-
#622 – Invisible Mom II (1998)
Invisible Mom II (1998)
Film review #622
Director: Fred Olen Ray
SYNOPSIS: When a millionaire passes away, his long-lost grandson Eddie becomes the heir of his fortune. Unbeknownst to him, he is stuck in an orphanage while the hunt for him goes on. He is fostered by the Griffin family, learning that Mrs Griffin has the ability to turn invisible when she is angry, thanks to one of her husband’s inventions. However, Eddie’s cousins take him away to adopt him so that they can claim the inheritance, and the Griffin’s must conduct a rescue before it’s too late…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Invisible Mom II is a 1999 sci-fi children’s film, and the follow up to the 1996 film Invisible Mom. two years after the events of the first film, we open to…something completely different, as a man lies dying in bed. His nearest family members eagerly await his death so they can claim his vast fortune, but upon learning that their young cousin Eddie is alive somewhere in Foster care and he will get the entire fortune, they hatch a plan to find and adopt him…and eventually kill him like they have the rest of the family to get their hands on the fortune. The plot is a fairly standard one for a kid’s film that’s simple enough to follow, and has distinct, yet goofy villains. It should also be noted that it actually has a plot, unlike the first film, in which barely anything happens other than Mr Griffin’s boss tries to take credit for the discovery.
Speaking of which, it turns out that the antidote Mrs Griffin took to turn visible again was only partially successful, and she still turns invisible when she gets angry…yes, I’m going to go for the obvious joke here: she’s basically The Invisible Hulk. The ending of the first film is hand-waved away, with the formula apparently being taken by the U.S. military and that’s the end of it. You might expect a familiar scenario of Eddie being angry or rebellious about his new foster home but…he seems to quite like it immediately: everyone is quite nice to each other all around, and there is no conflict anywhere: even when Eddie decides to try and clean a stain on Josh’s jacket with a handheld buzzsaw (????), Josh just shrugs and says he didn’t like it anyway. Again, I know this is a children’s film, but I’m sure it’s okay to have a bit of conflict and tension somewhere? The Griffin’s themselves are mostly unchanged from the first film: all the same actors return, although Josh is notably older now as he is a teenager, but we don’t get any exciting new character arcs or development for them.
Eddie’s cousins turn up to adopt him as his only living relatives and to take him to their home, with the intent of killing him off and collecting the inheritance. Josh stows away in their car, and when his parents learn of it, they must conduct a rescue, and Mom has to turn invisible to rescue them. It’s noteworthy that Mrs Griffin barely turns invisible: just three times, the first only happening half-way through the film. Eddie’s cousins as the villains are probably the stand-out characters: they really chew the scenery every time they’re on screen. Bernard is played by Micky Dolenz of The Monkees fame, and really has a voice that you can’t help but listen to. The last part of the film is essentially just Eddie and Josh running about the villains mansion (why do they need the inheritance when they clearly live in a mansion?) while they try to off the children. It’s not terribly exciting, and as mentioned, there’s not much of any “invisible Mom” shenanigans that add anything to the formulaic plot. Despite all these criticisms, it is well acted, with Dee Wallace as invisible Mom, Micky Dolenz as mentioned, and Justin Berfield as Eddie, who would take the role of Reese in Malcolm in the Middle a year or so later. the film tries to have a bit of fun, but loses its way the moment it tries to veer outside the very formulaic plot. Nevertheless, it is an improvement over its predecessor, if only for the reason there is a bit of a story. Still not a great film, and certainly not for anyone other than young kids who can overlook the gaping plot-holes.
-
#617 – Invisible Mom (1996)
Invisible Mom (1996)
Film review #617
Director: Fred Olen Ray
SYNOPSIS: Scientist Karl Griffin invents a formula that turns people invisible when they drink it. When his wife drinks it by accident, she turns invisible, and without an antidote, can’t turn back. When Karl’s supervisor learns of the discovery, he tries to take the invention and credit for himself, and Karl must find a way to turn his wife visible again…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Invisible Mom is a 1996 sci-fi film. The plot revolves around Josh Griffin, a kid whose father, Karl is a scientist who is always inventing things. When he invents an invisibility potion that his wife accidentally drinks, she is stuck invisible because Karl is yet to find an antidote. Karl’s invention is stolen by his supervisor, who wants to take the credit for it, and Karl is arrested, meaning that it is up to Invisible Mom to try and save the day. There’s very little else going on in the film: it’s a family-friendly feature with low stakes and minimal danger. The consequences of Josh’s Mom turning invisible include the very usual consequences, including getting back at the bully kid who is picking on Josh, and it’s all very safe and predictable stuff.
In a surprise to no one, this is a very low budget film with not much going for it: having invisible characters probably helps with the cost too. The acting is…fine for what the film is, as no one has to do anything really difficult or extravagant. The characters are very cookie-cutter and are instantly forgettable, engaging in a very unoriginal plot that only very young children might be entertained by. There’s not much else to review in this film: Invisible Mom is a predictable children’s film that makes little to no effort to have fun with with the concept, whether this is due to a lack of imagination in the writing, or a lack of budget to actually do anything other than have people stand around talking. A film about invisibility you’re better off not seeing.
-
#614 – Star Slammer (1986)
Star Slammer (1986)
Film review #614
Director: Fred Olen Ray
SYNOPSIS: Taura, a freelance miner working on the planet Arous, is arrested after helping the locals stand up against Captain Bantor and his crew, who are attempting to stop the uprising. Taura is arrested and sentenced to be imprisoned aboard a space prison ship. there, she must survive the warden and the inmates to try and escape…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Star Slammer (Also known as The Adventures of Taura, Prison Ship, Star Slammer: The Escape, or any combination thereof) is a 1986 sci-fi film. The plot centres around Taura, a freelance miner who gets caught up defending the inhabitants of the planet Arous from Captain Bantor and his minions, who are there to quell an uprising on the planet. After burning Bantor’s hand in a volcanic acid plume, she is arrested and sentenced to prison on board a space ship. Once there, Taura must survive the warden, as well as the other inmates, and find her way home. It should be no surprise to learn that this film is mostly just about showing off scantily-clad women fighting each other; but it is what it is, and it doesn’t really try to be anything else. The plot is threadbare and has little to latch on to, but at least tries to fill in the gap with the aforementioned half-clothed women. There is a clear lack of pretension in the film and its direction: it knows what it is , and it proceeds to run with it as far as its menial budget will allow.
The characters aren’t all too interesting: Taura is a fairly standard lead, and the rest of the inmates have a bit of personality, but nothing special. The most notable performance for me was the Warden, played by Marya Grant, who delivers such an exaggerated and over-the-top performance that you cannot help but take notice. The film also ropes in veteran movie star Aldo Ray for a a small part, which was apparently mostly used to show funders to back the project.
Filmed over the course of three days, the film is restricted to the opening being shot outdoors, presumable somewhere in the California hills, and the rest on the prison ship on set. However, the film can mostly get away with this, given that a prison ship is a fairly compact and small setting. Despite the production constraints, the film still manages to accomplish a lot more than other films would have with the same budget (and probably more): the sets themselves have a decent amount of detail and authenticity, and the practical effects aren’t terrible. It’s difficult to be too harsh on the film for this reason: it has a self-awareness, and it feels like some effort has gone into it, and at least some of the actors are trying. The story could definitely have used refining, as its mostly forgettable, but it never loses a self-awareness of its own limitations. One of the big drawbacks is that the film doesn’t seem to want to veer to much into the ‘women prison’ softcore scenario, so there’s only two topless shots and implied sexual scenes, which is fine, but without going too far in the genre, it has an empty space where the more lewd stuff should be. Overall, Star Slammer is trashy sci-fi that could definitely be a lot worse than it is, and has some funny moments, but some weaker elements definitely drag it down; ultimately though, you should never lose sight of the films self-awareness regarding its own limits and what it is trying to be.