North Star

North Star is unique for a European western in that it's set in Alaska, far from the sun baked deserts of the southwest. Everything else is disappointingly typical.

Caan plays a black-hearted land baron in 1899 Alaska who's systematically murdered and cheated his way into being the owner of the largest goldmines in the area. He tries to kill Lambert, a half Eskimo who had the good sense to file a claim on his people's sacred (and gold rich) cave.

It isn't boring but a chase movie where Christopher Lambert squares off against James Caan and Burt Young in a savage frontier battle for survival should have generated more heat than this, especially being that this is co-written by Sergio Donati, who also helped pen For A Few Dollars More and Once Upon A Time In The West!

It's pretty straight forward and unpretentious but it made me wish it were more compelling. The characters were pretty cardboard, though Caan seems to be having some fun swinging back and forth between greedy and treacherous to insane and out of control.

Also, everyone appears to be under-dressed. This movie takes place in Nome, Alaska during a snowstorm but everyone's dressed like it's Fall.

Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson were better in Death Hunt, watch that one first!

Businessman Sean McLennon is the president of the miners union. He has banned all non-Americans from staking claim to the land. Moreover he is killing off people in order to then buy their claims at auction. However when his men only wound Saanteek and kill an old Indian, Saanteek returns to take revenge on McLennon and to protect his land.

Why did I bother to tape this film? The film industry is a funny thing isn't it – James Caan was at his peak in Godfather and Rollerball, while Lambert had his `peak' with Highlander – but now they both wind up in this, although for Lambert he hasn't fallen too far. The story here is very basic and starts out very dry. Unfortunately it stays that way. The characters never get interesting and the plot never ever gets any tension involved at any level. The way the ending is forced into a face off is clumsy and typical of the whole film.

Caan is OK because he never seems to take it totally seriously – certainly the plot `twists' around his character are impossible to accept without laughing. Lambert is terrible – he seems to be saying all his lines through gritted teeth as if he has his jaw wired up! The rest of the cast are also poor but the leads being bad distract from that. The cast is wooden and even then they are put to shame by the wooden sets being better than them. The sets and costumes are good and set the period well – shame the film lets them down.

Overall this is totally lacking in interest, plot, characters and any sort of action or tension whatsoever. It's not total rubbish it's just made with no conviction, no passion and is worse than bad – it's just barely mediocre.

Sorry friends this is a frozen turkey; just it's an interesting turkey courtesy of Caan & Young. Years back they made two superior films- The Gambler & The Killer Elite. It's nice to seem them looking so good 25 years later even considering the material.

When the movie starts I started to think of Jimmy Stewart & Walter Brennan in The Far Country. Afterwards, Valdez is Coming. By the end it just freezes to death of its own weight. It's supposed to showcaset this Highlander guy but he doesn't even rise to the level of Steven Seagal.

I laughed and enjoyed Caan as a ruthless businessman turned psycho killer but somewhere Sonny Corleone is shaking his head. John McIntire too.

I spotted plot elements from at least three other movies in this film- 1)the ruthless landowner/businessman abusing the honest foreigners (Heaven's Gate) 2)the kidnapping of the said baddie's girlfriend (Valdez is Coming) 3)the pursuit of the noble hero through the Alaskan wilds (Death Hunt) James Caan played the heel well and Burt Young stole the show as his henchman. Christopher Lambert, however, looked like he was sleepwalking through his role, which ruined the pacing for me. He could have livened up the movie had he shown some interest in getting revenge on those who wronged him.I don't think Nordic Westerns are going to catch on.

Had "North Star" been made in, let's say, the 60s or 70s, then I would be able to watch it and classify it as maybe an eight or nine-star film. It's got the kind of plot that would suit a 90s movie, but the way it's made is far too reminiscent of the past. And when you mix a film that looks modern with a style of the past, it comes out a bit campy. For example, the screenplay seems like it was written a long time ago and went unchanged until just now. Characters laughing at jokes and stuff that are not even remotely funny were common back in the 60s and 70s, but not in films of the 90s. I hate to say it, but sound effects and stuff in this movie like that are also no better than the Westerns of long ago. Thus, the shootouts aren't that exciting. Some parts of "North Star" go on for too long, some parts whip by way too fast.

There are some positive aspects to "North Star" though. Even though it does seem like it's made in the wrong time and kind of cheesy, it is a film that you can sit down and watch without getting bored. Sure, you'll be thinking a lot, "man, that was...weird" or "that wasn't very thrilling" or "that was disappointing", but it is a film where you want to see the rest of it. That's what made me give this film five out of ten stars for a rating. But it's still heavily flawed and had it been made twenty or thirty years before it really was, I think it would have been better.