ROCKET MAN (PG)
Directed by Stuart Gillard Running Time: 94 minutes Originally Released: October 10, 1997
Reviewed by E. Benjamin Kelsey
* ½ (out of four)
The catch phrase for Disney's ROCKET MAN is one spoken by Fred Z. Randall (Harland Williams), the bumbling idiot computer programmer turned astronaut who continuously wreaks havoc everywhere he goes. "It wasn't me!" he proclaims over and over as the aftermath of his stupidity brings about looks of disgust from the others. Well when it comes to this movie being as horrible as it is, Williams can't take all the blame, but he sure can't justify himself with his own simple tag line either.
Fred has dreamed of space travel since he was a young boy, turning the clothes dryer into a mock space shuttle and staring out wide-eyed at a poster of the Earth. As a 30-year-old, Fred hasn't grown up much, but at least he's somewhat closer to his goal, now designing astronaut software for NASA. When an astronaut for an upcoming mission to Mars becomes injured, NASA calls on the person who knows the programming inside and out to fill the void. . . Fred. Yes, although he's an obviously klutzy moron, NASA doesn't think twice about throwing him into a rigorous training program so he can assist one of the most important events the space program, and time itself, has ever known.
For the first part of the film, we watch as Fred takes on the training program much like an amusement park. He laughs, he screams, but he never once breaks a sweat or views the preparation as anything more than child's play. His passive approach to the program eventually leads to many record-breaking feats, much to the dismay of cocky counterpart, Mission Commander Captain Overbeck (William Sadler), who once held the records. Overbeck will regretfully accompany Fred and two others to the red planet, one being astronaut Julie Ford (THE STUPIDS' Jessica Lundy), and the other being a chimpanzee who is much more civilized than our antagonizing protagonist. From here on out, we are subjected to one lame gag after another, dealing with snot, laxatives, and flatulence. You know, standard kid movie material.
Almost sounding like a poor James Stewart impressionist, Williams is awful in his first starring role. We get the feeling that if Jerry Lewis and Pee-Wee Herman were related and produced an inbred offspring, Williams would be it. While he's not as annoying as other actors who cater to zany, stupid comedy, he's just as unlikeable. To say it more understandably, Jim Carrey might annoy you more, but this guy is even less funny. Why? Because while he possesses the stupidness needed to pull off such a role, his performance is too understated and boring. Classic comedic dunces were generally oblivious to their own idiocy. Stan Laurel, for example, was so innocent in all his trouble-making that we were immediately fond of him. Peter Sellers, as Inspector Clouseau, was so self-assured and confident that when he did something as simple as trip, it was humor at it's best. Williams, on the other hand, can't garner the pity he needs to make us love him in all his anti-glory.
As for the rest of the cast, including some bigger names in smaller roles (Beau Bridges and Shelley Duvall), nobody is worth watching whatsoever. This is just another example of the fast-food equivalent of cinema: mass-produced, less than mediocre, over priced, and hard to stomach. Giving it one-and-a-half stars is *extremely* generous, but even I'll admit to laughing a few times. The amazing thing is that even in a theater packed with little kids, laughter was something rarely heard - even from the children! I must admit that it gave me more respect for the kids when they didn't crack up over every little thing. Then again, maybe they were asleep.
Some people might think critics are harsh on kid movies, claiming adults aren't the targeted audience and therefore aren't meant to, and won't, enjoy them. Sadly, it's also true that kids will enjoy almost anything if it's presented right. A two-hour still shot of a dog with a cartoonish voice over could entertain a lot of toddlers out there, but would that make it as artistic as BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, which could easily do the same thing? And saying that a parent's perspective isn't important is quite a poor theory to have when they're the ones who take the kids to these films in the first place.
December 29, 1997
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews