Phil Collins Delivers the Goods!

Now that Phil Collins's acting days are on indefinite hiatus, maybe its time for an in-depth appreciation of his cinematic work. No, wait a minute, I'm serious. He was in some damn fine action flicks, movies which in many ways helped establish the popular culture of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The problem is Phil Collins was never much of an actor, and even though he did get better, exuding real charm and some humanity as he went along, he was never going to be John Wayne in "The Searchers," or even Charles Bronson in "Death Wish." "Buster" shows much of the limitations of his performance, like poor diction, unconvincing "heartfelt" dialogue ("C'mon Ronny Biggs, give dese people AIR" always cracks me up) and a wooden over-reliance on his brawny image. His wisecracks are hit-and-miss, like Roger Moore's in the 007 series, only Roger kind of knew when he had a real groaner and played it for what it was worth with those eyebrows of his. Collins delivers lines like "You think this is the real Buster? It is!" like he thinks he's Noel Coward with an Uzi.

I go along with much of what the previous poster, Brad Burke, said, but I don't think Buster was quite as bad as that. He did have a definite something to offer, and when he wasn't required to project too much, he could deliver, at least until he started demonstrating real flair and subtlety with "Hook" and "The Jungle Book 2." Here, he isn't quite there yet.

None of the acting in this movie is great. Ralph Brown looms over the proceedings like Olivier despite his one-note bad guy simply because the rest of the cast, especially Clive Wood as Sergeant Chalmers but also Julie Walters as June Edwards and Stephanie Lawrence as Franny Reynolds, are so obviously uncomfortable in the relatively undemanding roles they are given. Michael Attwell I'll give a pass to, he has presence, but I'd be much more impressed if I saw him portray a social worker for once, or St. Francis.

But Brown is good, and has some juicy lines, especially when he tells Buster's wife she'll be reprogrammed to become "what every woman should be." That's funny and menacing work. 'I'll be home in time for Corn Flakes,' too. I don't know how he figured on that, but at least here's one screen villain with an appreciation for a well-balanced breakfast.

Also, the script is quite clever, and worth likening to "The Game" and "Momento" in the way it plays with reality and perception, by characters and audience alike. Like those films, it's somewhat handicapped by a lack of heart, but it's an engaging mindtrip when you ponder to think of the three different hypotheses it offers.

[Slight spoiler alert] People differ strongly on whether Buster is experiencing the real thing or a botched memory implant that ends with a terminal lobotomy, but it could also be simply that the program worked as advertised and Buster is on the verge of safely waking up at the end of the film. That scenario has logic problems, of course, as do the other two, but at least this third possibility comes with the silver lining that no one is really ever hurt in the entire movie. [End of spoiler alert.]

The mixed bag of "Buster" continues with the special effects. There are some amazing shots of the characters' faces as they run out of breathable air (done with puppets, not CGI), and clever visual cuts like the blood-drenched computer screen that turns into a Mexican landscape. But the sets are dreary, claustrophobic, and full of cheesy '80s neon. The Mexicans when we see them, especially the sad Yoda-wannabe Kuato, are from hunger. Comparing this to that other Philip K. Dick adaptation, "Blade Runner," shows how less-advanced FX can be more than made up for by a director with depth in vision. I for one don't see much of an improvement here over "A Hard Day's Night," which Phil Collins made 24 years before.

What was amazing about this film, and still is now, is the rapid-fire pacing, the way the violence and gore mount with comic timing and at the same time carry the story breathlessly from one plot point to another. I remember seeing this in the theaters in 1988, and how people were exiting shaking their heads and smiling in amazement at what they just witnessed, the pure adrenaline rush it had given them. It still delivers on that count, and it's got that clever story arc besides. Even if you accept what happens here at face value, it offers up some brilliant twists, like the revelation of Buster's true identity and Franny's part in Ronny Biggs's scheme. Good films often work on multiple levels, and "Buster" is a good film in that respect.

So while I'm not wild about this one, I respect it. I like Phil's choice in scripts. I just wish his acting skills at that time had caught up with his tastes.

WOW that second test should really watch this movie again violence and gore what the *beep* is he talking about i seriously think jhe is taking tyhe piss

I have to say I had very low expectations for this film in general and Phil Collins' performance in particular, and I was pleasantly surprised. He's made some very bad career decisions for the past ... well, 30 years, but this most definitely isn't one of them. It's too bad he didn't work with a Scorsese or Altman to develop his acting career further.

Watching Buster made you a better lover?