| The SF, Horror and Fantasy Film Review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Science-Fiction |
|
|
| Horror |
|
|
| Fantasy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BIG MAN ON CAMPUS
aka
HUNCHBACK HAIRBALL OF L.A.
Rating: 
USA. 1986.
Director – Jeremy Kagan, Screenplay – Allan Katz, Producer – Arnon Milchan, Photography – Bojan Bazelli, Music – Joseph Vitarelli, Special Effects – M.B. Special Effects Co (Supervisor – Marty Bresin), Makeup – Michele Burke, Art Direction – Michael Day. Production Company – Vestron Pictures.
Cast:
Allan Katz (Bob Maloogaloogaloogaloogalooga), Corey Parker (Alex Kaminsky), Melora Hardin (Cathy Adams), Tom Skerritt (Dr Richard Webster), Jessica Harper (Dr Victoria Fisk), Cindy Williams (Dr Diane Girard)
Plot: A scruffy hunchback is discovered living in the campus belltower. A court battles ensues between rival psychologists as to whether it is an animal or intelligent – which the hunchback settles by talking to the judge. The hunchback Bob is placed into the care of student Alex Kaminsky whose personal life is thrown into chaos by Bob’s unruly behaviour.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is the latest in a series of classic genre themes to get a hip updating in this quirkily likeable item. (Although one would have thought the film would be on the ball enough to try and set itself at Notre Dame University). The comedy in the film is rather predictable – the plot doesn’t really consist of anything but gag situations concerning big, lugubrious Allan Katz’s unsocialized chaos. But Katz (who is also the film’s scriptwriter)’s gruff grunts and ungainly amiability eventually becomes rather likeably endearing. And as his intelligence increases so too does the sophistication of the film’s humour.
The rest of the veteran cast – including Jessica Harper; Cindy Williams, who has a charming scene being seduced by Katz; and Tom Skerritt, one of the most warmly likeable and underrated actors in the American industry today – are all excellent. The one performance that does grate is Corey Parker whose constant barrage of self-effacing one-liners get up one’s nose.
But on the whole it is a whole lot more sweetly charming a film than anything it might otherwise give reason to assume. Certainly it’s a good deal better than the similar Encino Man/California Man (1992), which ventured through similar territories.
Copyright Richard Scheib 1992
|