Skip to main content

A miracle without proof is only a miracle.

Medicine Man
(1992)

(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I really buy John McTiernan’s description of Medicine Man as “a little art movie with Sean Connery”. Sure, the Sean Connery bit (now just turned ninety, but then a fresh-faced sixty-one). But you don’t make little art movies that pay their lead $10m (and a $40m price tag – or $27m as McTiernan tells it – is only relatively little if you’re not expecting to do solid business). But yes, the movie was mis-characterised as an action movie. Even though that decision is understandable, as it doesn’t comfortably fit into any bracket.

Back in 1992, McTiernan was one of my favourite directors, up there with James Cameron and Ridley Scott. Albeit, very much on the basis of Predator and Die Hard rather than The Hunt for Red October, which I found mildly disappointing. Consequently, I made sure to catch Medicine Man on its opening week. I didn’t hate it, unlike most critics, it seems. Indeed, I found it an agreeable enough if very lightweight time passer, but it was most definitely guilty as charged of cause-based, delusionary Hollywood fare that seems to think it can make a difference from its ivory tower. At least George Miller’s Lorenzo’s Oil – another case of an action director departing from the straight and narrow, although there one who also trained as a doctor – was based on actual case and so had plausibility on its side. Medicine Man had Sean acting as exec producer, for the first time since The Offence, which might sound like an indication of quality given that earlier film, but his producing tag became par for the course during the rest of the 90s, and those movies are not all good ones.

The irony being, Medicine Man is partially based on fact, even that fact has been fed through the Hollywood meatgrinder and consequently bears scant resemblance to the original. If it had used the actual story, it might have been more engaging.

Connery’s sporting a “youthful” ponytail (based on composer Jerry Goldsmith, it seems, although Highlander was his first foray into such rug-with-benefits territory). His sprightly Robert Campbell is in the Amazon rainforest researching a plant-based cure for cancer, but he’s having difficulties replicating what he believes to be positive results. Having asked for a (male) research assistant, the charming old sexist ends up with Lorrain Bracco’s loud, brassy Bronx Doctor Rae Crane. Mutual respect thaws the initially strained relations between them, naturally. Combined with “Bronx” becoming convinced Campbell’s quest is real. Meanwhile, a logging road is encroaching ever more on their jungle idyll.

Connery handpicked Bracco, understandably impressed by her performance in Goodfellas, but she’s nails-on-a-blackboard here – winning a Golden Razzie nom for her trouble. To the extent that she makes Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom seem like the easiest going of female leads. McTiernan and writers Tom Schulman (Dead Poets Society) and Sally Robinson appear to think they presiding over an affectionate homage to the screwball era as chalk and cheese fall for each other, but there’s no whiff of that between the stars. If the picture had managed to get the central relationship right, the lack of substance elsewhere would have been much more forgivable.

At least Connery’s inimitably Connery, and it’s purely coasting on his charisma that keeps the picture watchable. He even inveigles his love of golf into the proceedings, which you have to respect (his devotion to the sanctity of character and avoiding forcing his own proclivities on Campbell).

Chemistry aside, Medicine Man’s major problem is the classic one of a tackling a big issue that hasn’t been resolved (see also Superman IV: The Quest for Peace). Since there is no cure for cancer – at least, officially – we know how Campbell’s quest is going to end, so the movie relies on a false paradigm, one that can only fail to sweep audiences along for the ride. This leads to laborious plot loops in an attempt to sustain itself (“What don’t you understand? I found a cure for the fucking plague of the twentieth century and now I’ve lost it! Haven’t you ever lost anything Dr Bronx?”) When Campbell does get to the bottom of his dilemma, it turns out his precious flower has no “juju”; a species of rare and elusive ant fell into the mix, and so off they go together ant hunting (not having so much as smooched).

It’s a desperately thin narrative thread on which to sustain a movie, and it’s unsurprising that the picture has more juice when Campbell is confronting the loggers and his research station burns down (along with a section of prime rainforest). I mentioned the actual story, and a suit was brought by Dr Wilburn H Ferguson – settled out of court – alleging copyright infringement based on his project Tsanza from 1973. Therein, he charts his own research into a cure for cancer. Unsurprisingly, since it’s widely regarded as a racket, the “Cancer Establishment” refused to endorse or ratify Ferguson’s research. Which makes for a much better story, one of conflict, fighting the odds and hope, even if one is unable to win out in the immediate moment. But let’s face it, you are not going to get a movie made by a major studio suggesting a cure for cancer is out there and that for whatever reason it is being withheld. Even if, as a bonus, it doesn’t include magic ants.

By most reports – Premiere magazine delivered something of a hit piece on the production – the shoot wasn’t a blissful one (“The food was appalling. Everybody got sick. I wasn’t sick only because I drank too much vodka. There’s no relief factor. You couldn’t swim in the water… eat in the town. The noise of insects and wildlife where I had this house was insanity – noises that were Neanderthal, primordial, noises that I’ve never heard anywhere else”). McTiernan, in contrast to Connery, professed “Personally, I enjoyed it. It’s not very often that one gets time outside and still make a living out of it”.

McTiernan seems to have been consigned to permanent directors’ jail due to his penchant for phone tapping, but back then, he was on an unstoppable run (this and Last Action Hero would put a significant dent in that). And if his sensibility isn’t really suited to the picture’s romantic tone (any more than it was the satirical/cartoonish sweep of Last Action Hero), his motives during the production at least appeared to be honourable (“It wasn’t like the movie was going to make $125 million and people were going to walk away with Academy Awards from it. The one thing it might have done was make a number of million people in the world more aware of a problem we all have to face eventually, or pay the consequences for”). By using tribal Indians who had moved to the cities, he ensured the Mexico shoot didn’t make John Boorman’s mistake with The Emerald Forest. Because otherwise “they will be forever changed by the experience of meeting a movie crew. It is, after all, only a movie and there are some moral limits”.

Medicine Man duly stresses not only the perils of deforestation but the threat to indigenous populations, most particularly from western disease when Crane first arrives. In concert with cinematographer Donald McAlpine (Predator), the Mexican rainforest is lush and seductive, and ponytailed Goldsmith’s score soars romantically, even if the content is rather more restrained. The irony is that, for an action director, McTiernan has no idea how to make the material move. There are vistas galore, but it’s down to Connery to sustain any interest, and he can only do so much between golf swings.


Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.