david-345

Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?

The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so "okay" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about "family values."

Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor.

I love Clive Barker, the man, his fiction, his first two films. He is an important figure for me. That's why it's going to be hard for me to write this review. Clive, don't take this personally, but Lord of Illusions is truly one of the worst motion pictures I have seen in quite some time. What in the world happened? Lord of Illusions has very little to do with the short story (The Last Illusion) that it is based on. It's basic premise is expanded upon in order to make the film run feature length. That would be no problem if the film were any good, but sadly it's not.

There is so much wrong with this movie. First of all, most of the cast is a walking disaster. Why Scott Bakula? This man whines his way through the whole film like a big baby. This is supposed to be a hard boiled, film noir detective? The man is a whiner. How on Earth did Quantum Leap last as long as it did with this reedy voiced non actor in the lead role? Famke Janssen should go back to modeling. She has the emotional range of a piece of ply wood. For that matter, ply wood could have done a better job and brought more sensuality to the role! And who in the world is the little weeny who plays Swann? The casting director does not earn his money with this film. The special effects are anything but special. The much hyped "Origami Man" effect is poorly integrated into the action and looks too much like a computer effect, which it is. But when it is all said and done, the vast majority of the blame lies on Clive Barker's shoulders. He was the visionary, the writer/director and he failed in his job. The screen play is a botched mess, the pace is plodding, the film is simply a failure on nearly every level. Clive, you can't blame studio interference this time. It's your fault. Plain and simple.

Even though I was let down by this film (to put it mildly), I still wish that Barker had not given up on making movies. Hellraiser and Nightbreed are wonderful, two out of three isn't bad, so give it another shot Clive. Just next time cast better people and work harder on the little details.

Bo Derek will not go down in history as a great actress. On the other hand, starting in the 1980s, actual acting talent seemed to be less and less of a required ability in Hollywood, so Bo could very well have gone onto bigger and better things after the big box office take of Blake Edwards' "10." That is if she hadn't allowed her husband, John Derek, to take over her career. Numerous Playboy spreads and bad movies like this one (this one in particular) directed by John destroyed what momentum she had and made her the butt of many a joke. In the 1980s it was assumed that you could put a certain personality in a certain movie and it would be box office gold. John figured that putting Bo in a movie wherein she was nude for much of the running time would make people flock to the theaters after the 10 hype. Maybe if the movie had been any good perhaps. This version of Tarzan has got to be the all time worst of the many iterpretations of Burrough's lord of the jungle, a slap in the face to character's book and film legacy. Tarzan is in fact an after thought as the film is primarily a vehicle for Bo's breasts and Richard Harris' wonderful over acting (remember, the pair had worked together in Orca). His scenery chewing helps you to stay awake during the boredom of it all and yes, the film is quite boring. Nothing really exciting happens and the few action scenes seem to have been shot by someone in a trance. Bo's body can only get you so far. Miles O'Keeffe who played Tarzan at least would go onto a long and enjoyable B movie career and Richard Harris can put this behind him after his recent acting triumphs, but Bo and John Derek never recovered from this fiasco and future collaborations between the two only served to show why his directing career and her acting career died in the first place.

And how did the orangutan get to Africa?