The return of Charlie Brown, 8 September 2017
Admittedly, the plot in When Thieves Fall In leaves a lot to be desired. To put it bluntly, it's ridiculous. Mundy is asked to steal a fur coat from a Baltic country that, for reasons known only to script writer, has Soviet missile plans sown into the lining. For some bizarre reason that I can't begin to explain, a fantastic ceremony is planned where the coat will be presented to a London fashion model (Like I said, it's ridiculous). Mundy needs a female operative and realizes his old friend Charlie Brown (Susan Saint James) is quite naturally the spitting image for the model (Wasn't she the spitting image of Princess Astride in Episode 2?). He convinces Noah to get her out of prison so they can work together.
Despite how ridiculous the whole thing is, When Thieves Fall In is still a lot of fun. You can thank Robert Wagner and Susan Saint James. They had real on-screen chemistry that was a joy to watch. I was able to go along with much of the crazy plot simply because I believed their relationship. I see that Charlie Brown appears in a couple more episodes. I look forward to both and wish she had appeared in a dozen more.
7/10
I love the rabbit, 6 September 2017
The leader of a small Middle Eastern country has been diverting the funds from agricultural assistance provided by the West and plans to use it to purchase military aircraft. The money is squirreled away in a foreign bank. If Mundy can get his hands on the account book, the West might get their money back and preserve the peace. Mundy hopes to use his cover as a fashion designer to get close to the country's First Lady. After gaining her confidence, he'll have access to the leader's home and the account book.
Overall, Totally by Design isn't one of the best episodes, but it's still fun enough. The heist is enjoyable, but, other than one detail, it isn't particularly memorable. That detail is the clever use of a small rabbit to assist in the theft. Mundy's fashion designer cover is a facet of the episode that worked for me. He's quite good, though I'm not sure how believable he is. I think he needed to do more than drape fabric over his client's shoulder. Finally, I enjoyed the little twist at the end. Without some unexpected assistance, Mundy would have surely been caught.
Another real plus for Totally by Design is the supporting cast. It's exceptionally strong. While the names John Van Dreelen, Oscar Beregi, and Ron Soble may not be overly familiar, their faces certainly are. All were rock solid character actors. The usual pattern in It Takes a Thief is for Mundy to woo a Woman of the Week. Here, it's Tina Louise of Gilligan's Island fame. Unfortunately, she's not very good and is upstaged at every turn and in every way imaginable (acting, poise, beauty, etc.) by the older Mari Blanchard. This, unfortunately, was Ms Blanchard's last role. She gives a very engaging performance and is unquestionably the highlight of the episode.
6/10
"Even the Sharknadoes are tougher in New York.", 5 September 2017
In Sharknado 2: The Second One, there's not just one tornado full of sharks, there are three. This time, the sharknados are bearing down on New York. The fear is that the three sharknados will combine into one mega-sharknado. Fortunately for everyone in New York, Fin Shepard (Ian Ziering) has just arrived and he has a plan to defeat the sharknados.
These Sharknado movies have to be some of the dumbest things ever put on film. Still, they're so ridiculous they can be fun in that "so bad it's good" sort of way. You can't think too hard about the physics, biology, meteorology, or any other science behind the film's concept or your brain might explode. You just gotta go with it. This one probably isn't as good as the first as it loses points for lack of originality. The surprise factor is completely gone. This lack of originality means that, unfortunately, some of the movie can be dull. How many times can Ian Ziering go completely through a shark with a chainsaw and it still feel fresh? Number 2 includes a steady stream of cameos which, regardless of how you feel about it, helps make for a few funny bits. My favorite had to be Robert Hays in the beginning of the film. Pretty neat seeing him again – and flying a plane. A few of the cameos were, however, super annoying. I could have done without the Today Show cameos altogether. Finally, a couple of other bits, while not exactly original, were enjoyable. My personal fav was Tara Reed attaching the circular saw to her stump and slicing a flying shark in half. Pretty cool. Overall, Sharknado 2: The Second One is okay, but nothing great. A very average 5/10 seems fair to me.
Finally, I'm sure that older folks like me watched Ziering's character run across the floating sharks and immediately thought of the same scene from the Bond movie Live and Let Die. It was silly back then and is just as silly now.
5/10
"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
