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.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.

Have you betrayed us? Have you betrayed me?!

Blake's 7 4.13: Blake The best you can hope for the end of a series is that it leaves you wanting more. Blake certainly does that, so much so that I lapped up Tony Attwood’s Afterlife when it came out. I recall his speculation over who survived and who didn’t in his Programme Guide (curious that he thought Tarrant was unlikely to make it and then had him turn up in his continuation). Blake follows the template of previous season finales, piling incident upon incident until it reaches a crescendo.