Tashunga

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.

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.

In the latter part of the 19th century,Alaska is swamped with people claiming land for goldmines and a struggle ensues between a crooked businessman and a half breed over stolen land. This is in all aspects a western but set in land covered with snow and with sledges more than horses.Film is actually mainly norweigian made but also has other countries involved in it's production,so may even come under the euro western genre.Film is slow paced but also strangely seems rushed at times especially at a rather lacklustre climax.James Caan as the villain of the piece plays it all wide eyed and mad looking which is a little over the top.Some sporadic violence and a couple of OK moments but not enough.

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.

Despite being made by one of Hollywood's most prominent film companies (Regency), and starring James Caan and Christopher Lambert, the distributor (Warner Brothers) doesn't seem to have done much (if anything) in the way of a theatrical release, at least on this side of the ocean. Seeing the movie for myself, I think I can understand why. It's not a TERRIBLE movie - the scenery looks nice at times, and the movie is never boring - but it comes across as flat. Lambert is his usual vanilla self, and Caan at times doesn't seem to be taking this acting assignment with much seriousness. There appear to have been cuts made to the story, either in the screenplay stage or in the editing room, which leads some parts of the movie to be somewhat incoherent or without proper explanation. One explanation for this may be that this movie was a co-production between FOUR countries - maybe details got lost in the constant translation between the parties. The movie obviously had a limited budget, which explains why the movie lacks visual depth and scope at times, often resembling a made-for-TV movie. And in the last part of the movie, Caan's character starts doing some ludicrous things that no man with sense would do in his situation. You are not missing much if you skip by this movie at your video store.