Review #3 - AURIC GOLDFINGER (25 février 1998)
Source : Ain't It Cool News
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=695

"So once again, I, Auric Goldfinger, managed to buy my way with gold bullion into a test screening.
The place: La Canada, CA.
The film: EATERS OF THE DEAD
I met up with Joe Hallenbeck and Flunky Sidekick, and we covertly made our way into the screening. Just before the lights dimmed, I noticed the man himself, Michael Crichton, sitting in the back row - how very cool!
The film was exactly as it read in the script. I have not read the book, so I can't make any comparisons. But I have a problem: the movie was okay (2.5 stars) but for some reason I liked it. I can't explain it. Joe had the audacity to suggest that it was because I was "a fucking idiot". But he's chained to a table and dealing with my laser beam now. (Poor fool.) So let me tell you a bit about the film, and maybe you can figure out what I liked about it.
Antonio Banderas plays Ibn, a Persian ambassador who ends up joining a bunch of Vikings on some bizarre quest to find out what is killing people in their villages. I was surprised with his acting ability in this film - although that isn't saying too much. Why a Persian has a Spanish accent is beyond me - just as much as Gerard Depardieu was beyond me in 1492 (a Frenchman playing an Italian from Spain speaking in English?? Ummm.... no.) The other actors were good, but unfortunately unknown - meaning I couldn't tell you their names if you handed me the credits.
The story was decent, although a bit slow at points. I found myself looking at my watch twice - once when I was just curious what time it was, and the second when I wondered if this film was ever going to end. (See, it reaches what in most movies WOULD be the end, but then keeps going for just a little longer.)
The sets are what I really want to talk about. The scope of this film succeeds where (I think) THE POSTMAN failed. It successfully transports the audience to a different time and culture, and perhaps my fascination with that idea is why I enjoyed the film. This is where Wolf Kroeger (LAST OF THE MOHICANS, THE EDGE, LADYHAWKE) deserves credit. We see huge REAL sets - a Norse lodge/camp, the enemies camp, etc. All big, and all there.
As for the editing, I think it was done reasonably well - according to the editor (whose name I don't have, sadly), it was filmed and edited towards a PG-13 rating. The violence is there, but I think that with an R rating we would have had a bit more fun in the film - I mean, how can you have a modern telling of a Viking story without body parts flying all over the place?? (sigh) Perhaps it's my bloodlust speaking here...
Hallenbeck and Flunky Sidekick hated the film. They thought it was slow, boring, and just plain yuk. (As you will no doubt read in Joe's review.) Perhaps I am a "fucking idiot" for liking the film. Most likely not, but I just can't come up with a reason right now.
After the film I had the fortune to chat briefly with Crichton, who admitted he was unable to tell me what book he is working on now. Perhaps I should prepare a table and laser for him... but I don't have enough material (the guy is TALL!!!). I'll just have to make do with Joe.
The major disappointment of the film was that I did not have the opportunity to hear Graeme Revell's score. The movie was temp tracked with WATERWORLD, THE MISSION, THE CROW, APOLLO 13, and BRAVEHEART, among others. Unfortunately, the usage of BRAVEHEART seemed to cheapen certain "romantic" scenes... which brings up another point. Why did they bother having a half-assed romantic interest in this film? It seemed totally out of place in the story, and didn't fit Banderas' character."