The Julian Sands Page: Recommendations & Reviews

	Sign In Sign-Up

The Julian Sands Page:
Reviews and Recommendations

As time goes by, I'm trying to see more and more of Julian's projects, particularly those that are hard to find or that I haven't seen in years. As I do, I'll post notes on each of them here, so you can have the benefit of my having seen them to let you know how much you're potentially going to enjoy them yourselves. This will hopefully be handy if you're searching out films to buy, especially if they're not available at your local video rental store. Just like most reviewers, I've got my own system of ratings: each little film strip has 5 spots, which can be filled with star(fishe)s - more is better! These are rated by how good the film is, not how much I personally liked each one, so even if you like different aspects of Julian's performances than I do, you'll still be able to tell which films are worth your time and money on their own. (If you've seen a film that you think I haven't, and wish to post a review to the site, please let me know.)

Julian's been in so many movies, you've got to draw the line somewhere on what you'll buy, unless you've got a bottomless pocketbook! I usually try to draw the line initially at ones where he's not so far down on the cast list that you fall asleep before he's mentioned while watching the credits. Do that, and you're down to a manageable amount. Here are my current personal favorites (in no particular order) and the reasons why:

A Room With a View: Julian manages to pull off playing a staid English gentleman (a philosophical type, no less!), and still make him one of the most romantic and passionate characters to ever grace the screen. Helena Bonham Carter plays the befuddled Lucy who can't help but succumb to his charms (and who could help it?), despite her engagement to another man. Includes one of Julian's standard non-sexual nude scenes.
Impromptu: Julian takes on the role of Franz Liszt, the Hungarian composer. He makes an excellent foil for the tubercular, restrained Chopin (played by Hugh Grant), with his immense passion for his music, his people and his women. The core of the story is the tumultuous love affair between Chopin and author George Sand (played by Judy Davis), which is itself vastly intriguing as the unconventional Sand seeks to woo the love of her life despite his abhorrence of her unladylike behavior and reputation. One of the strongest ensemble casts seen in film in many years, with Mandy Patinkin and Bernadette Peters rounding out the cast.
Gothic: a wildly strange film! Nevertheless, it is an abundantly intriguing tale of some most dramatic events. Great for a Halloween showing! Julian's portrayal of the passionately artistic Percy Bysshe Shelley sets up an excellent subtext to the nearly mad Lord Byron (Gabriel Byrne) and the tormented Mary Shelley (Natasha Richardson). The writers managed to incorporate some of the bizarre facts of the lives of these legendary writers into an intricately woven dramatic plot, then added another dose of the bizarre, fed by opium (a standard for the artistic set of the time) and the sexual tension between many of the characters (including Shelley and Byron), as well as the recent loss of the Shelley's child. Includes another non-sexual nude scene, along with a lot of sexual scenes (clothed).
Murder by Moonlight: I freely admit this is a horrifically silly movie, even for 1980's science-fiction. But it does have quite a number of redeeming qualities. To start off with, it's just silly enough to be rather fun to watch, with Brigitte Nielson playing a N.A.S.A. agent (as opposed to her usual Russian-block roles) and Julian playing a Russian agent (as opposed to his usual more-English-than-the-English roles) on a space station when a murder occurs. The plot (what little of it there was to begin with) disappears almost completely midway into the movie. But that's rescued by continued silliness, and an increasing level of sexual tension between the two characters, culminating in some particularly steamy scenes. A good Friday night with a bowl of popcorn movie!
Tale of a Vampire - An interesting take on the character and motivations of the vampire: rather than portraying him as the traditional molds suggest, as either an evil, selfish man, or an inhuman monster, Julian rather portrays Alex as a human-like creature, who is not really human, in that you cannot forget that he is a vampire, "an inhuman beast" that holds no compunctions about killing for blood. He keeps feeding separate from his emotions, but those very extraordinarily human emotions drive him to extremes that no mortal man would take. It is more precise to compare this vampire to humans by looking at him as another humanoid species with different requirements of existence, rather than as a monster. Therefore, while it is still repellant to see him kill and feed, it is no more so than to see an animal kill. And, above all else, he is driven by the needs of deep love. All of this adds up to a story that pulls you in much like Alex pulls in Ann.
The Killing Fields - a great film, with or without Julian, but we got lucky when they chose him to play the young, enthusiastic British photo-journalist. In watching this film, the first thing that always strikes me is how young he looks. Despite hardly having aged in the last 15 years, it's obvious that this is a 26 year old, with a lot still to learn about himself and the world. But even in the short course of the film, we see him starting to learn, and by the end, we can see the beginnings of a serious, thoughtful man who's been changed by his experience in war-torn Cambodia. One of the things I found most interesting is the unusual decision by the director and cinematographer to use Julian as a way of moving the scene visually, particularly when there's a long panning shot involved. The action moves across the frame until Julian is in it, and as he crosses the frame, the camera moves with him, taking us along. It's a clever way to use a handsome young actor with the brightness and passion he so clearly exudes, as your eye can't help but follow him. (That can also be a hindrance when you're not supposed to be the visual focus of the scene, which is, in my opinion, one of the reasons he's both under-used and under-appreciated by many directors. Mike Figgis seems to be one of the few directors aside from Merchant & Ivory who have really used Julian to his and their best advantage.)
Witch Hunt - this film is far more than a supernatural detective story brought to life for HBO; it's a cleverly-written, well-made social commentary, going back to the McCarthy era in Hollywood, with a clear message from the creative community that was so tormented by the anti-Communist mentality at the time. Dennis Hopper is the cynical detective who himself refuses to use magic at a time and place where you snap your fingers to light your cigarette and call in a "licensed practitioner" to remodel your kitchen in an instant. A beautiful starlet (Penelope Ann Miller) hires him to get proof that her hot-shot producer husband is cheating on her with an extra. When the husband is murdered by magical means, things get serious, as first the wife, and then the detective's office-mate, a "licensed practitioner" working for the same producer, are accused of the crime as part of a senator's campaign to end magic use in Hollywood and America in general. The investigation is complicated by magical run-ins with old foe Finn Macha, a less than ethical "practitioner" played by Julian. I enjoyed this movie so much more than I'd thought I would. Not only that: I LOVED IT! It easily stands up with A Room With a View for me. Not just because Julian was in it (the part's not big enough to do that on its own), but because of the fabulous writing, great scenery and production, and some really great performances. In fact, the only criticism I had about the movie... I hate to say it... is Julian's accent. Finn Macha is Irish, and as you know if you've read My Response to the Critics, I just don't think accents are Julian's strong-suit. On the other hand, he gets a lot better toward the end of the film, and I think if they'd given him some more time to work on it, he would have gotten it totally right. And I'm pickier about this subject than most, so I doubt most people would even notice a flaw at all. Any problems with the accent get lost in the enjoyment of a great performance as the truly unique Finn Macha. It certainly didn't detract in any way from my enjoyment of the film, and enjoy it I did - immensely!

I also like (see more notes on each in the previous section):
- Warlock & Warlock: The Armageddon - I like to think that these films weren't intended to be taken completely seriously. As serious horror films, I think they're a lot worse than some (if better than many others), but as slightly tongue-in-cheek pictures, they work splendidly, which is why I've always chosen to look at them that way. Beyond that, you've got a really original story and characters, without an excessive amount of gore (can gore be tasteful? Hmmm....), scripts that definitely have a tongue-in-cheek quality about them, and some quality performances from the actors playing these quirky characters. Personally, I think I'd like them both a lot less if I couldn't laugh when Julian's character is injured or killed. That's both a matter of him deserving it, and the way they've chosen to carry it out. ("You've lost an awful lot of blood, Mister....").
  They're actually fun to watch for a lot of the same reasons that Murder by Moonlight is, only with Murder by Moonlight, you have a case where a film took itself too seriously, and simply ended up being laughable despite itself. Here, I'm pretty sure it's intentional. That may, in fact, be part of the reason that the second film isn't up to the same quality level as the first, as it does seem to take itself a bit more seriously. I liked the Druid angle, but I don't think they carried it off nearly as well as the first storyline, nor are the performances (Julian aside) in that film as strong as in the first. Besides which, Julian has lovely feet (just like the rest of him), and I enjoyed seeing him barefoot for most of the first film. Nah, that's not the only reason I liked it better, just one of a thousand little reasons....
- Crazy in Love: This film is more about family, and mothers and daughters in particular, than it is about love. But being "crazy in love" is the whole reason the plot comes together, as Julian's photographer character falls for the married Georgie, and she's left to wonder whether she should consider leaving her disinterested husband for a fling with the handsome stranger. She's also got to consider what impact her decision would have on her tight-knit family, with her mother, sister and grandmother all living together with her family on their own little island, just like the women of her family have for generations. It's a sweet little film, focusing more on the family than on Georgie or Mark being "crazy in love", but it's easy to see how she'd start to reevaluate her life when the handsome photographer suddenly comes into it and gives her a chance to consider what her life might be like if she decided to give life with him a try instead. The writing is excellent, touching without being sickly sweet. The film's well-done in general. A good time, with an easy call to select sweet, sensitive and handsome Julian as the temptation any woman might fall for.

Grand Isle (though I wish there was more Julian in it!) - Kelly McGillis brings Kate Chopin's story "The Awakening" to life. It's set in turn of the century Louisiana, with an an interesting mix of the well-to-do and the quirky. It's very much a woman's film, with the story of the growing independence of an upper-class wife, and her love of painting, freedom and some men (including Julian). Julian's in the only real love-scene in the film, and (for a change), he's not the one minus his clothes. But, in the end, the film is much more about her taking control of her own life and deciding what is important to her than it is about any romances.
Harem (very romantic in a romance-novel sort of way, which is great if that's what you're in the mood for, but Julian's only the stodgy fiance, so ditto on me wishing there were more of him in it!) - I found the exotic locale and the dramatic love story in the midst of political and social turmoil to be intriguing, but it's not up to par in terms of being a film on its own. It was well suited to its television home. Neither means it's not worth watching, but I think it clearly appeals more to the romantics (particularly to women) than to film fans in general.
The Browning Version - the feeling of a period film, if not the reality. Albert Finney plays the retiring Classics teacher at a British school for boys. Dealing with forced-retirement, ill health and marriage problems could really drag a man down. Add to that knowing that the new language teacher (Julian) is planning on replacing Classics with modern languages, and you've definitely got a man struggling with himself and his life. Quite in contrast to the other two films he's done with Julian, Mike Figgis really manages a very British feel to the whole project, more akin to Room With a View than Leaving Las Vegas. Interestingly, Julian's character isn't the cocky, modern-language enthusiast you might imagine he'd be: rather he's nervous about his new teaching assignment, awkward and worried about the impression he makes on his esteemed predecessor, afraid he won't be able to discipline his students, and clearly looking forward to having his family join him at the school the next term as a relief from the newness of the environment. The story's all Finney's, with Matthew Modine in a fine performance as the young, well-liked American science teacher, but Figgis clearly shows that he knows how to use Julian in a non-lead role, making him a clear catalyst in the struggles of Finney's character, while allowing him to have a life of his own.
One Night Stand - you'd think the story of a man who has a one night stand with a woman who's not his wife would have been so done-to-death that it couldn't be interesting. And if you were to judge this film by its (lack of) critical acclaim and financial success, you might be positive about that. You'd be wrong. I came out of this film with two strong impressions: 1) that Wesley Snipes is a much better actor than I'd thought him to be, and 2) that Mike Figgis is probably one of the few directors in Hollywood who knows both how to best use Julian as an actor, and how to keep his looks from drawing so much attention that he can't play a secondary role effectively. I've never been a Wesley Snipes fan, but after watching him play this man who not only has a one night stand, but is also dealing with the death of his best friend from AIDS, I was rather impressed. He's completely believable in the role, and is another reason Figgis didn't have to worry about Julian upstaging his lead actors (Robert Downey, Jr. does an equally brilliant job as the dying man, but I expected it of him....).
Julian plays Chris, the nurse tending to Downey's character in the hospice. At first, he seems only a practical secondary character, coming into Charlie's room to give him a bath. But we soon see him as something more than a set of hands tending to his duties: he's helping the doctor examine the sick man, holding him against his own chest to let her listen to his lungs, looking rather desperately concerned when she doesn't appear to like what she's hearing. You get the impression that not only is he a fine nurse, but he's a caring one, dedicated to his patient and caring deeply about him and his condition. He's sympathetic to the Snipes character, experiencing the same sense of loss when they've both acknowledged that Charlie is dying. He's both professional and expressive when Snipes gives him a gift in appreciation for his caring. And he manages a fine balance between grief and joy when he attends Charlie's New Orleans-style wake. Unfortunately, he's not in the film enough to make it worthwhile to see it just for Julian, but I found the film as a whole thoughtful and sensitive enough to make it well worth watching, especially with Julian in it.
Husbands and Lovers - I won't kid you, if you don't like sex on screen, if you don't like nudity, you're not going to like this movie. However, I think depicting it as some sort of extreme erotic love-fest (see the Filmography) is selling it short.
As far as the plot goes, Julian plays a screenwriter whose marriage is troubled when his wife makes a deal with him that she will stay with him during the week, and her lover over the weekend, and honoring their pact to be completely honest in their relationship she tells him all about her time with her lover. He quickly decides that the arrangement is not working, as his love for her drives him to extremes of drinking and sex with strangers.
Meanwhile, she is disturbed and intrigued by a new sado-masochistic twist in her relationship with her lover. The production value is rather poor, most notably some poor dubbing of some of the Italian actors into English, and some rather stilted dialogue, obviously translated nearly word-for-word from the original Italian novel.
All of this could easily add up to a pretty horrible movie that's basically just an excuse for on-screen nudity. But instead, we get an interesting analysis of the morals of sex and sexual perversion, as well as an exploration of the traditional confines of the marriage relationship. Add to that the fact that Julian's character really ends up being terribly sympathetic, and you've got something worth watching at least once. I don't think it would be unfair to say he was the best thing in it. And, after all the period roles, it was quite nice to see him in clothing that looks like it might have actually come out of his own closet for a change!

I'm also desperate to see a few of the more obscure films, particularly those which were produced for the European market. I have a feeling there are a few gems hidden amongst those!

Not every film can be a favorite, even if it is worth watching. These some of the other films that Julian has done that I wanted to give you my take on:

Boxing Helena - Well, I liked it a lot better than I figured I would. It's not a bad movie, even if the story and direction are a bit heavy-handed. You want to say to first-time director Jennifer Lynch: "Enough already with the symbolism, I get your point!". I also had to deal with a preconceived notion that I was going to hate this film, simply because of the bizarre (and unpleasant) nature of the story, and the fact that I was concerned that seeing Julian play someone who would commit such atrocities (without the dark humor of the Warlock films) would grate against me every moment of the film.
Amazingly I overcame a lot of that as I watched the film, and can count myself pleasantly surprised. Julian did a brilliant job, and certainly can be credited with saving the film from being pulled down into the muck by the Kim Bassinger casting scandal.
In the end, the only significant problem I had with the film (beyond the aforementioned heavy-handedness), was that (likely due again to that same heavy-handedness) I kept thinking in the back of my mind, from the very first scenes of the film: Beep... Beep... Nut Alert! Nut Alert! It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about mental illness and obsessive-compulsive behavior that Nick Cavanaugh was in serious need of daily therapy and heavy doses of medication. While he certainly was getting some medication, obviously it wasn't doing the job, nor was he being monitored sufficiently for someone with his level of mental disturbance. But if he had been, where would you have gotten anything to make a movie from, eh? Sherilyn Fenn plays the arrogant, self-absorbed Helena so believably that I didn't have much sympathy for her. On the other hand, the sweet little boy Nick is so ruined by his parents that every time I caught a glimpse of those bits of cotton in Julian's ears I kept wishing I could be left alone in a room with that horrendous mother of his.
When it comes right down to it, I didn't find watching the film to be as thought-provoking an experience as had been promised by some other reviews. That was simply because the message was spelled out so clearly from the very beginning of the film that no thought was required. But I came away from the experience even more impressed with Julian's acting skills, and wondering yet again: why is this man not as well known as a John Malkovich or even a Christian Slater? Why is he not getting the parts? After a performance like this, I can't even reason that it's his looks that hold him back. He transcends that. It's time the rest of Hollywood figured that out.
The Great Elephant Escape: another sweet little television movie, this time with a definite kid-interest. If I recall correctly, this one first aired as part of a Disney family-film series, and it is suitably wholesome. Stephanie Zimbalist plays the mother of a young boy who takes them both off to Africa, where they stay at a preserve. Julian is the major-domo at the preserve, managing guests, workers (including some of the local Masai tribesmen), and animals alike. When the boy makes friends with a baby elephant, he also bonds with young of the young local boys, and typical boyish chaos ensues. But when the baby elephant is due to be sold off to a man the boys know is cruel to animals, they decide it's up to them to rescue it. So, the two boys and their elephant trek through the grasslands all alone, with their nemesis right behind, and getting more unfriendly by the yard. Then it's up to mom and the handsome game warden to find and rescue boys and elephant.
All in all, a very sweet movie, really nice for the kids, and a real pleasure to watch Julian do something without any threatening overtones or even any real sexual/romantic tension (there's just a little attraction going between him and the mom, so it's not all about the kids...). He's rather much of a hero in this one.
Naked Lunch: Did I say Boxing Helena was too weird? This one's so strange that people doubted it could even be made into a film. The plot turns on the fact that the main character is a troubled exterminator who's a little too involved in his work. We end up in an alternate universe where aliens and giant intelligent insects are the rule, rather than science-fiction. There's not really a better word to describe the whole thing than "bizarre". Having conquered the challenges of bringing the story to screen, and doing a rather good job of it, I can't say this is a bad movie. Just not to my tastes. Never was one for Kafka-esque... Anyway, it's well-done, and Julian gives a memorable performance as Yves Cloquet, looking rather dapper in the 40's style suit and fedora, driving his splashy car. It's made plain early on that his character is something of a pervert, that having less to do with his sexual preferences than the intimation of the specifics of what he's into. We only learn the true nature of the beast as the film progresses. Like the rest of the film, it's a bizarre twist that doesn't quite make obvious sense, but meshes with the film as a whole, as a feeling and world unto itself. Naked Lunch wasn't my cup of tea, but it might be yours. I'll give them a good score just for having made it.
Arachnophobia: This one's hard for me to review. Frankly, when it's on, I look for Julian, and when he's not in it anymore, I know it's high-time for me to turn it off. Not because it's a bad film (it's not), but rather because of all of the spiders. I don't mind them as a rule, but contemplating them in large numbers, let alone invading a home, is too much for me. (Well, at least I can say I'm not generally afraid of rats or bats or snakes.... spiders just give me the creeps...) Anyway, what I have seen of the film I thought was really well done, and if I had to pick a scene-stealing comedic performance out of all of the films done in the last 20 years, John Goodman playing the local exterminator would be it. If you like a scary, yet funny film, this is a great choice. Julian plays another earnest scientist, so wrapped up in his studies that he fails to notice that he's helping a killer spider emigrate to a place that's never going to be able to handle it. I was really pleased to see him in this role, considering all the interest the film got when it was first released. There aren't a lot of actors I can think of who do such a role justice, and he always plays these scientist-types so believably. It rather reminds me of the Chicago Hope character in that. Unless you're afraid of spiders, I suggest you try this one out.
Vibes: Until I saw this, I hadn't realized that Cyndi Lauper had made such a strong effort at her acting career. That was my biggest note from this silly film. However, it's supposed to be silly, so you can't fault it for that. You've got Lauper and Jeff Goldblum playing two psychics who have to team up to find a great treasure trove of ancient power, knowing that an evil scientist, played by Julian, is searching for it as well, hoping to take over the universe, as it were. There's just enough humor, plot twists and strong comedic performances to make it worth watching. It's one of those times where when Julian's character is threatened with death, you figure he deserves it and get ready to laugh. Though he's not known for comedic performances, per se, this is another one of those characters who takes himself so seriously that he's comical. He's also got some amusing dialogue to highlight that effect. Frankly, I can't think of another actor who'd really do this role justice, either. While it's a long way from being up there with most of Julian's other projects, it's absolutely worth a Saturday afternoon's viewing.
Oxford Blues: No offense to Rob Lowe, but in watching this, I kept saying to myself: why is it that Rob Lowe is nearly a household name (especially with the benefit of some personal scandal) and Julian, after a nearly-20 year career, is still virtually unknown? I watch the two them rowing together, and there's no question who is more attractive. I watch the two of them facing off over Lady Victoria, and there's no question who's the better actor (even back then!), with Lowe's predictable performance as the brash American being completely outshown by Julian's subtle portrayal of the oh-so-English fiance. That only reason Lowe's character manages to stay center-stage is the overblown, dramatic nature of the man. Julian, on the other hand, manages to make the guy completely likeable while still being the rival for the girl of Nick's dreams (and schemes). We can see why Victoria would stay with him. (Though I do have problems understanding why he'd want to he'd take her back after her escapades with Nick.) When things turn around and the two men have to team up, you've got to believe there's no overwhelming malice to keep them from working together, and only a skillful performance from Julian, as the intelligent, calm, thinking man makes that possible. As the second of Julian's big-screen roles, this is also one of his oldest films, and as we near the millennium, it really does start to suffer from its age. It nearly screams "I was made in the early 80's". But Julian took advantage of the opportunity to prove what he was capable of, and it's no wonder that it wasn't much longer before he got some fine leading roles in After Darkness and A Room With a View.

Top of Page