Reviews

*This review contains some plot SPOILERS

Sometimes, you just have to wonder why a movie gets made. In the 80's, there were a lot of cheap action movies that were hurriedly produced to cash in on the VHS craze when the new video rental outlets were starving for titles to put on their shelves. But when the 90's came around, the demand was waning. A cheap action movie with an even cheaper title (a very common trait…just slap some title on there that sounds tough) like Sudden Thunder doesn't seem like it should exist. And it REALLY should NOT exist.

In a small hick town, the local sheriff is driving along the road one day when a gang of local thugs runs him off the road, slathers him in gasoline, and blow him to bits. His daughter Patricia (Andrea Lamatsch) is a Miami cop and immediately goes to the town to find out what happened. Everyone is tight-lipped to her questions. She reports this to her Miami cop buddies and tells them to stay put because she will handle this. Her cop buddies immediately ignore this command and head over to the small town to help out. Good thing, too, since, as soon as Patricia goes to the scene of the crime, she is jumped by the thugs who attempt to rape and murder her. She is left for dead but is rescued by old family friend Jake (Ernie Santana) who nurses her back to health and acts as eyes and ears in town, reporting back information to her when her friends show up and are instantly pegged as troublemakers by the local law. The Miami cops are framed for murder and end up hiding out with Patricia and Jake while they try to figure out how to clear their name. They realize they have to first learn why there are shady dealings going on, and soon discover that the mayor is in cahoots with a Miami drug lord.

I imagine this woeful plot is enough to have caused most of you to quit reading and move on to something better to do with your time. For those still left, perhaps you're thinking, "This doesn't sound so bad." Well, you are wrong. Where to begin? For starters, you have ineptitude behind the camera. The pacing is unbelievably slow, with scene after scene just lurching along. Besides a few lame fight scenes and stand-offs, the "action" doesn't' take place until the movie has been on for an hour. And when you do finally get it, there is no flare whatsoever. The entire last half hour is one long, never-ending gunfight, not stopping until the very last second with what is possibly the most abrupt ending I have ever seen. You also have ineptitude in post-production. More than once, the largely inappropriate background music (listen to the melancholy music in the bar --- you won't believe your eardrums) is so loud that it drowns out anything the characters are saying. It's a totally unforgivable mistake. On the other hand, if the whole movie had been drowned in lousy music, it would have been a saving grace, because the dialogue is utterly hopeless. And, even if it wasn't, the ineptitude in front of the camera would demolish it. Every single character delivers his or her lines with excruciating pauses between sentences. And when one character talks after another, the pause is unbearable. Not that you want them to unpause, as the personality-less actors give no gusto to their line reading whatsoever. The new sheriff, who looks like the love child of John Carradine and Clint Eastwood, speaks through pursed lips. Lamatsch is about as vapid as they come. She speaks with a heavy French accent, something which demands an explanation as she was supposed to have grown up in the small hick town. This is an explanation that we are never given. She is very hard to understand but you can eventually figure out what she says because the dialogue is so routine that deducing her lines is a piece of cake. One might wonder why they cast her until you realize she is gives the best performance in the entire group. And considering how lousy she is, that is really saying something for the rest of the cast.

I just now realized another thing the title could describe: an unexpected fart in an elevator from the person standing next to you. This seems an appropriate comparison to this film. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.

Life is too short to waste on awful movies. However, I also have too much time to kill, so that's how I end up spending my life. And what a waste of time "Jurassic Women" was! It seems to have been made for cable TV, though I can't for the life of me figure out what channel could have possibly aired it. Written and produced by legendary bad filmmaker David Heavener, the best thing I can say about it is thank goodness Heavener wasn't actually IN the movie.

Astronauts Cody Sinclair (Jonathan Vakeen) and David Clayton (James Phillips) are traveling through the solar system when they enter a wormhole that takes them to another galaxy. They awaken on the surface of a dense, woodsy planet and are immediately captured by a group of ignorant male savages with a knack for martial arts. No sooner are they captives than a group of intelligent women fend off the savages and rescue the astronauts. They take the astronauts to their village to meet the tribe leader and mother (Grace Renn) of the most chatty of the women that rescued them (Lisa Nelson, called Kaboo by the mother but Sandra in the cast listing). The mother looks to be about the same age as the other women, which the Sinclair later deduces to be because of their healthy diet. Upon talking with the tribe leader, they learn a rather vague history of why the women can speak. Many years ago, the tribe received a female visitor from Earth that taught them many things. This teaching was mainly accomplished by bestowing on them the "Book of Knowledge" and the "Gift of Happiness". Apparently, the visitor then left. The male tribe, at some point, obtained the Book of Knowledge, saw some pictures of fighting in it, and instantly learned martial arts. The two tribes, consisting of about a dozen people each, live separately from each other, the women in gentle peacefulness and the men in primitive foolishness. It's never made clear when or why the two genders split apart but neither group seems to understand procreation or how life works. Sinclair is a gentleman, quickly falling in love with Kaboo and getting along just fine with the tribe, while Clayton is a typical male chauvinist that is instantly interested in bedding the women and gets frustrated by their rejection o him. When the male tribe kidnaps a woman and Clayton, out of jealousy, sides with the other men (he suddenly and unexpectedly pulls out a revolver at this point, and one wonders why he waited so long to reveal it and why he had it in the first place), Sinclair seeks out the wisdom of an isolated male (Jan- Michael Vincent) to point the way to where to find the male's camp.

Don't think for a second that the sole intriguing thing about the movie, the mysterious "visitor" for long ago, is ever revealed. She isn't. We learn absolutely nothing about her. But we do find out what the things she left for the tribe are: The Book of Life is one thin volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Gift of Happiness is a toy doll. For me, this produced one big burst of laughter---which is the only real value for this movie. It's so bad it's hysterical. The acting by the two leads is incredibly awful. It's no wonder that this is the only credit Jonathan Vakeen ever had. I recognized James Phillips from "Badlanders" which was made a few years earlier and was barely better than this. I feel sorry for Jan-Michael Vincent. He is far better than this material. At first, I was wondering how in the world the filmmakers managed to find the funding to make this movie, but then I realized that they didn't really have to spend much on it at all. The beginning space scenes are all stock footage---some of which I remember seeing in the M/A/R/R/S "Pump Up the Volume" music video from 1988. Besides the opening scene on the spaceship, there are no sets, since it all takes place in the forest. The astronauts' spacesuits look like jumpsuits you'd see auto mechanics wearing. And there really are no props. Which then leaves one to wonder why they bothered making such a movie? That is a mystery I am unable to answer for you. The only thing positive I can say about it is that it is harmless. So, unless you are a Jan-Michael Vincent completionist or absolutely HAVE to see every movie containing people in loincloths, steer clear of this one. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.

NOTE: This review has SPOILERS

The 'sword & sorcery' genre had been around for many years, but it was 1982's 'Conan the Barbarian' that really gave the genre another big push, sparking all sorts of imitators, some good but most bad. By 1989, the revival was pretty much dead, with late stragglers like 'Time Barbarians' and 'Barbarian Queen II' embarrassing themselves upon entry. That said, there's something about the genre that has an appeal no matter how generic the product might be. Maybe it's the uniqueness of the time frame and setting, allowing for escapism from the modern times, or maybe it's the ability to have at its disposal all sorts of interesting ways to move a story thanks to elements of fantasy, adventure, and magic. That's why I watched 'Avalon', since I am a sucker for such things. I could not have prepared myself for what it would actually turn out to be.

The movie starts with what any red-blooded American (or, in this case, British) sword & sorcery flick would start with: a virgin sacrifice by druids! (Note to self: Avoid druids at all costs!) Along comes our muscular main hero, Owen (Stephen Harris), who frees a captured thief and the damsel in distress from the druids in a very laughable fight scene, resulting in the trio fleeing to the shoreline. That's where we learn about them: Owen is a warrior from a distant land that is searching for the mysterious island of Avalon, said to be a limbo for dead souls and ruled by an enchantress named Morgana (Debbi Stevens). Legend has it that the corpse of King Arthur had been taken there to rest "until the world needs him again". We learn MUCH later that this means if the sword Excalibur is placed in the dead King Arthur's hands his ghost will wipe out all the magic in the world. The rescued woman is Clotilde (Abigail Blackmore), who is also seeking Avalon as her beloved Edwin went there to also find King Arthur and never returned. The thief is named Keiran (Rob Bartlett), and he decides to tag along in the quest because he's got nothing better to do, and to get his hands on the treasures of Avalon. While chatting on the beach, they are overheard by none other than Merlin the Magician, who offers to help them in their journey. At first it was hard to tell what was wrong with Merlin when I first laid eyes on him. It seemed like a bad makeup job, but then I realized that the actor (Patrick Olliver) was wearing a bad old man mask, hence why his mouth was not moving when he spoke and it appeared he had no eyeballs. Using his magic, Merlin turns himself into a strapping young man. He later says he can only hold this form for a short time, but he doesn't actually switch back until the end of the movie, which is the first of many signs that Merlin is just full of it. Owen spies a boat on the shore and suggests taking it to the island, but Merlin uses magic to make the boat vanish, claiming it is a trap set by Morgana to lure them to the island (which makes no sense . . . after all, the DO want to go to the island!). Merlin instead suggests that they SWIM to the faraway island.

Once there, Merlin departs, saying he has something he has to do. That something is to visit the Lady of the Lake to retrieve Excalibur. Merlin and the Lady were once a romantic item, and Merlin sleeps with her before continuing on his quest, obviously feeling no need of urgency in the matter. The Lady of the Lake says that Merlin may have the sword provided he returns it and he himself must remain with her forever, spoken like it was some awful final destination. I think any elderly man would be ecstatic for such an eternity. While Merlin is fooling around, Morgana's minions quickly capture Clotilde and make her a mindless slave. Owen and Keiran plan on rescuing her by entering a fighting tournament Morgana just happens to be holding. This leads to scenes of Morgana and her female apprentices trying to seduce our heroes in between fights. Merlin eventually shows up, inserts himself into the tournament, and uses magic to instantly cheat his way through. This leads to more scenes of the heroes, this time Merlin included, getting seduced before some more chicanery involving sword fighting, lame magic, and an absolutely silly climax.

There is a lot more absurdity going on than I am willing to divulge. While my heart goes out to the filmmakers that were really trying with their $75 budget, I can't help but call a spade a spade. This is a movie to sit down with friends so you can point and laugh at it. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10

"Hawks and Doves" was the first Roland and Rattfink short released by David H. DePattie and Friz Freleng, though it was most likely the second one produced. The concept of Roland, a goodie two-shoes that is too nice for his own good, and Rattfink, a low-down dirty scoundrel whose greed always backfired on him, squaring off in various settings, usually circa 1901, is a great idea. Sometimes, though, the execution wasn't always as good, which I believe has led to the duo being one of the most obscure of the Pink Panther offshoots. This short has Doveland resident and pacifist Roland being forced into war with Hawkland's war mongering Rattfink, with the two doing battle in their biplanes.

This is a good introduction to the two characters, though it sadly does not do them enough justice. I think if there hadn't been so much time devoted to the set-up of the two going making and going off to war, there would have been more time for the amusing scenes up in the skies. The pacing is certainly good when those sky scenes are happening, and the ending is very funny, concerning the taxman taking the spoils of war from the victor and using it as rehabilitation aid for the loser, which was no doubt a criticism over real-life war situations which certainly make little sense to the layperson on side of the victor. The duo would get better, but they would also get worse. Zantara's score: 7 out of 10.

A security guard (George DiCenzo) sees a woman that he immediately recognizes as the terrorist that imprisoned and tortured him ten years earlier when he was working as a U.S. agricultural agent in the Middle East. Still reliving the horrible torture, he flips out and kidnaps her, locking her in his basement with plans to deliver the same treatment that she gave him. But he can't bring himself to do those same acts of violence.

With virtually no budget to speak of, it is amazing that this movie turned out so good, but the powerful messages, expert direction, and strong cast make for a truly harrowing experience. George DiCenzo, usually a great character actor, really gets a to do a fine job in a lead performance. I was lucky enough to catch this film on a local TV station about ten years ago. With all sorts of things seeing the light of day, and with all the political unrest that has occurred regarding terrorism since then, I hope this movie sees a DVD release sometime soon. Zantara's score: 10 out of 10.

I can't believe it has been ten years since I watched and reviewed "Beyond Fear," my first viewing of a film starring professional wrestler-turned actress Mimi Lesseos. Lesseos was a wrestler for the great, now defunct LPWA. Obviously always yearning to be a leading lady, she started her own production companies and starred in a string of action-oriented movies. A few months ago, I finally got to see the rest of her starring vehicles (I had already seen the disappointing "American Angels") after a decade of waiting. The wait was not worth it, sadly. "Pushed to the Limit" was incredibly standard and poorly written, while "Streets of Rage" was entertaining but poorly directed. Now I have sat through "Personal Vendetta", and this was nothing like I was expecting.

I thought this was going to be another attempt at an action thriller, but it was really a dramatic piece. That would be just fine, but it suffers from the same things Lesseos's other films are plagued by: low production quality, poor direction and writing, and much boredom. This saddens me, since I went into every single one of these films with an open mind. Anyhow, the plot has Lesseos playing wife to shady businessman Timothy Bottoms(!) who gets mad at her following a dinner party and gives her a severe beating. The police show up, something they say they are used to doing at this address, and Lesseos finally agrees to press charges. Lesseos winds up in the hospital and Bottoms winds up in jail. While recovering, one of the cops, Bill (Bill Douglas) befriends her because he feels sorry for her and Lesseos is encouraged to beat her fears and become a cop herself. While training at the academy, she moves in with Jackie (Lisa Marie Hayes), and old friend who is a bit plump, which the film likes to constantly remind us of by having Jackie complain about it and always be on screen eating. Slowly, Lesseos goes from timid cadet to the top of her class, and she is assigned experienced officer John (Mark Wilson) to be her hot partner. As Lesseos gets into her new trade and starts feeling attracted to her new partner, she still can't get the thought of Bottoms out of her head. She's consoled by Bill, Jackie, and John, and any smart viewer knows that Bottoms will eventually get released and remove one of these pals from the picture. What's stunning is that this important plot point doesn't actually happen until the movie has about twenty minutes left to go, which is far too late for it to arrive and relieve our boredom. And when it does happen, it's a rushed and silly mess.

That said, the performances are all okay. Bottoms is the standout, as he portrays the crazy husband completely over-the-top. The best scene in the movie is when Lesseos goes to pay Bottoms a visit in prison to announce she is divorcing him, leading to a stunning rant by Bottoms with plenty of spitting. More scenes like this would have helped, but would not have guaranteed success with the paper-thin plot. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10.

Thus so ends the acting days, other than stunt work, of Mimi Lesseos . . . or at least it did until 2009, when she must have saved up enough money to return in a movie I have not found called "Double Duty". Will it be good? Well, her co-star is none other than Tom Sizemore! I will not be holding my breath.

It's hard for me to believe, but, after nearly six years, I am writing another review of a movie from David A. Prior, starring his brother, Ted! Back in 2004, I speculated he had quit making films, but then I found out about Zombie Wars and Lost At War and I just had to see them to complete my Prior viewing (though I still haven't seen Hostile Environment). Eight years after Prior's last film, he came out of nowhere to make these little films. If you are not familiar with the films of the Prior Brothers, they made a lot of direct-to-video films in the late 80's and early 90's during the big VCR boom for a company called AIP (American International Pictures). I wonder if Prior cooled off because the VCR boom had ended and the market was saturated with tons of titles, and now that the same market (that being video rental stores) is crashing, a new market (Internet rental sites like Netflix) are demanding more and more titles, giving Prior a chance to return? There are plenty of reviews on Zombie Wars, and most of them are negative. I assume that this is because those viewing it don't appreciate certain aspects of low budget film-making and are also judging it in an environment that is already saturated by numerous, repetitive zombie movies. I enjoyed Zombie Wars, finding it entertaining and better than some of the cheesy louses I have seen in years past. I wasn't expecting to like it, but I did. Similarly, I didn't get what I was expecting with Lost At War, either.

During a war (presumably one in the Middle East), Captain Briggs (Ted Prior) is in command of four soldiers: Turner (Jack Vogel), Falkner (Jim Marlow), McCune (Adam Stuart), and Smith (James Brinkley). Briggs is assigned one last reconnaissance mission before he is allowed to return home to his family, and he and his men hit the woodlands for their mission. But something strange happens when they pass through a bamboo tunnel. They reach their rendezvous point, another base camp, and find the place deserted. Furthermore, strange beings in black are present, circling the five men but never actually attacking them. Briggs gets orders from his commanding officer that they are to wait at this base camp until help arrives, and the soldiers quickly get into conversation, leading them to start yearning for good food. Then, magically, they start to get whatever it is they are wishing for. It seems too good to be true, and Turner begins speculating the various supernatural possibilities that may be occurring. Eventually, each soldier has a flashback concerning incidents back home. As each flashback happens, we see that they are somehow interrelated. Also, when a soldier has a flashback, a realization comes to him, and he departs into the woods and vanishes.

Prior has mixed unusual elements into his action movies before, and it often works great. I refer to films such as Night Wars and Lock 'n' Load. This film is odd in that it isn't really any genre. I mean, you think it is an action movie, but most of the action is done in the first ten minutes. Then it switches to a Twilight Zone-esquire story which was more cerebral than anything else. For me, I enjoyed what was unfolding and I liked the performances and the dialogue. Marlow and Stuart were in both this and Zombie Wars, and they each have a nice screen presence, as does Brinkley. Of course, Ted Prior and Jack Vogel are old regulars with David A. Prior, and it was great seeing them again. I particularly liked the conversation about destiny and choices that the two actors had later in the movie. And I liked the build up to the ending. The ending itself is another matter. MAJOR SPOILERS COMING!!!!!!! The ending of the movie is either so deep I can't muster the brain power to comprehend it (which I don't think is the case) or is simultaneously clever and flawed. Turner draws the conclusion that they entered some sort of Purgatory and, when they are ready, they will cross over to the other side. Briggs, however, refuses to accept this fate because he is not ready to die. The film's final three seconds seem to indicate that this means the soldiers ALL have to go through the entire ordeal again until each accept his demise. Since they must forget the fact that they have done this over and over, won't Briggs make the same refusal every time? This also calls to my attention the flashbacks, of which I won't delve into. There is no way that it could be a coincidence that all five of these guys with the past link joined the army and got assigned to the same troop two years later. That means either: 1. The flashback is a lie, meant only to serve as a lesson, or 2. The war itself a lie, and some unknown force placed these guys in this strange simulation after they all died for some bizarre reason. Don't bother wasting your time like I did trying to figure it all out because I don't think there is a way to add two and two here. It's as if Prior overshot the mental limits his idea could withstand. You just have to take it all in and accept the ending as a serious misstep in an otherwise entertaining story. END OF MAJOR SPOILERS.

You can't go into this film with expectations. If you expect a war movie like Prior used to make for AIP (and you shouldn't want that since his straight war movies were his worst) you won't get it. If you yearn for a nail-biting suspense movie, you won't get that either. Still, for me it was exciting to see David A. Prior making a nice little film once again.Keep 'em coming, Mr. Prior. I'll keep watching. Zantara's score: 7 out of 10.

Okay, so I decide to punish myself one day and rent a movie I had never heard of starring no one I have ever heard of, right? That's a normal response for a masochist in all of us, isn't it? It's something every one of us does, right? Right???? Okay, fine. I guess I am the only one who does stuff like that. Anyway, I stumble across a film called "Trident Force" at the video store. Having no David A. Prior war movies to watch and nothing better to do, I decide to rent it. I am not usually fond of the war genre, but I figure it can't be all that bad. I mean, I have suffered through some really bad things before and I can take it. But how wrong I was. How very, very wrong.

The movie starts out in an unnamed, war-torn country somewhere in Southeast Asia. A female reporter is visiting a military camp of the non-evil side and given a bodyguard, who ends up being the hero of the film. Since I really couldn't be bothered with learning the characters' names, I'll just call him Hero (for the record, Hero is named Rashid). While Hero and Reporter are outside of the camp, they spot the enemy army hiding behind a sand dune, ready to strike. They do and we get a very, very long battle scene on the world's largest beach between the good guy army in white against the bad guy army in black. To their credit, the filmmakers do a good job with this battle. The main problem is that we don't care. We know nothing about these armies, or even the background of Hero, so it doesn't matter to us who wins. After many die, the evil army retreats, licking their wounds and the good army celebrates. Next we go to Moscow where we meet out villain, currently enjoying the violation of a teenage boy. Villain is interrupted by Head Henchman, who informs him of the bad news concerning the battle. Then we are suddenly in Mongolia, where Villain and Head Henchman meet with a female clad in black leather. She's given her orders, and silently she hops on a motorcycle for a long drive to a public shopping center where she will commit a suicide bombing. That's when something phenomenally unbelievable happens. What is this amazing thing? This thing that shocked my system? It's the opening credits. Why is this so astounding? Because the opening credits happen a full TWENTY MINUTES into the movie! By that point, I had forgotten about not seeing them, but when they appeared I checked my VCR timer and, sure enough, the first three scenes lasted over twenty minutes.

But really the beginning credits could have went on until the end credits and the rest of the movie would have been tolerable. Instead, we are treated to an hour and ten minutes of puerile cinematic flatulence. The British government decides that taking out Villain once and for all should be the number one priority. But, they reason, getting at him is going to be difficult so they have to assemble a big group of commandos to fight through Villain's men. I'd like to point out that this seems very stupid because they already have a man inside Villain's organization. He's Hero's Brother, and he has already ascended to third-in-command, so why couldn't they just have asked Hero's Brother to do the job? Or just air raid the compound since it is no secret where Villain is at. I'll answer my own question: Then there wouldn't be a Trident Force! Oh no! The British government decides to send Hero and a bunch of other soldiers to a training camp (I think it was supposed to be in Canada, if I was following it correctly) where they can prepare to defeat Villain. Trident Force is composed of a whole bunch of diverse people from around the world, all with the usual stereotypes you'd expect they would have, and its so annoying that you become embarrassed to be watching the movie. Worst of all is the obnoxious Australian, who is one of the camp's trainers. He does every dirty trick in the book to try and make Hero fail and not be accepted in the group, but in the end he suddenly insists to join the group and they just go ahead and let him. I couldn't believe my endurance at that point because here is the movie's nadir. We wait . . .and wait . . . and wait . . . and wait for the training to end. Meanwhile Hero's Brother is found out and killed by Villain, giving motivation for Trident Force to storm the camp and me motivation to shut the movie off on a high note. But I kept watching until the end, hoping to be surprised but knowing I wouldn't be. And I wasn't. The acting is pretty bad, especially by Reporter and Australian Bully. Beyond the first twenty minutes, the action is bad, as the so called climax is a bore and not worth the massive amount of time spent at the training camp. The writing is the biggest bane: Not only is it rudimentary and boring, but characters seem to jaunt from country to country and back again with no explanation.

With the immense popularity of the DVD revolution overwhelming the few of us remaining with rusty VCRs, the few copies of "Trident Force" still existing won't be around for much longer. This is a rare case where that is a good thing. Well, except for us masochists out there. What's going to happen to us when VHS is no more? I know what I'll be doing: Trying to erase the memory of this movie from my mind but being unable to because I'll have nothing else to torture myself with. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.

(This review has some minor plot spoilers, but nothing much)

I heard about this movie years ago. Having seen and absolutely loving the horror film 'Popcorn,' I was very interested to see a movie starring Tom Villard that was a sci-fi comedy. But the movie was nowhere to be found. Years later, I bought the film online and have finally watched it. Was it worth the wait? Was it as good as I hoped it would be? No. It wasn't a bad movie, either. It's a curiosity to anyone that might find the premise neat.

Villard plays Dick Kendred, a frustrated science fiction writer. He has taken his most recent book to various publishers with the same result: No deal. In fact, his most recent attempt found publisher Jack Carter telling him that his work was too serious and missing the aspect science fiction writers crave: scantily-clad women. (I'd like to give filmmakers a brief note: If you are going to cast comedian Jack Carter in your movie, don't waste him on one brief scene and not have him deliver at least one joke, like in 1998's 'The Modern Adventures of Tom Sawyer'). Confused, Dick goes home to console with his girlfriend Susan Dey. However, he doesn't get much help here, since Dey is too focused on her job. In hopes of creating something better, Villard decides to find a room to rent where he can be alone and at peace. Dey gets him a room in the home of her friend Sheila and Sheila's daughter Haley. But the two women prove to be the worst distractions of all, constantly hitting on him behind each others' backs.

Does this sound like a funny situation comedy? Sadly, it is not. The biggest problem is that Dick doesn't do what he should to make this funny, and that is resist the two women. He too easily gives in to their advances and forgets Dey exists, which makes us unsympathetic to his struggles and wish the movie to end. When the movie does end, you are left half depressed at the whole situation. Really, if he would have not so easily have given in to infidelity I would love this film. There is one really big highlight, though. Between Dick's women issues and occasional hallucinations (which aren't clever enough to be amusing), we are treated to visual glimpses of Dick's current science fiction book. These segments follow the book's hero, David Clennon, as he roams a strange desert planet and must tackle obstacles like little alien parasites and evil alien vixens. One wishes that the bulk of the movie would follow Clennon and only occasionally revisit Dick and his writer's cramp.

Tom Villard died in 1994, so we'll never know just what he could have accomplished. I'll always have the wonderful 'Popcorn' to enjoy and the distant memory of this should-have-been-great comedy to remember him by. Zantara's score: 6 out of 10.

Minor plot Spoilers within.

I have been recently gathering as many Brion James movies as I can just so I can watch as many movies that he was in as possible. 'Killing at Hell's Gate' was one of these titles. I had heard a little about it, that it was a lot like 'Deliverance' but not as good. That statement is true. The movie seems very similar to the 1972 film, about a river trip that gets terrorized by the crazed locals hicks. This time it involves politicians and lumberjacks. A congressman (Joel Higgins) decides to visit a small woodcutting town on his campaign trail and asks another politician (Robert Urich), once a sports hero that resided from this small town, to accompany him. Thanks in part to the congressman signing a bill protecting wildlife, the local mill is closing down and most of the town's lumberjacks are out of a job. The congressman, in an attempt to settle the hostile feelings, decides to do some grassroots politicking by accompanying his colleague on a rafting trip. Halfway through, three very unhappy and now unemployed lumberjacks (George DiCenzo, Brion James, Mitch Carter) come across the group of rafters and start shooting. They accidentally kill one of the five people rafting and conclude that they will have to kill them all to keep it quite.

This film was originally made for television. Had it not been for the fade outs for commercial breaks, I wouldn't have noticed this fact. The locations are gorgeous and the camera-work is terrific, like in 'Deliverance.' The film spends a lot of time setting things up, but when the, pardon the pun, deliverance occurs, it feels very rapid. As soon as the lumberjacks start shooting, it feels like the film gets the Hurry Up Machine treatment. There is a wonderfully suspenseful scene with Robert Urich on a dilapidated bridge, but after that his confrontation of the shooters is disappointing. It's still a good movie, but a better movie (aside from 'Deliverance') that is along the same lines is 'Southern Comfort,' which came out the same year. Ironically, Brion James is in that one as a local hick, and he's much better in that film than this one, too. Zantara's score: 6 out of 10.

Some Spoilers are here, but nothing serious.

During my time-honored quest to see every movie David A. Prior was involved with, I stumbled across this science fiction film that Prior wrote but did not direct. The other time he wrote a script but did not direct it was with `Born Killer,' which I enjoyed due to brother Ted Prior's comical yet creepy portrayal of a psycho. I figured buying this film would be as fun as that one was. Needless to say, my return on investment was not up to snuff.

Somewhere in the backwoods of Alabama, an alien craft has crashed on the planet. It carried a killer cyborg, the P.A.C.K. (Prefabricated Animalistic Cybernetic Killer). It gets out of its holding and immediately starts annihilating everyone it sees, starting with a curious bunch of bikers (including Prior favorite Douglas Harter). The next morning, the remains of the gang are discovered and hard-nosed sheriff Red West is beside himself. Some special agents, led by Sandahl Bergman, also come to town to find out what entered Earth's atmosphere. Also hot on the heels of the P.A.C.K. is an alien in the form of Ted Prior. Prior later explains to Bergman that the P.A.C.K. is a war machine that was damaged and accidentally escaped to Earth. If it is not disabled in a matter of days, it will explode and take most of Alabama with it. The three factions spend the rest of the movie trying to find the cyborg and shoot at it.

A movie like this requires good writing coupled with either good action or good special effects. Alas, it has none of these. The script is mostly bland with the exception of Red West's character. David Prior must have had a lot of fun writing West's dialogue because I had a lot of fun listening to it. West barks out orders and snaps at his men and a UFO expert in such an over-the-top manner that you can't help but like him. In a bigger movie, this type of character would be downright hateful to the point that you desire his comeuppance, but not here. Sadly, he is the only good character. Ted Prior's alien isn't interesting at all, and Bergman fares far worse. I think Dave Prior was trying to make chemistry between their characters, but this didn't really come to my attention until the last scene in the movie---not the time to reveal these things. Strangely enough, Bergman's entourage are each given an introduction by another character, making you think we will be bonding with them soon. But no, the P.A.C.K. makes sure this is not so a few minutes later. So what about the action? The special effects? Apparently, director Bryan Todd didn't know how to handle the action. The fight scenes between Ted Prior and the P.A.C.K. are sleep-inducing and there isn't a whole lot else in this department. With a budget like this, you can't expect many special effects. I was lenient on the alien's laser, though, since there wasn't much to work with in terms of cash. And I did like the opening scene with the bikers. The scene was tense and fun. Similarly, the fate of Jack Vogel being yanked through a wooden porch is a good scene. But the rest of the stuff is a letdown. Still, it isn't the worst thing you can find from David A. Prior, but it is a far cry from some of his best. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10.

Some Spoilers within, but not much.

I taped `The Scorpio Factor' late one night and put the tape away for a few months. It was one of the last movies I taped on a local channel that aired low budget movies at two o'clock in the morning before that station decided to show reruns of People's Court, Judge Mathis, and The Drew Carey Show instead of movies. I still am unsure what to make of this one. It starts off as an espionage thriller, a genre I really dislike. The genre is convoluted, confusing, and boring. I guess Michel Wachniuc thought so too, since he changes his pace entirely, going from espionage thriller to chase movie before the movie is half finished. This makes the movie much better. Sadly, that doesn't mean it makes the movie good, because it doesn't. But at least I wasn't itching to shut the movie off and just had fun watching the chase.

As I said, I don't like espionage films. Despite my best efforts to pay close attention to all that was said and done early on, I still wasn't completely sure of what the plot was about. I do know that a valuable microchip was stolen, and that the thief placed it on his girlfriend shortly before the bad guys that want the chip assassinate him. Police officials and an Interpol agent team up to find the woman and the chip before the hired guns do. The crafty woman finds refuge with a gang of punks that help her avoid both cops and crooks. This is about all there is to it. The movie goes at a snail's pace until the gang of punks is introduced. Up until this point we just had to watch the main characters, none of whom are interesting in the least bit. The lead (David Nerman, who is still acting to this day---a mighty achievement to say the least) is especially dull, but it is more the fault of a screenplay that gives him no personality and nothing to do than the actor playing the part. The first hitmen that we see aren't colorful either, but the second set, two half-witted Brits, are much better. These two, Nigel and Hugo, are some of the only characters given personalities (the others being the punks, particularly one named Rebel), and the actors really go wild with them. Hugo constantly stops pursuit to notice it is snowing, or to examine the vapors from a steam machine. And there is also a scenes where Nigel is flashing a knife at one of the punks, daring him to come closer. A moment later, the punk is hauling Nigel around. Funny stuff.

Once these characters are in place, the chase starts and the movie flows smoothly. But then it just ends at a grinding halt. No explanation as to who the weird woman on the rope is, or who really hired the bad guys. The title isn't really explained, though someone mentions `Scorpio' early on, I was never sure what it referred to. No real resolution, either. Oh, sure, the villains are dealt with, but it isn't a manner at which we should feel good about. There is no anticlimax, which affected and disappointed me greatly. Too bad, as I was starting to really enjoy the movie. Zantara's score: 5 out of 10.

This review has some SPOILERS in it.

I happened to spot a movie called 'Zolar' in the TV Guide last week and decided it sounded like something to check out. I knew absolutely nothing about it, but as my friend says, even bad sci-fi is better than no sci-fi. My friend, I am afraid, is so very wrong about that. He needs to watch this movie and rethink his philosophy.

So what is 'Zolar?' It was actually billed as the first live action movie for the Kids WB, a fact I was not aware of until after I started watching it. Had I known this, I might have steered clear, but having seen the beginning credits and noticing C. Thomas Howell's name, I thought it had to have something worthwhile in it. Again, wrongheaded thinking here. The story, as it is, centers on a group of ragtag teenagers that are trying to get into the business of extreme games, particularly skateboarding. You've got the leader, the wild girl, the super-smart inventor, and the little sister. Thing is, they all stink at the sport. Famous(?) skateboarder Jason Ellis, perhaps hallucinating on narcotics, sees potential in these flops, and he recommends them to be trained by Skip, a guy that lives in a bus out in the middle of nowhere. They agree, and make the trip to see him. Skip will train them for the competition (slated the following month, so they are going to be pros in that much time---so much for realism!), but only if they will allow his son to join them. Out pops Zolar, who, as anyone with an IQ in the positive digits can tell, is a teenage alien. Our teenagers, however, credit Zolar's blue skin, frog-like hands, and weird ears as him being a kid from another country. Albert Einstein they ain't!

Of course, Skip trains them for the games, but at the games, oddball aliens show up to kidnap Zolar, resulting in the most laughable chase scene I have ever seen: a chase on a skateboard ramp! After our heroes avoid this trap, we learn that Zolar is from another planet (check that, the TEENS learn this). An evil alien named Hedion (C. Thomas Howell, in ridiculous make-up) wants to extract the energy from Zolar for destructive purposes, and is sending henchmen to do it. We learn that there are a lot of aliens posing as humans, and that most of the best extreme sports players are really aliens in disguise. A real revelation for Tony Hawk, I am sure! Zolar is different in that he has some kind of force that, when off his home planet (destroyed by Hedion) he displays various powers, like flying and bad light shows. Upon learning that his parents may have died with his home planet, Zolar gets depressed. If this is sounding familiar, it should: it is a carbon-copy of the Superman story. Anyhow, some aliens nab Zolar and thus begins a boring struggle as the teens fight to save the world.

I, meanwhile, had to fight to stay awake.

How does the movie end? It doesn't. What we get is something of a cliffhanger, where another kidnapping attempt is planned by Hedion and then the credits roll. While seeing the credits was merciful, the idea that someone intends to make a follow-up was not. The writing is bad. Things would happen that made little sense, and characters suddenly went to a location and it is hard to understand what they are doing there. The characters are all dull, especially Zolar. The effects are computer-generated, presumably on a high-tech Etch-a-Sketch. The make-up effects are such that even the makers of the Power Rangers series would be ashamed to feature them on their show. Howell, for instance, has a big, red head and a long pointy nose. At first I thought his nose was supposed to resemble a mosquito's, but then I realized it was supposed to be a finger! Imagine that: a finger instead of a nose! Somebody morph me out of here! Howell deserves so much better than this.

One can only hope that nobody else watched this movie (and now that I have watched it for you, you don't have to see it) and that 'the first live action movie for the Kids WB' is also 'the last live action movie for the Kids WB.' But knowing television executives, they won't let a dead horse die, and more Zolar movies will liter the screen, under the thought that kids are dumb enough to watch anything with aliens and bad effects. And that is the worst type of wrongheaded thinking possible. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.

This review has SPOILERS in it. Be forewarned.

I should have read the warning signs. Upon seeing the names Richard Rich and Brian Nissan, I should have stopped the tape right there. I should have hit Eject and put the tape away. But I watched this whole movie, what little running time there is. Why? Because I'm stupid. Because I will watch almost anything once and like to stick things out to the end just so I can say I saw something and have a reason never to sit through it again. And certainly a reason never to sit through ‘The Scarecrow' is because it is just so awesomely awful that a second viewing would send me straight to the asylum.

The plot is a very simply fairy tale. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; it's what is done with it that is warped. It's a story, set in Colonial America, of a magical scarecrow, brought to life and taught to dance by a frumpy, kind witch. The witch is hiding out from the town's richest man, a half-insane mill owner specializing in dancing equipment. Whenever somebody owes him a debt, he forces them to gruelingly work in his mill until they can pay him off. The madman, Grisham (John Grisham?), wants the witch's magic so he can perfect a love spell where his dancing partner will fall in love with him. He wants Polly, a young girl that is working in the mill and trying to save enough money to get her and three orphans out of the mill. She hides her loot in a hole near where the scarecrow hangs in the day, and the scarecrow falls in love. After the witch abandons him (I'll get to this later), he makes a wish that he could be real so he can be with Polly. Some old spell the witch left grants this, only the scarecrow must keep a magic feather in his hat. Going by the name of Feathertop, he gets Polly to fall in love with him (sort of) and earns the ire of Grisham. It all leads to an ill-conceived dance contest at Grisham's castle and some hilariously bad evildoing by the villain.

This goes to show that the people behind the lackluster ‘Land Before Time' films aren't the only people frittering away cash without rhyme nor reason. There are so many things wrong with ‘The Scarecrow' that it becomes unbearable. Richard Rich (Rich Rich? Richie Rich?) thinks he can get away with aping the tiresome Disney formula of bad jokes/sidekicks and forced songs. I wish animation directors would quit doing this as it only encourages Disney to shell out more of the same instead of something new and original. The sidekicks here are a magical broom (with no dialogue, that makes this the best character in the movie) and a wisecracking rat named Max that is supposed to be funny but is far from it, giving illogical advise for Scarecrow to leave town. Jokes with nods to the audience just don't work in cartoons that are set hundreds of years in the past (and no, I don't think this sort of thing worked in big movies like Shrek either). References to things like swing music, hip-hop, and Max Factor come off as stupid. And the music is just awful, with one exception. It's in a scene at the docks where Scarecrow teaches Polly to dance. He explains to her that a good dancer will flow with the music, or something like that. The song begins and Polly is taught to dance perfectly with ONE LESSON! Thing is, at the docks there could not have been a way this music was playing, so how does Polly flow with music that is not there? Think that type of laziness is bad? It's worse:

As Feathertop, Scarecrow appears as a normal human unless he looks in a mirror. His reflection shows his straw and stick self. Yet Rich and Nissen forgot this during the dance contest, when we see Feathertop's reflection in the dance floor and his legs are not that of his scarecrow self.

Early on the witch indicates that Grisham's obsession with making dance apparel at the mill is insane. But a song later states that it is making him very wealthy. That doesn't sound insane to me.

The voice cast isn't anything special. Polly is fine as the damsel in distress, but Scarecrow is voiced in an uninspired and boring manner.. Worst of all is Grisham. Ray Porter gives him a slur so over-the-top that he is neither funny nor scary. He's just stupid and laughable.

One of the tired running gags is the big belly of the mill foreman, Cheswick. Cheswick even named his stomach Melvin. Melvin has a mind of its own, moving from side to side and leading his master around when hungry. This is as amusing as watching mold grow on cheese.

I find it insulting that Polly would fall in love with and agree to marry Feathertop when she barely knows him.

You would think Grisham would be smart enough to make the judge of his dance contest a loyal and heavily paid employee, not the chauffeur that hates him.

The thing that first raised a warning sign for me is the thing that made me most upset. The witch that made Scarecrow is hiding out in a shack near where Polly lives. The witch realizes that someday Scarecrow will speak to Polly, which she concludes will result in Grisham finding out where she is and coming to get her. In a totally selfish act, the witch high-tails it out of there, leaving Scarecrow to almost certain doom should her hunch be correct. This is just wrong in so many ways. She's essentially his parent, and instead of working the situation out or taking Scarecrow with her, she leaves her child to die. And being the narrator suggests that she knew what was going on from start to finish, and never stepped in to lend a hand.

`But you can't use these things to judge a movie for kids,' some people are probably saying. I disagree. If animators want to make something for kids, they can't insult their intelligence, poor animation and songs aside. But most children's films that are at the bottom rungs are better than this. Films like `The King and I,' and `The Swan Princess III' (and, gee, look at who made those!) are bad movies, but not terrible movies. This . . . is a terrible movie. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.

When I was young, I had taped a re-airing of 1978's `Witch's Night Out.' I watched the tape over and over again until I pretty much had the thing memorized. Sadly, I accidentally erased it, and it was not a special that was ever repeated anymore. I thought I had lost it for good until I stumbled across it for sale at a video store. I bought it and have loved remembering it over and over again. It wasn't until after I bought it that I learned it was actually a sequel, and that another Rankin-Bass/Leach-Rankin special with these same funny characters existed. I couldn't wait to track it down, which I did. But what a surprise it ended up being, and it was not a particularly good surprise. I thought I would take the time to analyze both of them here (There are SPOILERS for both).

I had the benefit of watching the second feature first. I think it helped me understand the first one more in that the characters are easily introduced in `Witch's Night Out' better. The first special relies on the characters' names to introduce you to what each character is like: The Children are Small and Tender, sweet and cute kids. There are Nicely and Goodly, two kind folks that mean well. There are Rotten and Malicious, obviously mean-spirited people. And there is Bazooey. I guess he is just supposed to be goofy with a name like that. In `Witch's Night Out,' though we have the same characters and names, we learn everything we need to know about them in five minutes by their words and expressions. But I guess that leads into the main difference between the two. The animation of `The Gift of Winter' is stiff and poorly done, while `Witch's Night Out' is vivid, colorful, and good. Indeed, `Winter' is made up of a series of stilted pictures that don't look animated at all, but rather just enough are there to allow one to realize you are watching what is supposed to be a cartoon and not just stills, sort of like the old Paddington Bear shorts that aired on Nickelodeon many years ago. While both specials give each character their own color to help distinguish them from one another, `Witch's Night Out' is much easier on the eyes, with bright and detailed backgrounds, and the characters are colored and drawn better. Voices seem better suited in the sequel, as well. Both feature Gilda Radner. She plays Nicely and Malicious in the first one, but not the second (they are played well by Fiona Reid and Catherine O'Hara). Instead, in the second she really shines as the Witch. Dan Aykroyd is a decent Goodly and Rotten, but he doesn't compare well to John Leach and Bob Church. Only Gerry Salsberg (Bazooey) is the same in both.

I guess all this would be irrelevant if the writing were good, but it just doesn't compare again. I don't know if I would feel that way had I watched `The Gift of Winter' first, but watching it second made me see its flaws. The narrator (Radner, doing triple duty) informs us that this took place `many years ago' and that there was no snow at this time, with winter being just cold and dreary. This is the most difficult sell right here. It is obviously taking place in the present era, yet it tries to suggest snow hasn't existed before. Even kids will have a hard time with this point. Anyhow, the people in one town are fed up with winter being so dull, so Goodly suggests that most of the town traverse to see Winter and demand that he do something about it. Winter, from what I understood, is a large blue being that lives far away in a large building and controls the season of winter. They never really say what he does or how he does it. Anyhow, the adults all go and Small and Tender tag along behind. Most of the adults get tired of walking (though they all somehow know which direction to walk, none of them know how far it is to get to Winter's headquarters), and we are left with our aforementioned characters. After some needless exposition, they arrive at Winter's building and then it is obvious Goodly had no idea what he was going to say. Winter quickly kicks the four oldest characters out, but not before Rotten and Malicious planted the dynamite they brought along to solve the problem . . . HUH???? Dynamite? Goodly demanding a being like Winter for change is stupid, but what the dynamite would accomplish is unfathomable. Oh, but Small, Tender, and Bazooey are still in the building, so the adults go in to save them. But they needn't have bothered, for Winter overhears the children talking about him and how mean he is. This makes him cry, creating the first snowfall and defusing the dynamite. This may sound like a cute way of explaining snow, but it isn't cute enough or funny. It certainly doesn't match up with the story of `WNO,' where a witch transforms the children into the spooks of their choice and scares the adults at a party. (I'd get into this more, but I am running out of allowed word space.)

The dialogue in the 1978 feature is full of terrific jokes and lines. I find myself laughing at almost every other sentence. Not so with the 1974 one. There are only two genuinely funny moments: when the adults discover Small and Tender in their company, and when the Ministry of Cold hands out forms for the characters to fill out. It isn't very touching either, unlike the second cartoon. It's sweet when Tender calls the witch his fairy godmother and when the townsfolk clap for her.

There are few specials better than `WNO.' After seeing `TGOW,' I am surprise `WNO' got made. I am more shocked that, after `WNO,' Jean Rankin never made anything else and these characters never returned. Zantara's scores: 5 out of 10 for `The Gift of Winter;' 10 out of 10 for `Witch's Night Out.'

A few minor spoilers in this review, but not much.

At the time of this writing, this site has the wrong movie poster shown. This is not the film starring Brigitte Nielsen and Robert Davi, but rather a slasher movie starring Dick Sargent. Well, sort of. Director Paul Leder seemed to have attempted to craft a script that was both a slasher movie and a suspense thriller, but in the end it does not work as either one. Let's see if we can find out why.

Robert Knight is a man that has been locked up in an asylum for a number of years. We find out he has been put there by his evil uncle Charles (Sargent), who has apparently murderer both of his brothers in order to gain control of the family fortune. Also in on the whole scheme of keeping Robert locked up are one of the murdered men's wife and a bunch of people employed by the family. One day, the people at the asylum let their guard down, allowing Robert to escape with a little knife, and his goal is, yes, to kill off Uncle Charles. But in the middle of all this family squabble is Robert's cousin, Deborah (Lauren Woodland), and Robert wants to visit her before completing his ultimate quest because she means a great deal to him and he wants to be remembered by her fondly. He basically abducts her, picking her up after her ballet lesson and taking her out to eat and driving around the town while Charles worries about Robert doing damage to his plans. While Robert is entertaining Deborah and buying time before the family reunion, he makes time for snubbing out anyone that gets in his way. Eventually Robert stops fooling around and makes it to his uncle's mansion and the fun begins. Well, not really.

The first reason that this movie does not work is that it is, as mentioned earlier, trying to be two things at once. As a suspense thriller, it doesn't have any suspense. As a slasher movie, it isn't very, um, slashy. Robert kills people, but who he bumps off are not exactly sympathetic characters. And he kills everyone in the movie the same way: a knife to the gut. Realistically, being stabbed once in the stomach probably won't kill you instantly, but that isn't what Leder would have you believe. That is beside the point, as the problem is that a knife to the gut ten times in one movie is boring. Another problem lies with Robert himself. Bernie White does a good job playing Robert, no question, but the character of Robert is the crux of the matter. Robert had gone to seminary school before being committed, so he is a religious person, yet he doesn't seem to care about the Ten Commandments, instead he is bend on revenge and murder. They don't really address this much, except for one meaningless line of dialogue. Second, since we are so sympathetic to Robert's dilemma, it is hard to see him brutally murder people. We want Uncle Charles to come out on the short end of the stick, but Robert's actions make it hard for us to want him to succeed. Sure, many of us root for slashers in slasher movies, but this one is different. Robert is not an undead like Jason or Freddy and he isn't an escaped lunatic like Dr. Giggles so much as just an escapee. Another point of interest is Robert's relationship to Deborah. Even though he has abducted her, we know he is not going to harm her, so there is no suspense there. And his kind treatment of Deborah makes us even more heartfelt toward Robert. I won't go on with much else, since giving away more will spoil some surprises, but I will say that the movie might still have been enjoyable had it not been for some really awful and disappointing plot twists late in the movie. The fate of Uncle Charles, for instance, is just not done the way we want it to be. Nor is the climax. Nor the fact that certain other slimy characters getting away with their lives. The end result is a non-thrilling movie that even the target audience won't enjoy. But at least we got to see a rare appearance by Dick Sargent in a slasher movie. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10.

No real spoilers in this review.

Let me tell you a little story. Years back, I used to look in the backs of TV Guides at descriptions of the lesser known movies playing on cable channels I didn't have access to so I could find a title that might be worth looking for at my video store. Occasionally, I came across a title that sounded neat but that I could not find anywhere. I eventually wrote a list of about twenty of these films and vowed that I would one day see each one of them. For six years I slowly got to erase movies from my special list until only one remained: `Night of the Archer.' Having long since disappeared from even late night cable, this one looked like it would be an enigma forever. But then I found it on the Internet for a small price and bought it. I was excited to put an end to a troublesome movie quest and watch what I had for years hoped would be a kick-butt murder mystery. But the end of my adventure would prove to be a letdown.

Most of the story is set in Italy, where we have a spoiler rich family headed by Joe Bologna, a slimy rich guy if there ever was one, living in a huge castle that he is planning to sell soon. He is married to Barbara Carrera, but neither are in love with each other. Instead, Bologna sleeps with his busty secretary and Carrera with the family horse trainer (Sandahl Bergman!), oblivious to the effect this might have on their two daughters: one estranged and living in Nevada and the other a real daddy's girl. We find out that there is about to be an archery contest and that Bologna's younger daughter will be a part of it. Then saunters in Travis Ward (Jeff Griggs), a man on the run from mafia hitmen who just happens to be an expert archer himself and who convinces Bologna to sponsor him in the contest. Then one night Bologna gets murdered with----Guess what?---YEP! Of course, the police suspect Travis, hands down, despite the fact that everyone else knows how to string a bow and acts even stranger than a man on the run. What follows is not the stalk-&-slash fun I thought this movie was all these years, but a rather bland whodunit, peppered with an occasional murder that more often than not was not the result of a psychotic William Tell.

What is wrong with the movie? It's hard to pinpoint one single thing, but you can pretty much cobble together a lot of things that bring down the excitement, like lackluster acting, bad plotting, hard-to-understand dialogue spoken through thick accents, and a lack of, well, archery killings. Nearly all of these setbacks fall squarely on the shoulders of writer-director Lutz Schaarwachter. The few killings are boring, and it is made very obvious who is behind it all. A few interesting and unexpected plot twists would have saved the low production values (which scream out at you, especially when Bologna's murder and/or corpse isn't shown until the final minutes of the film, when all is already lost), but they just aren't there. I guess he tries with the mafia subplot, but it isn't well inserted in the film and certainly doesn't improve it. It isn't a bad movie, but it is a dullard end to my Twenty Movie Quest. And now that I have come full circle with this movie, it is about time I sold my own copy to someone else who may have made his or her own little list of movies to watch. Zantara's score: 5 out of 10.