"I think you'll look great in those lingerie.", 1 September 2017
Birdemic: Shock and Terror was released in 2010. I cannot believe it's taken seven years for this film to finally pop-up on my movie radar. If you've never seen Birdemic: Shock and Terror, do yourself a favor – don't wait as long as I did to catch it. It's a movie that has be seen to be believed. Words cannot do it justice. All at once, it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but one of the most fun. Film classes should use Birdemic: Shock and Terror to demonstrate how not to make a movie. Everything you think you've seen done poorly in a movie is most likely done worse here. It's a nightmare. Sound, lighting, cinematography, continuity, acting, and on and on are epically abysmal. It's like watching a slow-motion train-wreck. The two best (or worst, depending on how you look at it) examples of what I'm talking about are the dialogue and special effects. The dialogue sounds so completely unnatural. No one talks like this. It sounds like someone took a foreign language script and ran it through an online translator. And the way the actors deliver these ridiculous lines with a straight face is truly priceless. As for the special effects . . . well, there's really no way to describe them. My vocabulary doesn't include adjectives that can possibly paint a mental picture to adequately describe what's on-screen. You'll just have to watch it to see what I mean. Racking my brain, the only positive I can come up with is Whitney Moore as the female lead, Nathalie. She has more screen presence than the rest of the cast combined.
As bad as Birdemic: Shock and Terror is, it's still an absolute blast to watch. I can't remember ever having this much fun with a movie that is otherwise so Gawd awful. I laughed so hard at the birds exploding on impact that I had to stop the movie more than once. As I've said ad nauseam, I watch movies for entertainment. And boy was I ever entertained. The first half is a bit slow or I would have rated Birdemic: Shock and Terror even higher. I feel "good" about my 7/10 rating.
7/10
A tired, cliché filled plot, 1 September 2017
A CIA agent, code named Radical Jack (Billy Ray Cyrus), goes deep undercover to bring down an international arms dealer. In the process, he hopes to find the man responsible for killing his wife and child.
Radical Jack may have been released in 2000, but it feels like an 80s action movie. All the standard 80s clichés are there. I could just imagine someone like Van Damme or Stallone playing the lead. Instead, we have Billy Ray Cyrus. And to my utter amazement, Cyrus is not the biggest weakness in the movie. In fact, I'd say he's one of the few bright spots. As I've already alluded to, the biggest problem comes from a tired, cliché filled plot that brings absolutely nothing new to the action genre. A loner on a motorcycle arrives in a new town and takes a job tending bar. He immediately runs into trouble with the local gun runner's son when the son's girl takes an interest in the new guy. He's an ex-Navy Seal (at least I think he is) who manages to fight off a half-dozen thugs. He's eventually beat-down and goes into hiding. The girl nurses him back to health and the pair fall in love. Together, they bring down the baddies. Sound familiar?
Other low points include: poor fight choreography, a remixed Achy Breaky Heart, and (mostly) bad acting. Other highlights include: Dedee Pfieiffer and . . . well, that's about it. A 3/10 seems about right.
3/10
After two Norman installments, I still have no idea what the purpose is., 30 August 2017
My second short with Norman and I'm just as confused as I was after watching the first - Welcome Back, Norman. In this one, Norman checks into a hotel only to discover they've lost his reservation. Norman is given another room, but because of a taxidermy convention, the new room isn't as nice as what he'd originally asked for. As expected, nothing goes right for Norman. From little things like stubbing his toe to having the water cut off in his shower after he's soaped-up - if it can go wrong, it does.
I rate shorts with two things in mind - is it entertaining and is it effective. Entertaining - yes, although only mildly so. Some of Norman's antics, particularly in the shower, were quite funny. And I enjoyed the way Norman never spoke during the entire run-time. Only heavy sighs and the look of a man who has been beaten down. On to the second criteria, effective - I'm not sure. After two Norman installments, I still have no idea what the purpose is. If it's merely entertainment, it's reasonably entertaining. If I was supposed to get anything else out of the short, that message went straight over my head. Anyway, a 5/10 from me.
5/10
How can one movie be so bad, yet so watchable at the same time?, 30 August 2017
A group of Fat Cats has their eye on a couple of buildings that they'd like to level and redevelop. The problem is that the buildings are home to several dozen people. The Fat Cats decide to do what they can to force the tenants to leave – turn off the water, attack residents, release a box of rats, etc. When everything else fails, the Fat Cats approve the murder of the tenants' leader. But Charley Roman isn't going to sit by and let his father's murderers go unpunished. He takes the law into his own hands and uses his martial arts skills to exact revenge.
How can one movie be so bad, yet so watchable at the same time? Death Promise really tests my notion that I rate films primarily on entertainment value, because everything else you can name about Death Promise is bottom-of-the-barrel. Pathetic acting, horrible lighting, lazy one-take direction, ridiculous plot, bad make-up, silly dialogue, "stagey" fight choreography, a "twist" ending that should surprise no one, incomprehensible lapses in logic (more on that later) – Death Promise has it all. One of the more annoying facets of the film is how the title – Death Promise – actually relates to the film. After his father's death, Charley Roman engages in an ongoing conversation with his dead father where he "promises" to avenge his "death". This monologue happens at regular intervals for at least half the film. Silly doesn't begin to describe this plot device.
However, despite all the flaws, Death Promise still manages to be surprisingly watchable – if not entertaining at times. What's Death Promise got going for it? First, they may not be real actors, but Charles Bonet and Speedy Leacock seem to know their martial arts. Their kicks, jumps, and punches look authentic. Second, I know it's unintentional, but the bad guys are so clichéd, they end up being a real hoot. I had more fun watching this group than I could have ever hoped. Third, Death Promise has a really cool bow-chicka-wow-wow soundtrack that worked on me. Gotta love these 70s films. Finally, Death Promise falls solidly into that "so bad it's good" category. I never like using the phrase, but it applies here. Considering the good and the bad, I think my 5/10 rating seems about right.
I previously mentioned incomprehensible logic. Well, here's what I mean. BIG TIME SPOILER Charley Roman wants revenge for his father's death. His martial arts instructor, Master Shibata, advises him to seek out some special training from another martial arts master. Charley Roman returns home more ready than ever to face his father's killers. How absolutely illogical is it when we discover (and it's no real surprise) that Shibata is the head baddie? So, Shibata sends Charley Roman for more training so that he can return to face him. What? How does that make any sense in the slightest? END BIG TIME SPOILER
5/10
Some nice, tension filled moments, 28 August 2017
Mundy is asked to steal a famous Da Vinci painting and sell it to an exiled South American dictator. The plan is for Mundhy to substitute a forgery for the real painting at the last minute. Things go wrong and Mundy is forced to break-in and steal the real Da Vinci.
I'll be shocked if I find an episode of It Takes a Thief that I would call bad. The show's theme, pacing, and writing with Robert Wagner in the lead assures that all of the episodes will at least be somewhat enjoyable. With One Illegal Angel, it might not be the best I've seen so far, but it is entertaining enough. The key to this episode is the tension filled scenes where Mundy is about to be caught stealing the paining. The heist is good, but the aftermath is the highlight. Mundy hiding just inches from the exiled dictator is edge-of-the-seat kind of stuff. Very nice. The supporting cast here includes the always enjoyable Fernando Lamas. He made a very believable ruthless dictator. Again, good stuff.
My only real complaint is with Anthony Zerbe as forger Johnny O'Farrel. I'm not sure if it was the actor or the character, but I wanted to punch him in the face the whole episode.
7/10
"Does Madam Rodos allow rock n' roll dance music?", 27 August 2017
Al is tasked with stealing microfilm from an embassy safe. The problem - it's heavily guarded and these guards won't hesitate to shoot at anything that moves. Mundy comes up with a plan that involves a video tape machine, a State reception, and rock music. Can Mundy pull off his daytime robbery?
A Very Warm Reception is another good, but not great episode. Wagner is once again in great form. Here, he gets to play a number of characters in disguise. His laid back style works perfectly. The supporting cast here is strong and includes the incredibly cute Katherine Crawford (who I unfortunately know best from the MST3K episode Riding with Death) and Simon Oakland. As seems to be the case, Gavin MacLeod got on my nerves. The heist itself is enjoyable, but relies a lot on luck. The video tape machine set on playback would become a staple of this kind of show, but I suppose in 1968 it was most likely a rather novel idea.
Another highlight for me was watching the well-quaffed dignitaries getting down to the rock n' roll dance music at the reception. Good stuff.
7/10
