Skip to main content

All right. Snow-dad’s better than no-dad. Let’s go.

Jack Frost
(1998)

(SPOILERS) Horrifying variant on The Santa Clause, in which no one believes a kid, Charlie (Joseph Cross), when he claims his dad has transformed into a hallmark of Christmas. Horrifying because, while Tim Allen probably isn’t anyone’s idea of a perfect Santa, Michael Keaton definitely does not make a good snowman, even as rendered by ILM and Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. There’s also the small detail that Troy Miller, a TV comedy director drafted in at short notice, appears to have zero aptitude for the material. Or movies generally.

I sensed he much preferred shooting the band footage we see at the opening, where Jack Frost (Keaton, and I know, the name’s asking for trouble, isn’t it?) and his Jack Frost Band are on the verge of making it big. Or maybe not, who can tell? Either way, Jack being away from home all the time and missing his kid growing up is beginning to grow thin, and wife Kelly Preston can’t even get her sink fixed. When a Christmas Eve getaway turns into yet another career bid, Jack finally gets wise and heads home to the hearth in the midst of a blizzard, only to buy the big one.

Luckily, he gave his son a “magic” harmonica that Charlie – a whole year later, mind – plays after attempting to fashion a snowman in the image of dad, but which turns out more like George Clooney, if a snowman could be claimed to look like George Clooney, which it could not. Certainly not in this case. So dad comes back for a spell, gets to spend some quality time with junior, sees off a school bully (Taylor Handley), who it turns out is just angry because he too has no dad, and er, gets to see his son play in Henry Rollin’s hockey team, before heading off to heaven, like a snowy Patrick Swayze.

If the snowman looks like Clooney (it doesn’t) that’s because the effects guys were working quite merrily under the assumption Gorgeous George was going to star. Only for Gorgeous George to make a mistake possibly even more frightening than his initial decision to appear, and make Batman and Robin instead. It’s unclear if Sam Raimi vacated the director’s chair before or after George did, but that one takes some figuring too (I had to check twice this wasn’t the previous year’s horror version of Jack Frost). When Miller came aboard, he had Jeff Cesario rewrite the screenplay (for which Mark Steven Johnson, of lousy Marvel movies Daredevil and Ghost Rider, gets a story credit). Tellingly, it’s Cesario’s only movie credit. Even more tellingly, it seems the movie’s genesis is that one of the producers (Matt Baer) had the rights to Frosty the Snowman, and “inspiration” blossomed from there.

What’s strange is that, pre-Snowman, Keaton is basically playing Bruce Willis, renowned for his band side line, complete with hat and harmonica. Obviously, music is a big thing for the Jack Frost, making it the more damning that it’s so dreadfully integrated; it has bad TV writ all over it. There’s also dreadful accompanying intercutting, such as Jack rehearsing and Charlie losing at hockey, but that’s not even the half of it.

At first, Jack suffers such indignities as having his arm stolen by a dog and being shovelled up by a snow plough, but he soon seems to get the hang of his supernatural status, which includes scaring the bejesus out of Rollins. Until the end, when the season’s on the turn (“Oh man, the Sun is brutal. I am literally melting my ass off”).

Simply nothing connects here. Not the relationships, not the effects, not the message. Even a producer of bad TV movies would nurse serious doubts over its vaguely coherent cutting and even less dramatic (forget about comedic) elements.

It’s a bummer for all involved. Miller somehow did persuade others to finance a couple of movies in its aftermath, but he has mostly remained on TV. Rollins, coming off Heat and Lost Highway, maybe thought Raimi was still calling the shots? Preston had such further indignities to look forward to as Battlefield Earth and The Cat in the Hat. Mark Addy, as Jack’s keyboard player, was unfortunate enough to make this his first Hollywood foray following the success of The Full Monty. Warner Bros – who previously struck gold on Keaton being covered up in Beetlejuice and Batman – shelled out $85m on this turkey. It grossed less than half that. It would be nice if Jack Frost was a noble failure, if you could get behind its sincerity and artistry. Unfortunately, it’s plain awful.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.