Review of Far North

Far North (1988)
1/10
A wretched, pointless waste of time and money.
10 May 2000
Within ten minutes of the beginning of this movie both my girlfriend and I realized it was going to be horrible, and were tempted to stop it right there. But, driven by the same impulse that leads motorists to rubberneck when passing car crashes, we couldn't help but watch the whole thing.

It's just awful. I can't really think of a good thing to say about this movie. Well, maybe I can think of one -- at least it doesn't drag. All 85 minutes are packed...with some of the most execrable filmmaking I've seen! The script is terrible, and the direction is weak by TV-movie standards (let alone those of a major motion picture). The whole thing feels forced and stagy, and there's hardly a line of believable dialogue to be found. The plot is a succession of threadbare improbabilities and contrivances, devoid of meaning or impact. The score and cinematography were both unmemorable, though the latter was OK.

As Maltin says, the cast is entirely wasted -- but they certainly don't go to great lengths to try to redeem the material; only Lange turns in a passable performance. Durning is lousy, as is the rest of the supporting cast. And Patricia Arquette is amazingly -- and I mean AMAZINGLY -- awful as Jilly; she seems to have decided that about 75 to 80 percent of her lines would be best served by breaking into an incredibly irritating shriek.

This is honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Even the ending -- where many bad movies pick up a bit, in excitement if not in content -- is terrible! It's just as meaningless as the rest of the film, and offers neither a satisfying resolution nor a thought-provoking ambiguity, but just a dull thud which leaves the whole thing feeling like a meandering, pointless waste of time.

Bottom line: avoid at all costs.
8 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed