daggersineyes
I found this really hard to review. Most of it I just hated. The music was horrifically bad, the visuals are awful, the sound quality muddy (in the version I saw). The acting is abysmal and that's partly due to a decidedly dreadful script and ridiculous direction. Kathy Baker is wooden (no surprise) as was her unconvincing "love interest". Actually, nearly everyone was bad. There's not a lot to recommend this movie but there's two things that make it worth seeing IF you're the kind of person who likes to experience great moments regardless of the crud they are surrounded by. One is the actual concept behind the movie - intriguing and could have been a classic story. THe other is Goldblum.Jeffrey Goldblum is PERFECT in this. Even the camera work on him is suddenly fantastic. But it's his acting that saves this movie from being a total fail. He exudes charisma and menace and does it with seemingly no effort. Almost underplayed but all the more sinister for it. I was captivated. I can't rave enough about how good he was and I'm just so sad that everything else was so appalling that his brilliance was wasted. I've not seen Goldblum in many movies, I can only think of The Fly off-hand (loved it BTW) but this has made me decide to ferret out more of his work. Pure genius.ALso the story itself was promising, it just wasn't told well. I actually hope someone good does a remake. There was some hidden concepts in it that are awesome (eg he just wants to cook stuff!)So for the story/concept I'll give it a point and 4 points for Goldblum. Hope this helps you make up your own mind about whether to watch it. I found it free online - you can probably pick it up dirt cheap or free somewhere. If so, worth watching.
killy_nl
Except for Jeff Goldblum all actors acted so badly that the originally interesting story turned into boredom. For example Kathy Baker: she often walks around without even showing a hint of a feeling in her face. And these haircuts: hilarious. But nothing compared to the music: a cheetah with a Hammond orgue would have done better. There is simply not a single second where suspense, horror, fear, fright or anything else is produced by this crappy film. You just see a mixture of bad music, actors, haircuts and dialogs floating around. I can only hope that another director with better actors, hairstylist and musical composer will turn this great story into a cinematographic masterpiece. It gets a 3 only because of Goldblum, otherwise it would be 1.
uds3
Ranks with THE FLY as Goldblum's greatest performance. He is mesmerising from his opening scenes with Alan Bates as the detective on a real mission impossible.Way too intelligent for most audiences of the new millennium, here in Goldblum's character and given the ring-melting sequence, there is no real enigma as to who he is - we have "cool" utterly personified.Awesome in its contemplation even - the Devil's reincarnation as a means to "renew the faith" as it were, Goldblum is hypnotic and absolutely commands attention and respect for every little nuance he projects in his time on screen.The end is only anti-climactic for the average "boofhead," who would more than likely have switched off long before the final reel anyway. It never was a question of "who won?" There ARE no winners! I have seen this film several times and only ever known it incidentally as "The Deadly Mister Frost" as is titled my own recently-acquired DVD copy.Rare and thought-provoking little gem.
DennisH
Minor spoilers below.I saw 'Mister Frost' for the first time when it came out on video back in 1991, and then several years later. The first time I saw it I was enthralled by Goldblum's performance as The Devil, and I didn't notice the film's weaknesses. Not so with the second viewing, but it still leaves an impression.First the positives: Goldblum's portrayal of Satan (as well as the script he recites) is as close to my view of the true Devil as I've seen on screen. The Devil would not appear on earth with a tail, horns, and a pitchfork. He would be intelligent, mocking, frustrating, elusive, and malevolent; all the while doing his best to appear human. The story is also well-motivated and developed. The first interview between Dr. Day and Lucifer was the most tense scene in the movie, and one of my all time favorites.
As to the negatives: Others will mention the less than stellar performances of the supporting cast and the generally pitiful score. These are significant flaws, especially Alan Bates as Detective Detweiler, but not crippling. What I didn't care for was that the Devil didn't follow his own rules; he made it impossible for Dr. Day not to believe him. For example, he melts Dr. Day's ring in his hand and heals a spinal chord. These things cannot be done by a typical psycho in a ward, the melting point of gold is a bit higher than the burning temperature of flesh. A lot of people didn't care for the conclusion. I thought the final fate of Dr. Day was perfect, but the acting and general meandering of the third act was poor and really slowed down the movie until the final five minutes.I recommend the movie to people who enjoy reasonably intelligent supernatural stories that are not laden with special effects.
AD
