if somebody had lathered the
cardboard used to turn the usual warehouse sets “futuristic” in honey. It is
truly a thing to behold more than one to describe, for words just cannot do
Howell’s performance here justice.
Director Micheal Bafaro barely keeps all this nonsense und nearly surreal
bullshit under control in typical late 90s cheap-shot movie hired gun style.
That is to say, he adds a lot of inappropriate (the only kind fit for this
movie) slow motion and does his best to pretend three grey walls and a handful
of monitors from the 80s do a futuristic set make. Though I have to admit, some
of the action scenes work as well as anything this deeply stupid in conception
could, so kudos to Bafaro, I suppose. And given how much I enjoyed this
misbegotten thing calling itself a movie, I’m not even wearing my ironic hat
right now.
Showing posts with label micheal bafaro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label micheal bafaro. Show all posts
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Friday, January 8, 2016
Three Films Make A Post: For fourteen thousand years... It waited.
Manborg (2011): If you want to understand the kind of movie
this Astron-6 production is, you need to imagine the fabulous video store in the
sky, where all the most bizarre elements from the cheapest post-apocalypse,
martial arts, action, videogame and probably Godfrey Ho movies have somehow
been genetically merged, turning into the mighty MANBORG, a culmination of the
art form that could not have come to pass until the 2010s because people crazy
enough to make it on the monthly budget of a not particularly rich family of
three do not fall from trees. All more concrete description would make this
sound like a Troma film, but unlike Troma, Astron-6 cares, their jokes are
actually funny, and their films not just pretend they’re fever-dream crazy, they
actually are. They’re also not feeling like parodies to me so much as the
ultimate love letters to things utterly ridiculous and therefore awesome.
Wrecker: Staying in Canada, but entering a much less rarefied space, Micheal Bafaro’s film is an ill-advised backdoor remake of Steven Spielberg’s Duel that really can’t survive the comparison with the original movie. And because Spielberg’s film was a TV movie shot on a tiny budget and on a very tight schedule, you can’t even excuse this one’s failings with it being a low budget film. It’s just that Bafaro is no young Spielberg. Not many directors are, of course, but then not many directors are inviting the direct comparison this openly.
The only interesting change here is replacing Dennis Weaver’s character with two young women (Anna Hutchison and Andrea Whitburn), but since their interactions are not exactly riveting, and this also eats into the feeling of isolation for the films’ respective heroes, this looks more like a film desperately trying to do at least something differently and failing. The rest of the affair is easily described as “Duel but bad”.
Lighthouse (1999): Our final film of the day leads us to the UK, and while it is not the catastrophe that Wrecker is, Simon Hunter’s film isn’t exactly exciting. Sure, there’s a lot more talent visible on screen than in the Canadian film, but in the end, this is the ultra-generic tale of various people in an isolated place being murdered by your usual near supernatural psycho. Having read that description and the title, you’ll know exactly what you’re in for, with only a handful of over-constructed suspense scenes to distract you from the fact that there’s little reason to watch a film quite this lacking in personality. If you’re a collector of slightly more famous actors in early(ish) roles in (sort of) slasher movies, this one gives you James Purefoy as “the good, potentially innocent criminal”. Other excitement is pretty much absent.
Wrecker: Staying in Canada, but entering a much less rarefied space, Micheal Bafaro’s film is an ill-advised backdoor remake of Steven Spielberg’s Duel that really can’t survive the comparison with the original movie. And because Spielberg’s film was a TV movie shot on a tiny budget and on a very tight schedule, you can’t even excuse this one’s failings with it being a low budget film. It’s just that Bafaro is no young Spielberg. Not many directors are, of course, but then not many directors are inviting the direct comparison this openly.
The only interesting change here is replacing Dennis Weaver’s character with two young women (Anna Hutchison and Andrea Whitburn), but since their interactions are not exactly riveting, and this also eats into the feeling of isolation for the films’ respective heroes, this looks more like a film desperately trying to do at least something differently and failing. The rest of the affair is easily described as “Duel but bad”.
Lighthouse (1999): Our final film of the day leads us to the UK, and while it is not the catastrophe that Wrecker is, Simon Hunter’s film isn’t exactly exciting. Sure, there’s a lot more talent visible on screen than in the Canadian film, but in the end, this is the ultra-generic tale of various people in an isolated place being murdered by your usual near supernatural psycho. Having read that description and the title, you’ll know exactly what you’re in for, with only a handful of over-constructed suspense scenes to distract you from the fact that there’s little reason to watch a film quite this lacking in personality. If you’re a collector of slightly more famous actors in early(ish) roles in (sort of) slasher movies, this one gives you James Purefoy as “the good, potentially innocent criminal”. Other excitement is pretty much absent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

