Volstag Reviews

The Orville (2017–2022)

Fun and entertaining

[7/10 · 12 April 2019]

I won't be able to say much that hasn't already been said, but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.

Much like many of the previous reviewers, I was not a fan of Macfarlane's previous vehicles. I find (found?) his comedy to be extremely low brow and, well, juvenile. I'm not saying that's bad, it's just not my cup o' tea.

I'm not sure what lead me to watch the pilot in the first place, but I was pleasantly surprised to admit to myself that I actually liked it. Over the next 2 or 3 weeks, I managed to watch the entire first 2 seasons.

This isn't some hard hitting sci-fi show, it's not a parody or satire (I get the sense that some people don't know what these words actually mean), and it's not a comedy set in space. If anything, it's an light hearted homage to the original series and TNG.

Imagine a less-than-top tier crew from TNG, in a less-than-top tier vessel. Throw in some light comedy, and you've got "The Orville". It's not perfect, but it is genuinely fun and entertaining.

Complaints? Some of the pop-culture references are way too anachronistic (would people in the far future even know / care about songs, TV shows, etc, from 400+ years in the past?), and, especially in the earlier episodes, the comedy seemed a little forced or out of place. These, however, are minor complaints and don't really detract from the quality of the show.

I hope this series continues. If it does, it could easily attract a following / fandom that lasts for decades. In many ways, it's more of a spiritual successor to the ST:TOS / TNG than anything that has come since.

Black Summer (2019–2021)

Very impressed

[7/10 · 12 April 2019]

I was quite impressed with this show.

It's centered around the early days of a zombie apocalypse, and those who have to live through it. It adopts an almost documentary style that I found to be particularly effective.

I really enjoy the fact that the characters are always on the run and that no place is safe. The zombie menace is omnipresent and the zombies are actually, you know, deadly and aggressive. Even a lone zombie can be a real handful. It almost feels like a war movie. The characters are clearly shell shocked as the world they used to know collapses around them. Unlike some of the other reviewers, I enjoy the fact that the dialog is minimal, as it better represents the horror these people are living through. In other zombie shows, they'd be drinking lemonade at a farmhouse whilst spending 3/4 of the season endlessly talking about their feelings.

Now granted there is some "cheese", some questionable decision making by the characters, but you can't have a zombie show w/o some of it.

I sincerely hope this continues. It's better than Z-Nation, and miles better than TWD (which I used to love). I have no way of knowing, but appears there's some review "brigading" going on. I'm guessing it's the devoted fans of TWD.

The Expanse (2015–2022)

Well done SyFy... Well done

[8/10 · 29 January 2016]

This is one of the best sci-fi television shows I've seen in a long time. If it continues along its current trajectory, I might end up calling this one of the best sci-fi television shows ever.

The Expanse offers us a glimpse of life in our solar system in the somewhat-distant future. Humans have colonized Mars, various moons and asteroid belts. A somewhat fragile political state exists between the three major "factions" of the solar system: Earth (money / power / culture), Mars (military) and The Belts (natural resources). Against this backdrop, we have our three factions moving towards war.... a missing girl.... and the possibility of a mysterious alien presence.

What this show does so well, IMO, is really an emphasis on the basics. We have a compelling setting, interesting characters, competent writing / directing, and an intriguing mystery to unravel. I also appreciate that the show has somewhat of a noir-ish / Blade Runner vibe to it, and the science -- while certainly not 100% accurate -- is definitely plausible. I also really enjoy the refreshing paucity of "aliens with strange foreheads" and "futuristic techno-babble" (which seems to dominate nearly every other science fiction show).

This review was written after watching S1E8 and, as of now, I'm calling it one of the best shows I watched in 2015. What has me worried though, given that I really like this show, is that it's doomed to be canceled prematurely. I really hope SyFy gives this show enough time to capture the audience it deserves.

I rate it a provisional 8/10.

The Walking Dead (2010–2022)

Occasionally quite good, but becoming repetitive

[5/10 · 20 January 2016]

I removed my previous review and altered my rating (from a 7 to a 5).

I want to start out by saying I used to enjoy this show, and there were the occasional episodes that were downright amazing. When TWD was good, it was really good.

Unfortunately, I stopped at the end of S6, though -- for reasons I don't quite understand -- I continued to follow the show via reviews, forum posts, articles, reddit, etc. I suppose I was following the show w/o subjecting myself to the drudgery of actually watching it.

What finally did it for me was the glaring realization that the show wasn't going anywhere. There's no narrative arc moving things forward. Our characters are forever stuck in a 20 mile radius somewhere in rural Georgia. What's happening in the outside world? What caused the outbreak? Is there a cure? What's the goal? Is this thing ever going to end? Are you really going to try and milk this for another 2, 5, 10 seasons?

Each season boils down to our heroes fighting YET ANOTHER bad guy / group of bad guys. It never ends or changes. When the current bad guy is defeated, guess what? They'll have to fight ANOTHER ONE in the next season.

When they're not fighting, they're endlessly talking about..... nothing. The production feels as languid as the bleeding of a dying animal. And the zombies? What zombies? They're wholly incidental at this point.

Anyway.... I'd recommend seasons 1 through, say, 5 for zombie fans. Beyond that, it's really the same thing over and over and over again.

The 100 (2014–2020)

Teen Rubbish

[4/10 · 19 February 2015]

How this can be enjoying a 7.7/10 rating on IMDb is utterly beyond me. This show reminds me very much of "Revolution" -- nothing more than a lame excuse to parade around attractive 20 and 30-somethings masquerading as teenagers.

Admittedly, I only watched maybe 30 minutes of this filth, but that was more than enough time to let me know that this is not a science fiction show.... in even the most generous light. It is a teen drama / romance pretending to be a science fiction show. I don't expect this show, or any other show, to be 100% scientifically accurate, but I do expect them to -- at least -- pay lip service to the science.

(spoilers to follow) How is it that everyone is well coiffed, physically fit, extremely attractive, and boasting pearly white game show host teeth, when they've been trapped on a space station for multiple generations? How have they not physically withered away by living in a sub 1g environment for multiple generations? Why did they not maintain extremely tight control of their limited resources? Wouldn't they have reduced the resident population from, say, 4k to 3k over the generations to prevent this very thing from happening? When our "teenagers" land on Earth, they're not immediately gobsmacked by going from the restrictive confines of a space station to the open expanse of an uninhabited Earth? The main character and four friends are going to walk 40 miles and return "before dark" carrying enough food to feed 100 people through a wilderness environment they have no direct experience with!? It's utterly preposterous! It would take at least a full day to make that journey, and they could only come back with enough food to last a meal or two (at best).

I turned off the show right around this point. This is simply another teen drama trying to cash-in on the current craze of paranormal / magical / young adult fiction. Much like Revolution, it has a very compelling premise, with amateurish execution.

Bottom line: if you like a smattering of "science" with your "science fiction", do yourself a favor and stay away from this drivel.

Z Nation (2014–2018)

Not exactly "good", but definitely "fun"

[7/10 · 19 February 2015]

I was pleasantly surprised by "Z Nation". I didn't really expect to like it, but it definitely grew on me as I continued watching.

To get the obligatory comparisons to TWD out of the way: where the Walking Dead is a much more serious / dramatic / soap opera-esque look at the z-apocalypse, Z Nation is primarily centered around fun. The show is making no attempt to take itself seriously and, as a result, neither am I (which probably explains why I let the various plot-holes and other gaffs slide w/o comment or objection). Ironically it feels more "comic book" than the Walking Dead -- which is based on an actual comic.

Most of the episodes are quite entertaining with the notable exception of S1E9 "Die Zombie Die... Again", which I found to be surprisingly weak. The acting, while not Oscar worthy by any stretch, is definitely competent. I particularly enjoy the characters of Doc (Russell Hodgkinson) and Warren (Kellita Smith). The production values of Z Nation are quite a bit lower than TWD (for obvious reasons) and, every once in awhile, the footage appears to have been shot on consumer level digital video cameras.... but, as before, I'm willing to let it slide provided the underlying material is compelling / entertaining enough (which, in this case, it is).

In the end, if you like campy / corny / b-grade horrors and thrillers, you can't go wrong with Z Nation. If you're looking for a more serious take on a hypothetical zombie apocalypse, I'd look elsewhere.

Lost (2004–2010)

Starts great, progressively slides downhill.

[6/10 · 31 October 2014]

Recently a friend of mine started watching Lost, and he wanted to get my opinion on the show. It took me awhile to articulate my thoughts, as Lost is one of those shows that I've loved and hated in equal measure. It also didn't help that it had been years since I watched it.

The first two seasons are amazing. I'd recommend them in a heart-beat, if, somehow, you could simply quit watching after season 2. But... if you've made it through season 2, you're likely going to continue, and that's when the problems start.

Season 3 was also quite good, but the credulity was starting to stretch, and I recall becoming somewhat frustrated. The show was starting to rely on explaining one mystery by invoking another mystery -- never really providing concrete answers. Further, the writers were spending way too much time with flashback sequences that, candidly, were little better than filler. To me, part of the "filler problem" is the absurd number of episodes they needed per season (20+ if I recall). For the sake of comparison, 2 seasons of Lost is the rough equivalent of 4 seasons of Walking Dead. That's a huge number of episodes

By season 4, I was actually starting to get angry with the show. There was simply way too much unexplained. Too many mysteries within mysteries. It was during this season that I came to the conclusion that the writers didn't have an "end game" planned for the show. They were making zero attempt to pull all these loose threads together. I strongly believe they were, basically, making it up as they went along. But, being the sucker that I am, I continued watching....

I almost quit during Season 5. Why I continued to watch it, I'm not sure. At this point, the Island and its denizens, etc, were completely baffling. There was no rhyme or reason to anything that was happening. More mystery for the sake of more mystery.

I watched season six out of morbid curiosity. I knew going into it that it was going to end in a completely unsatisfying manner. And, sure enough, it ended in a completely unsatisfying manner. The awesomeness of the first two seasons completely squandered on yet another inexplicable mystery. In the end, we know nothing more about the island, its point or purpose, or why anyone was even brought there. You, literally, knew as much about it in season 1 episode 1 as you did 130+ episodes later.

Do I recommend this show? Yes, I begrudgingly recommend it. My rating: 6/10.

Revolution (2012–2014)

Great premise, poor execution

[5/10 · 15 October 2014]

I haven't posted a review on IMDb in several years. This show changed that. Unfortunately, it's not due to the fact that this show is amazingly good. Quite the contrary.

I'd like to start off by saying that the premise of this show is extremely compelling, and it's the main reason I added it to my instant watch queue. That, coupled with the fact that I have a soft spot in my heart for, basically, any post apocalyptic movie / television series. Unfortunately, the compelling premise appears to be largely squandered on this vehicle.

I like sci-fi / fantasy as much as the next guy / gal and I typically look past plot holes, inconsistencies and contrived situations that are part and parcel of the genres -- provided they stay within a certain range of credulity, and provided the remaining material is strong and/or plausible. This is, of course, entirely subjective and will vary widely from person to person. Sadly, there's just way too much that doesn't make any sense about this show, and I found it almost immediately off-putting. For example (spoilers to follow):

* Our three "reluctant heroes" are able to blithely leave their village without anyone being the slightest bit concerned. Presumably they're necessary members of that society. Presumably they have jobs and duties they can't simply walk away from without anyone caring.... and yet they do.

* Their walk to Chicago takes all of one scene?! I suppose this is possible if they were on the outskirts of Chicago to begin with, but the show never specifies that. For all we know, they were in Minnesota or Nebraska or Oregon... which would have taken weeks (if not months).

* When our three heroes arrive in Chicago, the very first person they talk to happens to be the person they're looking for. While this is technically possible, it's extremely implausible.

* If there's no electrical processes of any kind, then human beings wouldn't be able to exist either. While I'm at it: does lightning not exist? Does static electricity not exist? The only way to explain this is through the presence of what amounts to magic.

* Why does everyone look like they just stepped out of a fashion shoot? Everyone has immaculately coiffed hair, glowing white teeth, no injuries or maladies, freshly pressed / laundered clothing, perfect skin, etc, etc. Very few people in the 19th century looked like that (note: 19th century seems like a rough equivalent to a present day society w/o the benefits of electricity).

* Why would anyone use muskets or black powder rifles? Modern day weapons don't require electricity, and, as of 2007, it's estimated there's around 290+ million firearms in the United States. If we assume there was a massive die-off in the absence of electricity (which there would be), there would be an absolute surfeit of weapons and ammunition. Each person could own several dozen guns along with tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Finding a musket or black powder rifle would be way more challenging than finding several dozen contemporary hunting rifles.

* No steam power? Right. Apparently the denizens of this world have no interest in a viable, non-electric, power source. It doesn't make sense.

* Ruins, ruins everywhere. Modern day houses don't crumble into ruins within 15 years. Want proof? Look at the house you're living in right now. There's a very good chance it's older than 15 years -- and I'm further guessing it's standing tall and proud w/o an undue amount of structural maintenance (if any).

I'd continue, but I think you get the point. I honestly get the impression the writers of this show didn't really think about the consequences and reality of a world w/o electricity. I also feel that, had this show continued, they could have never explained the "no electricity" issues in a logical / plausible manner. I know they would have resorted to some mystical / paranormal angle -- explaining one mystery by invoking another mystery. It's weak and, for me, ultimately unsatisfying.

24 (2001–2010)

Decent espionage/thriller

[6/10 · 24 August 2006]

I'm kinda ambivalent about 24. Some episodes, during some seasons, are entirely watchable and downright entertaining and well written. On the other hand, some episodes are so unbelievable that the show is positively silly. In some sense it's similar to watching a daytime soap opera: you know it sucks (from time to time), but you can't help watching it.

** spoilers to follow **

For me, this show would be absolute gold if it ran 12 to 16 episodes per season. With 24 episodes a season, you can really tell that the writers have to "stretch" it quite a bit. The sheer number of close calls, kidnappings, back stabbings, double-crosses, etc, tends to work against itself as the season progresses. Season 2, for example, the character of Kim Bauer experiences the following mishaps during a 24 hour stint: domestic violence, kidnapping a child, fleeing from the cops, a corpse in her trunk, escape from the police, ensnared by an animal trap, hounded by mountain lions, abducted by a survivalist, shooting at motorists, engaged in a convenience store hold-up, her dad "dies", etc, etc. As silly as it sounds, I would let half of this pass w/o question, but alas.

Also, observant viewers will notice a few "gaffs" in the alleged "real-time" aspect of the show. Occasionally a character will show-up at a location within a time-frame that's not plausible, or even downright contradictory to what the viewer already knows. For example, in season #1, Tony Almeada shows up at Terry Bauer's residence within 4 or 5 minutes of departing. Once he rescues Terri, he informs C.T.U that it will take him "20 minutes" to return to the office. His he taking the scenic route? In season #3, Almeada returns from the hospital to C.T.U. in the space of approximately 3 or 4 minutes. Is the hospital right across the street? This is nitpicking, for sure, but it tends to detract from the believability of the show. Also, as someone who has been working with computers for over 20 years, I find some of the office "techno babble" to be completely laughable.

But, in the end, the show is entertaining to watch -- as long as you're willing to occasionally suspend your disbelief.

6.5/10

The Descent (2005)

Smart Horror

[7/10 · 15 August 2006]

The Descent features a team of British spelunkers exploring a cave system in the Appalachian region of the United States. As you can imagine, the deeper they delve, the more harrowing their situation becomes.

The Descent, unlike most horror movies, features characters that are for the most believable. And, more importantly, they behave in a somewhat rational manner. There's no bimbos checking out "mystery sounds", all alone, clad only in bikinis. It's tough chicks in for the fight of their lives.

The movie does an admirable job of conveying a sense of claustrophobia and urgency in the beginning. To be honest, I thought the lead-up to the "introduction" of the creatures was quite a bit creepier than the creatures themselves. As a matter of fact, once the creatures make their presence known, the movie does tend to devolve into more traditional slasher fare.

But, in the end, it's a decent horror movie with some downright chilling moments. Definitely worth checking out.

7/10

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

Didn't live up to the expectations (for me)

[6/10 · 4 August 2006]

I'm a huge Will Ferrell fan. I've liked (loved?), and laughed at, most of his movies. Talledega Nights, however, just didn't live up to the expectations I had going in. I'm not sure if this a problem with me or the movie itself.

In a nutshell, the movie simply wasn't as funny as I was hoping it to be. I really thought I'd be treated to the same level of hilarity that I found in "The Anchorman" (for example). Sadly, that wasn't the case. While there are certainly some gut busting moments, when viewed as a whole it just wasn't firing on all cylinders (pun intended). There were several stretches of the movie where I found myself barely chuckling, and _almost_ wondering when it was going to be over.

I thought many of the characters, notably Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Mrs. Dennit (Molly Shannon), were under utilized. I also felt like the ad-libbing (if such was the case) simply wasn't gelling as well as it has in previous Ferrell vehicles.

In the end, it's a moderately funny movie (with a few gems), but don't expect anything on the level of "The Anchorman" or "Old School".

I gave it a 6/10.

The Final Comedown (1972)

Kinda confusing and preachy

[5/10 · 29 July 2006]

This movie, as noted above, suffers from being overly preachy and inchoate. There's also a disturbing amount of "dead" footage that should have been left on the editing room floor.

** spoilers ahead ** Anyway, the core of the film revolves around Johnny Johnson's (Billy Dee Williams) desires to "stick to the man". Unfortunately, they never really do an adequate job of convincing the viewer (in my case anyway) that Johnny has it rough enough that he should foment a riot and kill people. Sure, he's passed over for a job that he's qualified for, and he's arrested by the cops for no reason... but other than that, his life seems to be pretty decent. In fact, he spends the majority of one day going to a party, dancing with a hot lady, going out to eat, buying some clothes, then making sweet love to the aforementioned lady. If that's indicative of "the man" keeping you down, then sign me up! The narrative is told via a largely confusing series of flashbacks that don't make a whole lot of sense -- primarily because a character will flashback to incidents/people that they weren't even a party to. For example, Luanna (Pamela Jones) asks Johnny to explain a comment he made during a conversation that she couldn't possibly been privy to. About half-way through the movie I simply stopped trying to make sense of it.

Like most of the movies I comment on, I was hoping this was going to be in the "so good it's bad" category. While it was close, it falls short of true ineptitude... which is my way of saying the movie wasn't that bad (though it wasn't that good either).

Good movie score 5/5. Bad movie score 5/5

Skeleton Man (2004 TV Movie)

One of the best (of the worst)

[8/10 · 5 June 2006]

Bad movies fans rejoice! This movie is flat-out hilariously bad. It has all the hallmarks of a truly awesome bad movie: terrible acting, terrible script, terrible direction, terrible editing, etc. The whole package reeks of glorious ineptitude.

I could write thousands of words in praise of this flick but, alas, I'm only limited to 1k. The premise of the movie is pretty easy to cover, so let's get that out of the way: archaeologists uncover the remains of an American Indian. Indian, referred to as Cotton Mouth Joe (CMJ), _immediately_ returns to the world of the living wearing a very spooky Halloween mask and cape. CMJ proceeds to kill everything in his path, including the majority of a special forces team sent to stop him. CMJ goes head-to-head against Capt. Leary (Micheal Rooker) in the white-knuckle finale. Guess who wins? And now, my favorite part... let's talk about the weak points of the script (SPOILERS to follow -- but I'd suggest it's impossible to spoil this movie).

* The co-ed special forces team sent to stop CMJ contains an "underwater demolitions expert"... but CMJ lives within the heavily forested mountains. Uhhhh.

* CMJ shoots down a helicopter with a bow and arrow (w/o shooting the pilot).

* The action in the movie is supposed to take place "70 kilometers from civilization" and yet our special forces team manages to come across a heavily trafficked road, several power-stations / water treatment facilities, in addition to numerous backpackers, poachers, fishermen, etc.

* Speaking of these "wilderness" power-stations, why do all the employees have automatic weapons?

* Our special forces team manages to load their day-packs with all manner of heavy weapons and ammunition. Even better, our special forces team will routinely, and inexplicably, switch weapons between scenes.

* In a truly hilarious scene, CMJ kills a fisherman who's fishing..... from the edge of a humongous cliff. This dude would have to spool out a hundred yards of line before touching the water.

* For no reason whatsoever the movie continually cuts to this scene of an eagle/hawk that's supposed to be in flight, but it's obviously sitting on some dudes arm. There's no explanation for it at all.

* In a truly priceless segment, we're treated to some of the worst editing of all time. Get this: Sgt. Oberron (Casper Van Dien) discovers a road (in the middle of the woods). Next, we see CMJ hanging out near the road. Then we see, someone, commandeering an 18-wheeler. Quick cut of Sgt. Oberron hanging out in the woods. 18-wheeler careening down the road, presumably to run over CMJ. Cut to Sgt. Oberron hanging out in the woods. 18-wheeler spinning out of control. Cut to Sgt. Oberron hanging out in the woods. 18-wheeler explodes in an apocalyptic ball of fire. Why is this so strange? We learn later that Sgt. Oberron was, in fact, the driver of the 18-wheeler -- even though he's never depicted getting into the vehicle, or even driving the vehicle!! Further, he lives through the explosion and somehow manages to teleport from the road back into the middle of the woods! Too awesome.

This movie is hilariously bewildering. It's like the production team went out into the woods and shot scenes at random, making up the story as they went. Finally: who the heck paid to have this movie made? I really want to know. How could anyone read this script and want to fork over large sums of money to have it made? It's totally insane. You'd have to be legitimately insane to greenlight this movie. I'm glad it was made, because it's hilarious.... but jeez.

That's enough for now. Suffice to say this movie is totally hilarious! Bad movie score 8/10. Good movie score 2/10.

Shakma (1990)

D&D + Wild Baboon = Mediocre Entertainment

[5/10 · 18 January 2005]

This movie was made to answer the question that has plagued humanity for eons. To wit: what happens when you mix a bunch of primatologists, who love dorky role-playing games, with an enraged baboon? The answer is, of course, Shakma.

Shakma isn't a quality bad movie, or a quality good movie (though it's closer to the latter than the former). The production values are fair to good. The acting is decent. The writing is a little suspect, but we'll chock that up to the plot. It has to be difficult to come up with an engaging story that features a feral baboon and a bunch of role-playing primatologists.

Enter our hero, Sam (Christopher Atkins). Sam, along with his ostensible girlfriend Tracy (Amanda Wyss), and their primatologist colleagues, are looking forward to the evenings role-playing game hosted by the avuncular Professor. Sorenson (Roddy McDowell). Professor Sorenson is acting as the "dungeon master", if you will.

As the day comes to a close, everyone is getting pumped-up to get their "role-playing on". The mechanics of "The Game" (as it's referred to constantly throughout the movie) are somewhat inscrutable. The observant viewer will realize that The Game is nothing more than a (poor) device to get our characters to wander, alone, throughout the ominous halls of the research facility.

As the game is in progress, it becomes apparent that Shakma the baboon has escaped his confines -- and butchered some hapless primates in the process. What caused Shakma's rage? Could it be the experiments being conducted on him? Of course it could. From there, the story devolves into a series of encounters with Shakma and some poor role-playing primatologist. As you can imagine, such encounters lead to dead primatologists. Ultimately, it comes down to Sam and Tracy to tackle the hirsute menace of Shakma. Or, to put it bluntly: Sam and Tracy need to outwit a primate. This, of course, they succeed in doing -- after everyone else is dead. One has to wonder why they simply didn't locate a phone and contact the authorities. Granted the movie would have only been 30 minutes long, but that's what any rational human being would do in a similar circumstance.

To its credit, the movie does do a good job of portraying the remarkable power and ferocity of an enraged baboon. There's no computer animation, or puppets here -- just one PO'd baboon.

For bad movie fans -- keep looking. Good movie fans... eh, keep looking as well. If it's a rainy Sunday, and you have absolutely nothing better to do, then Shakma might be worth watching.

Bad Movie Score: 5/10 Good Movie Score: 6/10

No Retreat, No Surrender 2 (1987)

Totally Awesome

[8/10 · 17 January 2005]

With a title like that, you know you're dealing with something special. No Retreat, No Surrender II (NRNS2), is a magical pastiche of poor dialogue, bad acting and frenetic martial arts action. NRNS2 is, verily, one of the ultimate Bad Movies for Bad Movie fans everywhere. On the one hand, the movie is entirely watchable -- due primarily to the entertaining fight and action sequences (very reminiscent of early/mid 80s, Hong Kong produced, kung-fu movies). On the other hand, it's chock full of cringe worthy dialogue -- delivered in the most hilariously stilted manner possible. This is generally the case when you cast martial artists as opposed to actors.

Our story begins with fresh-faced Scott Wylde (Loren Avedon) arriving in Vietnam. For reasons obscure to me and my Bad Movie buddies, Mr. Wylde is obsessed with finding his friend, Mac Jarvis (Max Thayer). Apparently, Mr. Wylde thought the best course of action for finding his friend was to run around Vietnam yelling, "Mac! Mac Jarvis!" Mr. Wylde bumps into Terry (Cynthia Rothrock), who -- as it turns out -- is an ex-girlfriend of Mac. If memory serves correctly, she informs Scott of the present whereabouts of Mr. Jarvis.

At this point, things turn sour for Mr. Wylde. His Vietnamese girlfriend, Sulin (Patra Wanthivanond), is kidnapped by the nefarious Vietcong -- because her father just happens to be a local bigwig. This sets the stage for Scott to rescue his girlfriend, and beat-down a whole mess of Bad Guys in the process.

Mr. Wylde eventually joins forces with cigar (and scenery) chomping Mac Jarvis. Together they make their way to Cambodia (IIRC). As you can imagine, their travels are beset by a host of enraged Vietcong. In addition to the VC, Scott and Mac must administer an Country Ass Whopping' on the local Buddhists (who, unbelievably, favor ropes as their primary weapon of choice).

Sulin, meanwhile, is introduced to her primary captor, Yuri (Matthias Hues) -- a monstrous Russian with an undeniable German accent (Matthias Hues is German). Yuri demonstrates his brutality by summarily executing a couple malcontents. One of them is forced into a large pool teeming with hungry alligators (or is it crocodiles?). Oh, the horror! From here the plot develops in a thoroughly predictable manner -- Scott and Mac hewing their way through jungle and assailant until they reach Yuri's compound. During their journey, they join forces with Terry -- who, for reasons incomprehensible to me, insists on wearing a large yellow sweatshirt over her workout gear. We found the interplay between Scott, Mac and Terry to be eerily similar to Star Wars. Specifically: Mac is Han Solo, Scott is Luke and Terry is Princess Leia. It might sound strange, but watch the movie and tell me I'm not right! Mac and Scott develop a truly bizarre plan to attack the compound. The (hilarious) centerpiece of their attack features M60s being "auto fired" via the aid of several Budweiser cans (that Mac had the foresight to pack through the Vietnamese/Cambodian jungle). Anyway, our heroes launch their attack. The VC come running out of their barracks, into a hail of enfilading M60 fire (featuring empty beer can technology). The VC keep charging, and the M60s keep firing. The end result is a whole mess of dead VC.

Eventually Mac, Scott and Terry encounter Yuri. As you can imagine, a serious kung-fu fest ensues. Ultimately, however, Yuri is bested by the combined might of his three assailants. His demise is, perhaps, the Greatest Bad Movie Death of All Time. Get this: Yuri is dragged, by his neck, in a Jeep being driven by Scott. Scott slingshots Yuri into the pool of alligators. Yuri, not one to be intimidated by enraged reptiles, begins pulling the jeep towards the pool. Scott, sensing his impending doom, leaps from the jeep -- first making sure that the gas tank is full. Yuri then pulls the jeep on top of himself, while being gnawed on by alligators. Scott, for the coup de grace, shoots the gas tank which causes the jeep to explode! Poor Yuri becomes food for worms. This is probably the only movie in cinema history that makes the attempt to explain why a jeep would explode! Normally, any vehicle, in any movie, can explode for any reason whatsoever. We found this particularly amusing since, a half-hour previous to this point, the movie depicted several dozen canvas tents exploding. Were they full of gas as well? Oh well. The end result is totally hilarious and totally awesome. I highly recommend this movie to anyone with a predilection for terrible movies.

Bad Movie Score: 8/10 Good Movie Score: 6/10

Cobra Mission (1986)

Almost there...

[7/10 · 7 January 2005]

Boy, oh boy. This movie came very close to becoming my favorite unintentionally hilarious b-movie ever. The first half was priceless (after a slow start). The 2nd half, however, prevented this movie from enjoying a spot in my Bad Movie Top 10.

What makes the first half of this movie so awesome? Well, to put it bluntly, it's so inept that it's nothing short of (unintentional) comic gold. Basically, we have four Vietnam veterans who become increasingly agitated by the fact that there are known POWs still languishing within prison camps inside of Vietnam. They develop a "plan" to return to Vietnam to rescue the aforementioned POWs. What's insanely amusing about their "plan", is that there really isn't a plan at all. They simply up and leave their families and jobs and fly to Vietnam. Once in 'Nam, they walk around until they bump into someone who has sensitive information concerning the whereabouts of POWs. If this movie is any indication, just about everyone in Vietnam knows sensitive information about POWs and POW camps.

Our stalwart veterans keep bumping into folks with sensitive information, and keep referring to their nonexistent plan. Through a series of nearly incomprehensible, and comical, events, they obtain a large cache of weaponry. Now suitably armed, they begin their trek into the jungle via boat and truck.

From here the movie becomes standard action movie fare. Like most action movies of similar ilk, our heroes display remarkable... nay, supernatural... abilities when it comes to open combat. They never miss, they're never hit, and they have no problem even when grossly outnumbered. The "ambush" segment is priceless: our heroes waiting in the brush, clearly visible to the horde of advancing enemies (who, apparently, thought they were merely approaching foliage eerily shaped like Vietnam veterans armed with M16s). At the decisive moment, one of our heroes yells "Fire!". The end result: 30+ dead assailants, and 4 unscathed Vietnam veterans.

This begins the desultory second half of the movie. From here, our heroes encounter more enemies, refer to their mystery plan, and, ultimately, locate a POW camp -- which they summarily destroy, rescuing all the POWs in the process. In a surprising twist, one of our main characters, Mark (Ethan Wayne), is killed by a jilted Vietnamese woman.

Our heroes, with POWs in tow, begin the process of extracting themselves from Vietnam. As you can imagine, this involves several combats involving imbecilic opponents, and super-human accuracy on the part of our heroes.

Near the very end, our heroes are informed that all their work was for naught -- due to some bizarre political arrangement, the POWs must remain in Vietnam, and know one can know about their existence.

The end.

Bad movie score: 7/10 Good movie score: 5/10.

Caged Heat 3000 (1995)

Really boring

[2/10 · 6 January 2005]

Good lord. This movie is an abysmal mess. Much like other movies of similar caliber (z-grade), I rented this in the hopes that it would be chock full of unintentional hilarity. No such hilarity exists within this film. In fact, it's hard to believe that a movie about a female prison of the future could be so dreadfully boring.

What's this movie about? Good question. I was asking myself the same thing throughout the entire viewing. Unfortunately, the plot has thus far eluded me. It's unnecessarily byzantine, and written by someone who'd be more at home with after school specials. But, as far as I can tell, the story is centered around Kira (Lisa Boyle). I'm not sure why Kira is at the prison, but, within minutes of her arrival she witnesses the rape of a fellow inmate. Kira, for reasons obscure to me, becomes so incensed that she exacts revenge on some gal who, as best I can tell, is somehow tangentially related to the rape and the rapists.

This revenge attack sets off a series of additional attacks: inmate(s) vs. inmate(s), inmate(s) vs. guard(s), inmate(s) vs. administrator(s), guard(s) vs. administrator(s), etc. Maybe I'm stupid, but I could never figure out why, specifically, all this fighting was taking place. More importantly, I could never figure out what this had to do with the plot -- but, as mentioned previously, I had no idea what the plot was to begin with.

Ultimately, this movie is nothing more than a hodgepodge of inane dialogue, fight scenes and nudity. There's also a disturbing amount of rape... or, at least, sexual abuse. This leaves the viewer with an unnecessarily bad taste.

Bad movie highlights? Well, we found it somewhat amusing that the prison inmates enjoy free reign of the compound. They're always walking around unattended, hanging out in large groups, performing menial tasks with equipment that could easily be employed as effective weapons (the "mining" sequences spring to mind). Other than that, it's just boring, boring, boring.

Good movie score: 2/10 Bad movie score: 2/10. In short: not worth watching by any stretch of the imagination.

Uncle Sam (1996 Video)

Bad movie fans: keep looking

[5/10 · 17 December 2004]

Uncle Sam exhibits the same "problem" that I have with many other, ostensibly bad, B-movies: It's not bad enough! For starters, Bill Lustig (the director), believe it or not, knows how to handle a camera. A competent director will never -- or very rarely -- create the kind of movie that I want to watch. How insensitive!

The writing, by Larry Cohen, is a mixed bag. It runs the gamut of "pretty bad" to "surprisingly good" (given the subject matter). The acting is also somewhat decent. Nothing Oscar-worthy, for sure, but there's very few unintentional gags in this department. Again, this is not a good sign for someone in search of a movie made by complete imbeciles.

So... as a result, I'm not going to bother writing an extensive "bad movie" review of a movie that's not too terribly bad (don't get wrong though: it's not that good). I will, however, provide a brief synopsis of the movie:

Sam Harper is shot down by friendly fire over Kuwait during Desert Storm. This pisses off the now-undead-corpse of Sam. Sam is shipped back to the United States. Jody Baker, Sam's nephew, develops an unhealthy obsession w/ Sam. Jody doesn't understand people who are "unpatriotic", or people who just happen to be good-for-nothing hippies. Unfortunately, for the rest of the world, the undead corpse of Sam thinks the same way.

Sam arises from his slumber and begins the laborious process of wiping out any/all unpatriotic nogoodniks he encounters -- which, as you can imagine, is quite a few people.

Ultimately, Jody is convinced by haggard veteran, Jed Crowley (Isaac Hayes), that Sam's behavior is less than stellar. The two team up to kick ass on IL' Sam. The end.

Bad Movie Highlights:

* The opening scene w/ the hyper gravelly voiced U.S. soldier. I don't who this guy is, but he rocks. Because of this scene, and this character, I thought I was going to be in for a treat!

* Sam's corpse 'n' casket languishes in the house of his (ex) wife for several days. Who does this?

* The Blind Kid. Nothing about this character makes a whole lot of sense. For starters, he's confined to a wheel chair and he has horrific burns on one side of his face and body -- from an "accident" involving fireworks. The burns, I can understand, but what kind of firework leaves a kid w/o the use of his legs? As if that wasn't enough, he ALSO has E.S.P. as a result of his disfigurement.

* Jed Crowley, and Jody's mother, nonchalantly leave Jody inside the house with Sam the Killer. Uh....

* When Sam is "blowed up real good" at the end of the movie, we can clearly see the stunt wires pulling him up and away.

Bad Movie Score: 5/10

The Deathhead Virgin (1974)

Spare us nothing...

[5/10 · 13 September 2004]

Another plodding, and ultimately boring, b-movie. There isn't much here for bad movie fans. There's no insane dialogue, directing, acting, etc. The problem with this movie is that it simply does nothing. Norman Foster (the director) spent way too much time filming scenes that have NOTHING to do with the story. They, literally, leave nothing to the imagination in this flick. We see endless amounts of footage of the main characters strolling around town, swimming in the ocean, drinking, eating, sleeping, performing menial tasks, driving, etc. This movie could have been a documentary of two idiotic Americans squandering their lives in the Philippines.

What's the movie about? Well, ostensibly, it's about a "deathhead virgin" who is awakened by our Americans (whilst exploring undersea wreckage). The "deathhead virgin" occasionally surfaces, and occasionally murders some poor sot. In the meantime, our American divers mess around on shore, and make perfunctory dives to the previously mentioned wreckage. That's about it.

Is there anything here for the bad movie fan? Unfortunately, no. Other than the aforementioned tons of useless footage/dialogue, there isn't much to sink your "bad movie teeth" into. Really the only highlight of this film, if you happen to be a heterosexual male, are the incredibly attractive Philippino women. Not enough to carry a bad movie (or a good movie, for that matter).

Bad Movie Score: 5/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10

Termination Man (1998)

Super human B-movie sweetness

[7/10 · 13 September 2004]

Oh boy. This movie is pretty awesome -- as far as unintentionally hilarious B-movies go. Steve Railsback, veteran B-movie actor, dials in his best (read: worst) performance to date.

So, Mr. Railsback plays the character of Dylan Pope -- a decrepit secret agent who has been "enhanced" by the wonders of Modern Technology. Our decrepit super agent can toss around terrorists like they were rag-dolls, he can run 10 miles in as many minutes, and, best of all, he can make passionate love to any woman unlucky enough to be partnered with him.

Bad movie highlights: Even though Dylan Pope has been enhanced with super human powers, he spends a lot of time whining about how tired he is, and what a nuisance it is to walk around. Seriously, this guy can run 10 miles in 10 minutes, and he complains about how tired he is from walking? Priceless.

Even though Dylan Pope is constantly hounded by terrorists, and other malcontents, he always has a poo-eating grin/smirk adorning his face. I honestly don't know what Railsback was thinking concerning his portrayal of this character. He's surrounded, and being shot at by terrorists, and he has this look of, "Golly this is fun stuff!" What!?

Other sweet moments: the number of scenes contrived to get Delilah Shane (played by Athena Massey) topless. The script introduced, IIRC, at least 3 moments in which Delilah would have to change clothes. Our favorite was when the terrorist leader throws a party that featured, among other things, full Victorian regalia. He's a terrorist, living in the Balkans (?), and he feels the urge to throw period piece fete for no reason whatsoever? Again, the whole situation was concocted to get Delilah topless.

And, of course, let's not forget the obligatory sex scene between Pope and Delilah. Imagine if you will: a moonlight meadow, next to an idyllic stream. A thin mist floats in the background, as 52 year old Railsback ponderously lies atop Massey -- their bodies writhing in a vaguely sexual manner. How erotic!

Then there's the showdown between the nefarious terrorists and Dylan Pope. Guess who wins?

Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 4/10

Jack-O (1995)

Unintentional Gold

[7/10 · 13 September 2004]

My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of "bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli", "Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.

So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony "emotionlessness".

The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.

Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.

That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.

Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10

Return of the Evil Dead (1973)

Close, but no cigar...

[6/10 · 13 September 2004]

Can anyone explain to me why Spaniards, Italians and Greeks are seemingly obsessed with creating B-grade horror movies? Between those three countries, there's enough material to keep a b-movie fan entertained (or depressed) for several thousand years.

Anyway, let's jump to the heart of the matter: Is "Return of the Evil Dead" good bad movie fare? Well, sorta. It comes close, but, in the end, it's too plodding and not insanely stupid enough to qualify as a "must see" bad movie. Now don't get me wrong, the movie is bad, and it has its "bad movie" moments -- it's just not quite bad enough.

Before I detail the bad movie highlights of this flick, I should probably give an overview of the plot. So, without further ado: There's a small village somewhere in Spain. For some reason, this particular village is having some sort of festival. I'm not sure what the festival is for/about, but it does feature a multi-million dollar fireworks display. Seriously, they keep cutting back to the fireworks for a good hour of the movie. How does a small village in the Spanish countryside afford such grandiose entertainment? We'll never know.

Apparently there was a sect of Templars that used to frequent the area -- hundreds of years in the past. The Templars, back in the day, were smote by enraged villagers. Unfortunately, the Templars "cursed" the area/villagers -- they would return every X number of years to slaughter the innocent, and mildly scare others.

As (bad) luck would have it, the Templars decided to return to the Land of the Living on the night of the magical festival. Uh oh!

So, basically, here's what happens. The Templars rise up from their graves.

They're clad in long, dark robes, and they wield swords. Apparently they were also buried with horses, because they spend an inordinate amount of time riding around the countryside in slow-mo (with pulsating synth music in the background).

The festival is in full swing when the Templars arrive - uh oh! They begin butchering hundreds of hapless villagers. Meanwhile, our main characters are "trapped" in a manse overlooking the carnage. What's totally hilarious is that our main characters watch the wanton slaughter below with mild indifference. They spend their time smoking cigarettes and idly conversing about situations that are, for the most part, irrelevant (to both the plot and the massacre taking place 50 ft. away).

After the undead Templars finish decimating the denizens of the courtyard, they begin a ponderous house-to-house search. These scenes are priceless. The Templars shamble up to your door, and then politely knock. They keep knocking, while the other Templars simply mill about. If you're inside, how do you handle this situation? If this movie is any indication, you just casually smoke cigarettes and talk about how scary it is to have undead Templars knocking on your front door -- all the while evoking zero sense of actually being scared. Occasionally, you'll make a half-hearted attempt to escape... but after being thwarted, you shrug, and return to smoking cigarettes.

There are a handful of scenes in which our main characters attempt to escape from the manse they're trapped in. These scenes are awesome. The undead Templars move at a max speed of about .25 miles an hour. You could crawl away from these things if you wanted to. But, of course, our main characters have a bizarre predilection for backing themselves into corners, looking scared, and waiting for the Templars to surround them.

That's enough for now.

Bad Movie Score: 6/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10

Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993 Video)

Mediocre

[5/10 · 26 August 2004]

As with most movies of this type (i.e. B-grade horror), my hope is to find one that is unintentionally hilarious, every step of the way. One that promotes constant riffing from me and my friends. Picking a good "bad movie" appears to be more difficult than picking a good "good" movie (if that makes any sense). Unfortunately, "Bloodstone: Subspecies II" [B:S2] is neither bad enough to be good, nor good enough to be good.

This might sound weird, but B:S2 was written, directed and acted by folks with a modicum of intelligence. I will also begrudgingly admit there's a small degree of artistic talent exhibited as well. The best bad movies are made by people who have no business making movies (for an example of what I'm talking about, rent "Troll 2" or "The Keeper of Time" -- those movies are priceless. Nay, they're National Treasures).

Don't get me wrong, this movie is bad. But it's not bad enough. The brand of "bad" portrayed in this movie is the slow, plodding, monotonous variety -- not the "insanely stupid bad" that I crave. It's for the same reasons that it's not "good" either. The pacing is too slow for a B-grade horror (IMO). It starts on a strong note, and then slowly dwindles into nothingness -- until its brief resurrection near the very end. I believe this came about due to Mr. Nicolaou's attempt at "creepy/moody atmospherics". There's very limited dialogue, and what little there is makes no attempt at driving the story.

Most of the movie centers around Michelle Morgan (Denice Duff) shambling around Bucharest looking scared and sedated. I also got the strong impression that Mr. Nicolaou wanted to make the most of his "on location" shoot, by shoe-horning every piece of gothic architecture he could find into the movie. Another thing we found weird was the "Bloodstone" itself. Ostensibly it's the centerpiece of the story, even though they never mention, or discuss it, for a good 2/3rds of the movie. Huh? Apparently the Bloodstone can dispense the "blood of the saints" for a vampire to suckle on. Okay, so what? They never really describe why it's so important to Radu. Does it make him into a super vampire? No. Does it give him extra powers? No. What the heck does it do?

I've wasted enough time discussing this.

Good movie score: 5/10. Bad movie score: 6/10. In short: mediocre... no matter how you look at it.

The Station Agent (2003)

A little slow, but very well done

[7/10 · 19 August 2004]

This movie is, more than anything, a character study. There isn't much plot, per se, but it's definitely interesting viewing. There were a few moments in the film where it *almost* became too plodding/ponderous, but thankfully it never crossed the line. The character of Joe Oramas (played by Bobby Cannavale) provided timely moments of levity when the story was beginning to drag. The acting and directing were both very good.

All in all, a very entertaining movie. This line is to pad my line count.

I gave it a 7/10.

The Keeper of Time (2004 Video)

Great bad movie fare

[8/10 · 30 June 2004]

This movie rules -- but not in the way most of you would think. It rules because it's extremely bad. If you're a fan of bad movies (I'm a self-styled connoisseur), you have to wrap your sweaty hands around this gem. It ranks right up there with such classics as Termination Man, Troll II, Deathstalker III, etc. For those of you who have no patience for bad movies, or actually enjoy mediocre Hollywood pap such as Van Helsing, Pearl Harbor, etc, do not rent/buy this movie -- it won't appeal to your pedestrian tastes.

** spoilers **

This movie is about a young boy, who sports the unimaginative sobriquet of "Tim" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail flashbacks). Tim, as it turns out, is the last "Keeper of Time". If Tim dies, so does all that is good and great -- and, of course, the powers of "evil" will reign for the next 500 years.

Enter the bumbling "Bad Wizard" (forget the character name). The Bad Wizard orders a series of attacks against Tim... each one more comical than the last. Thankfully, Tim is befriended by Bullrock (Micheal O'Hearn) and Udo. Bullrock spends the majority of the film showcasing his pectorals, and, occasionally, performing masturbatory combat exercises with his sword. He's also primarily responsible for dispatching the hordes of "target dummies" sent to destroy them. Udo, on the other hand, seems content to spout nonsensical "wizard talk" and "deep philosophy". Other than that, he doesn't really do much of anything.

At some point, the "Bad Wizard" convinces one of his underlings ("Token Hot Chick") to infiltrate this unlikely band of heroes. Needless to say, Bullrock is instantly smitten with Token Hot Chick. They begin professing their undying love for each other -- the day after they meet.

Token Hot Chick's ruse is uncovered near the end of the movie. Someone kills her (Bullrock?). Tim and the "Bad Wizard" go head-to-head for control of the planet. I'll give you one guess as to who won.

Good movie rating: 3/10. Bad movie rating: 8/10.