Crystal Eye

The write-up on the DVD cover promises so much: high adventure, legendary treasure, fiery dragons, a cast of thousands and much more but delivers very little. This is probably one of the worst films ever made which came in the wake of Indiana Jones. The plot is similar to those films but that is about as good as it gets.

After rescuing a man's daughter, soldier of fortune Luke Ward (Jameson Parker) is given a fabulous gem and finds out that it will lead to the fabled treasure of Ali Baba. Along the way he picks up diplomat's daughter Vickie Philips (Cynthia Rhodes) and with a convoy of mercenaries, they travel across the desert to find it.

The cast of thousands ends up being a couple of hundred at most and there are no dragons. The battle scenes are very tame with lots of shouting and charging about but little in the way of conflict. Nothing in the film gripped my attention and it was only by sheer will that I kept going to the end.

The plot holes and goofs did not help either. Port Louis in Mauritius is a poor substitute for the teeming metropolis of Bombay (now called Mumbai) but the worst goof was the filming in front of a hair salon. It looked as if the camera was set up in front of the salon and then everyone, friend and foe alike then took turns to do their scenes. Filmed in Namibia and Mauritius I was hoping for some picturesque location shots but it was not to be. I will not be watching this again.

Unlike some who like a particular genre, I tend to watch movies that contain a certain actor or actress. I do not limit myself to this, but when I find an actor or actress who fits my personal idea of a good actor I like to see if that follows through in all their movies. One example of this is Jameson Parker. I grew up with Simon & Simon and like both actors of that series. At the moment I am trying to locate Jameson Parker movies, which is quite difficult. As for this particular film - it was not one of my favorites. He has done better work, or rather I should say has chosen better parts to play. It seemed to follow the lines of Indiana Jones or Alan Quartermane, but with what looks like, lower budget. It was an all right attempt and I watched it twice, but it was trying too hard or not hard enough. Either way it missed the mark. As for Jameson Parker, in my opinion he IS a good actor,( although I haven't seen or heard of him doing anything but guest spots on a couple of tv shows). And regardless of how good or bad the film is he is into the character and does his best. He is an active participant of the film despite the size of the part, unlike some actors ( who shall remain nameless) who are big now. I am anxious to see other films by this gentleman to see if my faith in his work will be honored. I do hope someone out there will put him another movie or television series. I will watch it and I'm not the only one.

Set around 1989, "Curse of the Crystal Eye" begins with Luke Ward (Parker) saving the young daughter of an Arab. The father gives Ward the "Crystal Eye" in gratitude for his service. The eye turns out to be a relic that leads Ward and a team of adventurers on a search for the fabled treasure of Ali Baba. The group must endure desert marauders, rival treasure hunters, cunning traps, a harsh environment, and more in their quest for vast riches.

Sadly, "Curse of the Crystal Eye" is a poorly crafted film loaded with logic problems and inconsistencies. The storyline is weak, the editing choppy, continuity very poor, music at times abrasive and out of place, and performances wooden. The latter is especially unfortunate since both of the main cast members, Jameson Parker and Cynthia Rhodes, have put in solid work in the past. Most viewers cannot help but notice the influence of the Indiana Jones film series on this effort. There is little redeeming here; those who want a solid adventure film need not check out "Curse of the Crystal Eye."

I am but a layperson with no experience in film production. I have watched thousands of movies, of all varieties, but that no more confers upon me the skills and knowledge necessary to be a filmmaker than spending time in and around buildings qualifies one to be an architect. Be that as it may, I'm reasonably confident that I could command better direction than Joe Tornatore does here. I'm reasonably confident that given all the original footage captured, I could do a better job assembling a picture than editor Erica Luttich. 'Curse of the crystal eye' is an astonishing, poorly made mess in almost every capacity, and the most substantial entertainment to be derived therefrom is in finding everything that there is to criticize.

There are very scattered, very small bits and pieces that are sort of okay. The sets range from "not terrible" to "pretty swell, actually," and the same goes for the costume design, hair, and makeup - with the exception, in the case of the latter, of an instance of brownface. The practical effects in and of themselves are splendid, there are some good ideas in the original music of Tony Roman and Chris Squire. The production crew operating unthanked behind the scenes were really pulling a lot of the weight with this feature, in fact, though in fairness there are also some instances of acting that are fair enough. And I'll even say that wherever the credit lies between scribe Mikel Angel and filmmaker Tornatore, there are scraps of serviceable plot in the writing that could have theoretically been fashioned into a fun action-adventure romp.

Unfortunately, such unenthusiastic remarks about these odds and ends is the most kind that I can be about this flick. One could generously propose that 'Curse of the crystal eye' was meant to be a joke in the first place, and all points of intended criticism are a facet of humor that is lost on me, yet that is really, truly not the impression that I get. In even the opening scene we are greeted with what I think was intended to be an action sequence, but it is the laziest and most unexciting action sequence I think I've ever seen. This is only the first time I would apply these descriptors to the action, however, for "lazy" and "unexciting" are apt words for every action sequence to follow. Actors are routinely seen dropping to the ground in what is meant to represent the injury or death of their unimportant character, but since such moments are almost always divorced from anything happening that would precipitate that death or injury, instead the incidence could be charitably described as either a pratfall or a dive (in the football sense), depending on one's frame of reference. And this, it should be said, is the case only where action sequences are not specifically prey instead to bad writing, bad direction, bad writing, or bad editing, like the rest of the movie is.

It feels like this was borne of the desire to make an action film, but without any consideration for cohesiveness, rhyme or reason, or connectivity between ideas. Nothing is explained; nothing is sensible. Not who protagonist Luke is, or how he knows his buddy, the walking French stereotype called "Frenchie" as played by South African Andre Jacobs. Not why Vickie - the sole female character, the obligatory romantic interest for Luke, and very regrettably, the last role of Cynthia Rhodes before her retirement from the industry - would want to go along with the venture, or how she managed to do so. Not who the antagonists are; not how what's-his-face and his brother have the puzzle pieces to lead to this great treasure; not why David Sherwood is playing archaeologist Ferrari like Michael Palin both stereotyping Italians and parodying archaeologists; not why the climax momentarily becomes an amalgamation of The Battle Of The Five Armies and synchronized swimming. The character writing is awful, the dialogue is mostly awful, the scene writing is most dubious, and the narrative at large is a bunch of ideas just thrown haphazardly at a wall. Tornatore's direction flounders in its incompetence, leading to awful acting; if you liked Jameson Parker in John Carpenter's 'Prince of darkness,' prepare to pity him, and likewise Rhodes and all others in front of the camera. Luttich's editing is perplexingly sloppy, defying all belief. I repeat that there are some good ideas in the music, but the score is all over the place. Even the sets - look, I love Peter Yates' 1983 fantasy-adventure 'Krull,' but there are some sets here that look like they were built but ultimately rejected from 'Krull,' placed in storage at Pinewood Studios, then absconded with several years later for use here.

It's certainly not that I was anticipating 'Curse of the crystal eye' to be an especially worthwhile title, but I was wholly unprepared for the incredible lack of skill and care that characterizes it from top to bottom. The Asylum, that infamous purveyor of "mockbusters" which purposefully makes bad movies, commonly shows more significant capabilities than this. I'm flummoxed. However it is that this film came into existence, it would have required a major overhaul in its writing, in its direction, in its acting, in its editing, in its music, and in pretty much every way for it to find success. I distinctly feel bad for some involved, like Rhodes; where Tornatore, Angel, Luttich, and others are concerned, I'm finding it difficult to say something so nice. The word "recommendation" never even comes into play here, because there is just no reason to watch unless you're a masochist with a critical eye. If you've avoided this dreck, congratulations, and please continue to do so; if you, like me, have also watched, then you have my sympathies.

Well, not the best effort i have ever seen.The plot was flawed right from the start and the cast were very poor. Overall the film had little consistency, even though I could only endure ten minutes of this film.

Sadly, I would not say this was a cinematic masterpiece.