A View to a Kill (1985)

"Hello. My name is James St. John Smythe. I'm English.", 2 September 2009

As a rule, I love James Bond movies. I was born the year after Dr. No was released, so I've kind of grown up with the series. As a kid in the 70s, some of my fondest movie related memories are of those Sunday nights that ABC would air a Bond movie. I couldn't wait to see the car chases, the gadgets, the fight scenes, and the over-the-top villains. It was a great time. That's why it pains me to rate A View to a Kill as low as I do. While there are a few James Bond movies that I have problems with, this is really the only one in the entire series that I would call a bad movie. In fact, I can't think of a single positive thing to write. Watching A View to a Kill last night was akin to nails on a chalk board. Everything about the movie scrapes the proverbial bottom of the James Bond barrel:

• Roger Moore – I'm not a Roger Moore hater, but by the time he made A View to a Kill, he was way too old to pull it off. He looks absolutely ridiculous romancing the young hotties. And that dye job – it's the worst.

• The Bond Girls – Some Bond girls are better than others, but there are none as bad as the two in A View to a Kill. Grace Jones – she's got to be the most unattractive female to ever appear in a Bond movie. Who in the world ever thought she was sexy? If I saw anymore of her backside, I think I might have ripped my eyes out. Tanya Roberts – she probably the worst actress to ever appear in a Bond movie. Imagining her as a geologist is about as silly as picturing Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist (oh wait, she did play a nuclear scientist in a Bond movie). And if Tanya had whined the world "James" one more time, I think I might have ripped my ears off.

• Christopher Walken – Don't misunderstand, I like Christopher Walken. But could he have looked any more foolish than he does with blond hair? Why did they have to do that?

• The Plot – I've got two problems with the film's plot. First, the whole idea of flooding Silicon Valley is beyond stupid. I don't see how it would have accomplished much of anything. Wouldn't companies have just gone elsewhere to produce their computer chips? Second, can someone please explain to me what the steroid injected horses in the first half of the movie have to do with the flooding Silicon Valley plot of the second half of the movie? It's like the entire first hour of the movie was little more than padding.

I could go on and on (Duran Duran's crappy title song, the use of rear projection anytime Roger Moore is supposed to be doing anything physical, the all too obvious stunt doubles, the groan inducing quips, the fire truck chase, the film's title being forced into the dialogue, Q as a peeping tom, etc.), but I'll stop there. You get the idea – I don't like A View to a Kill. In fact, with each successive viewing, I like it less and less. I'm at the point now where I pretty much hate it and doubt I'll ever give it another chance. It's just bad.

3/10

Final Justice (1985)

"Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on. It's your move.", 21 November 2008

After apprehending the man responsible for the murder of his boss, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, III, is assigned the task of taking the killer back to Italy. On the way, however, the plane is diverted to Malta. Not long after landing, the killer escapes. Now, and with little help from the Maltese police, Deputy Sheriff Geronimo is out to recapture a murderer. But will his "shoot first, take names later" brand of Texas justice work in a foreign country?

Let me get this out right up front, I've seen Final Justice both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. I've seen the scenes that were cut that help make the movie a more coherent whole. And I've seen the cut-up TV version that was used for MST3K. Having said that, I've got to admit that I much prefer the MST3K version. Why? Because Final Justice is one lousy movie. The MST3K commentary helps make it much more palatable. On its own, it's a real snoozer of an action movie with corny dialogue (often delivered with such thick Italian accents that it's impossible to understand), bad acting, weak direction, gigantic plot holes, and most everything else you'll find in a bad movie. And if most of Final Justice wasn't "so bad, it's good", it would be one terribly dull movie on top of everything else. So, yes, I enjoy the often very funny MST3K commentary over the bad movie on its own.

My main sticking points with the MST3K commentary and with most of the reviews I've read on Final Justice, however, involve the criticisms of Joe Don Baker. The main weaknesses in Baker's performance actually have nothing to do with his size or the wardrobe choices of his character or any of the other jokes flung in his direction. Instead, I think much of it is has to do with the poor decision to cast him in the lead in the first place. Joe Don Baker has always struck me as a decent enough actor, but he's not the kind of guy I would call an "action hero" by any stretch of the imagination. He's more of a sidekick as he demonstrated with solid performances in a couple of James Bond movies. Or if you really want to blame someone for the problems with Final Justice, point your finger at director Greydon Clark. Clark's resume can't begin to compare with Baker's. So I say, "Lay off Joe Don Baker!"

3/10

Boggy Creek II (1985)

"These river bottoms are truly a sight to behold.", 5 August 2007

For the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone thought that The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972) needed a sequel – and 13 years later at that. The first Boggy Creek movie isn't anything special (though I admit to an explained fondness for it), but episode #2 is something different altogether. Boggy Creek II is beyond bad. In this one, Professor "Doc" Lockart from the University of Arkansas assembles a team to explore the swamps of Southern Arkansas in hopes of finding the Boggy Creek Monster. Along the way, he tells his research assistants stories of the creature. Once in the swamp, they encounter something they can't explain, but come away with no real proof. No proof, that is, until they make the fateful decision to take a boat trip down river to Old Man Crenshaw's place. There, they find all the proof they'll need.

The actual legend of the Boggy Creek Monster seems to be about as ridiculous as this movie. I'm probably wrong about this, but if it weren't for Charles B. Pierce, I doubt anyone would have even heard of the thing. He has single-handedly kept it alive. And some of the stories he uses in Boggy Creek II as evidence of the creatures existence are just plain old stupid. Through his mayonnaise covered flashback lens, he relates the story of an old man who has a blowout while traveling a lonely stretch of road one night. While changing the tire, the man is "attacked" by something. He never regains consciousness before dying. Pierce blames the creature. Huh? So let me get this straight – the man dies before he can tell anyone his story yet Pierce jumps to the conclusion that he was attached by some mythical creature? Yeah, right. That's certainly one giant leap in logic. Why not just blame all the unexplained deaths in Southern Arkansas on the creature? Sure would save a lot of time and effort.

The other problems with Boggy Creek II are too numerous to even attempt to mention. Everything from the believability of the "research team" to the acting to the special effects is bottom of the barrel. And you can put the blame squarely at the feet of auteur Charles B. Pierce. What's more pathetic is Pierce's apparent attitude toward the whole thing. He has a smug look on his face that just screams "Hey! Look at me! Writer, director, actor – boy, am I cool or what?" Even sadder (if it can get any worse) is that Pierce plays it all with the straightest of faces even while wearing short-shorts and waving a gun at a guy in a monkey suit. And his narration is just as bad (or should I say funny). His unnatural style of delivery, combined with some incredibly corny lines about the beauty of nature, is laugh out loud funny. Unintentionally, Boggy Creek II is a laugh riot!

3/10

Amazonia: The Catherine Miles Story (1985)

- Schiave bianche: violenza in Amazzonia
There are other, much better examples of the genre, 5 May 2006

I think most fans of cannibal/jungle type films will agree that Cannibal Holocaust is the Granddaddy of the genre. Amazonia: The Catherine Miles Story was originally marketed as a sequel to that film. But, Cannibal Holocaust it ain't. To my surprise, most of the reviews of Amazonia that I've read have been positive. And while I certainly found elements of the film enjoyable in the way that only a good exploitation film can be, there are far too many problems I have with the film for me to consider it much more than average at best.

What Works:

- The Gore: If you're a fan of the red stuff, Amazonia delivers. While the total number of scenes of gratuitous gore may be fewer than in some other films of this type, the gore is very well done and, for the most part, reasonably realistic. I was especially impressed with a scene depicting a human head being cut off. There are scenes in this movie that are definitely not for the squeamish.

- Plot Ideas: It may not be completely original, but I liked the idea of the kidnapped young girl living with and growing in the Headhunter society. It presents the opportunities for some interesting set-pieces.

What Doesn't Work:

- It's Not Really a Cannibal Film: Regardless of how it was marketed, Amazonia isn't really a cannibal movie. The film's only real cannibals are dispatched within five minutes of making their appearance.

- The Acting: Elvire Audray as Catherine Miles is positively wretched. Everything she does and says further reinforces the notion that she's a second rate actress. The rest of the acting is no better. One look at the courtroom scenes should be enough to demonstrate to anyone just how bad the acting is.

- A Sappy Love Story: If I sit down to watch a trashy, Euro-cannibal film, I want a trashy, Euro-cannibal film. Unfortunately, Amazonia is full of too many melodramatic, sappy moments. And that ending is straight out of a Lifetime movie. It's beyond ridiculous.

- The Headhunters: I hate to compare any film of this genre with Cannibal Holocaust, but it's hard not to. The cannibals in Cannibal Holocaust look like the real deal – wild, savage, dirty, and all but alien. In contrast, the natives in Amazonia are too clean. Most look like they've just had a shower, a shave, and a hair cut. And am I seriously supposed to believe that one of these Headhunters knows English (or Italian or whatever language)? That must have been some kind of correspondence class she was taking.

Overall, Amazonia is a weak film when compared with other movies of its ilk. It's neither as good and powerful as Cannibal Holocaust nor is it as silly and fun as something like Massacre in Dinosaur Valley. If you're a fan of this kind of movie you might find something worthwhile, but, overall, it's liable to be a disappointing experience.

4/10

Clue (1985)

"Picked up the dagger, ran down the hall, and stabbed the cook!", 9 April 2006

For whatever reason, I have probably seen Clue more times than any movie ever made. I would guess that I've watched it more than 100 times. And I never get tired of it. Obviously, I feel that it holds up rather well through repeat viewings. It's witty and clever. Some of the scenes and dialogue are laugh-out-loud funny. There are far too many moments that stand out in my mind to narrow it down to one favorite, but I'll include this one as an example:

- Mrs. White: He was deranged, he was... lunatic. He didn't seem to like me very much. He had threatened to kill me in public.

- Miss Scarlet: Why would he want to kill you in public?

- Wadsworth: I think she meant he threatened, in public, to kill her.

The characters may lack depth and dimension, but all are very well played by a talented ensemble cast. I've read any number of complaints about perceived plot holes, but who cares? If you're so busy noticing each time a candlestick changes places in a scene or who's holding what weapon, I think you're missing the point. None of it is to be taken seriously and cannot be analyzed as such. I look at these plot holes as part of the plot. They make it all the more fun.

8/10

Massacre in Dinosaur Valley (1985)

- Nudo e selvaggio
How can a movie this bad be so much fun?, 17 March 2006

Some may see the rating I've given Massacre in Dinosaur Valley and think I've lost my mind. I'm fully aware that a 5/10 may be too high. In all honesty, the movie is horrible. Tarantini has crammed the film with every exploitation element and cliché you can think of. Massacre in Dinosaur Valley lacks originality, any semblance of good acting, and anything approaching taste. Technically, the movie doesn't fair much better with some really bad looking special effects and poor editing. But if you can get past all the film's shortcomings (as I did), it's a lot of fun for fans of cheese-filled, Italian exploitation type movies. Maybe I was just in the right frame of mind, but I had a great time with it.

Actually, my biggest complaint with the film has nothing to do with the list of previously mentioned problems. My biggest gripe is the "look" of the cannibals. If you've seen Cannibal Holocaust, the Granddaddy of cannibal films, you'll understand what I mean. The cannibal tribes in Cannibal Holocaust look authentic (at least to my untrained eyes). They're dirty, unkempt, and "wild" looking. The cannibals in Massacre in Dinosaur Valley, on the other hand, look like actors. They look like they showered, shaved, and had a fresh haircut on the way to the set. In addition, the cannibal village in Cannibal Holocaust is something completely alien to our modern society. It fits the look of the cannibals. Here, the cannibal village reminded me of one of the headhunter sets from Gilligan's Island. A little more authenticity would have really helped Massacre in Dinosaur Valley.

5/10

The Adventures of Hercules (1985)

- Le avventure dell'incredibile Ercole
And I thought Hercules (1983) was bad., 6 March 2006

The Adventures of Hercules has to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie I've yet run across. You would have to look far and wide to find anything that approaches the level of ineptness on display in this movie. Acting – Bad. Editing – Bad. Direction – Bad. Special Effects – Bad and Laughable. Plot – Bad. Lighting – Bad. Cinematography – Bad. Costume Design – Bad and Silly. Everything Else – Bad. Watching The Adventures of Hercules is about as enjoyable as a root canal. Even for a fan of bad movies, it's a real endurance test. This is one for either masochists or Lou Ferrigno completists (if any exist).

Eight things I learned from watching The Adventures of Hercules:

1. If you don't have the budget for real special effects, rotoscope a scene from the previous movie. It will look great - trust me.

2. When on a quest to recover Zeus' thunderbolts, take time for frequent stops to oil-up you body. It worked for Ferrigno and his two Amazon companions.

3. Any sword fight, use of magic, and just about all other day to day activities in ancient Greece created a sound very similar to a game of Pac Man or Asteroids.

4. Some of the ancient Greek gods dressed like extras from Star Wars.

5. If you need to pad your crappy movie's runtime, extend the title sequence by adding Star Trek style credits and throw in some overly grandiose music. It also helps if you've got a previous movie to pull scenes from.

6. Fight scenes move along much smoother if the bad guys attack Hercules one at a time.

7. William Berger did anything for money.

8. I didn't think it was possible, but The Adventures of Hercules makes the first film, Hercules (1983), look like an Academy Award winner.

1/10

The Treasure of the Amazon (1985)

Good, but too many problems for me to call it great, 20 June 2005

Three different groups set out through the jungles of the Amazon with a singular goal - to find treasure. They must overcome wild animals, cannibals, headhunters, and, ultimately, themselves if they are to reach their goal and make it out alive.

Treasure of the Amazon has some really good things going for it. First, it features some of the most over-the-top moments I've seen recently. The headhunter attack scenes are a hoot. The low budget special effects add a nice touch. Second, almost every member of the cast delivers a solid performance. Stewart Whitman, Pedro Armendariz, Donald Pleasence, and Sonia Infante are all worth watching. Third, the jungle setting is fabulous. Nice touches with the scenes of animals intercut with the film. The lush jungle is beautiful and frightening at the same time. And fourth, the ending is perfect.

But there are things about the movie I didn't care for that keep me from rating it any higher. First, I said that almost every member of the cast was solid. The biggest and most glaring exception is former Miss World Ann Sidney. Her fake Southern accent got old very quickly. Second, John Ireland is so underused I forgot he was even in the movie. I've always enjoyed his work and would like to have seen more of him. Third, and most importantly, the movie gives off a vibe to me that's hard to explain, but kept me from fully enjoying the movie. Much of the film came across to me like an episode of the television show Fantasy Island. Take away the gory bits and I half expected to see Mr. Roarke walking out of the woods in his white suit. It doesn't help matters that I remember seeing half of the cast on the show at various times.

6/10