Review: The Beach Girls

Synopsis: Three girls head out for wild fun in the sun at an uncle's beach house. But when the party gets over the top, what will happen when the uncle finds out?


Review: The early 80's was a golden age for the teen sex comedy. It was a veritable cottage industry. Some were cute and clever, others were bland and boring. "The Beach Girls" falls somewhere in-between. 


The plot revolves around three girls, who've just gotten out of school for the summer. Two of the girls are world-wise party-goers who attempt to loosen up their naive, virginal friend, as they stay at her uncle's beach house. It's non-stop partying, from picking up a middle-aged hitchhiker, to booze and drug fueled nights, the girls are gonna have fun! But what happens when the uncle finally shows up? Oh, the suspense is killing me! 


Well, no, not really. Most of this stuff is by-the-numbers sex comedy formula. The jokes, the puns, the gags, are all pretty much the standard fare you'd expect. Debra Blee (who plays the virginal Sarah) is, oddly enough, more attractive than her two wild child friends (played by Val Kline and Jeana Keough), which was a nice little change from how most films like this go. But the hitchhiker who becomes Sarah's love interest (played by James Daughton), who is supposed to be a hip and laid back young musician-type, just looks too old to play this role. It's one of the ways the film misfires and takes you out of the moment. The scene where a young cop shows up during the party and almost immediately gets sucked into the shenanigans is another example of that. It just comes off as silly and forced, taking you out of the story, which might be the point, but the tongue-in-cheek humor just isn't delivered convincingly enough for you not to notice it. And the whole sub-plot, involving the drug smugglers and Coast Guard just feels completely out of place. And lastly, Sarah's transformation from "upright do-right," to femme fatale, happens so fast, you might get whiplash as you watch it.


That isn't to say the film doesn't have some good points. The film has a nice bit of skin on display, so flesh fiends will get what they crave. The debauchery is certainly wild and crazy throughout the film, with a few raunchy scenes to spice things up more. The Coast Guard's raid near the film's end, as they go through the house to uncover where all the drugs have been hidden, is chuckle-worthy. And there is some great comic relief with the gardener (played by Bert Rosario) throughout the film and it gets especially good when he gets teamed up with the limo driver (played by George Cheung). Their antics in a fight sequences are actually pretty funny.


In the final analysis, "The Beach Girls" is a mediocre effort, that never tries to play up that it is anything more than a teen sex comedy. It's lack of pretentiousness about itself gives it a certain amount charm. But it is very repetitive and the jokes and gags wear a little thin by the end. The misfires grow as the film goes on, but it never takes anything too seriously. And that might be why it isn't more enjoyable. It's a fluffy and light-hearted 80's romp, to be sure, and fans of cult classic 80's cheese might enjoy this, but it isn't one that will stick with you after you've viewed it. Just like footprints in the sand, the film's impression is not one that will last for long. Much like how summer never does! 


Rating: 2 Stars (our of 4)

Review: Country Hooker

Synopsis: When a couple of musicians pick up some stranded babes, they think they've hit the jack pot. But their luck will soon turn, when the girls turn out to be hookers, who are leading the guys into a trap set by their pimp. Will the girls feelings for the guys save them all, or doom them to a horrible fate?

Review: In the annals of erotic cinema, as with all types of cinema, there are always those who will stand out ahead of the rest of the pack. And one of those who would do so in this genre is the beautiful Rene Bond! "Country Hooker" is one of her earliest works. And while the material here is not the best, she certainly takes lemons and makes a very sexy lemonade with her performance.

The plot is about how a couple of musicians on their way to a gig pick up a pair of babes in distress (played by always luscious Rene Bond and Sandy Dempsey) and end up getting a very "just reward" for their kindness. Little do they realize they are soon to be the ones in distress, as these gals are pros being used to set the guys up for the whims of their pimp. When the girls end up falling for the guys, though, they all wind up in a heap of trouble that one of them won't get out of alive!

The film is a veritable "who's who" of 70's soft and hardcore porno flicks, as Bond and Dempsey are joined by several others well-known to sexploitation cinephiles, such as Louis Ojena, Maria Arnold and Bond's longtime boyfriend and co-star Ric Lutze. As with the most low-budget exploitation film offerings, the production and acting are pretty poor, save for Rene Bond and Louis Ojena (who plays Mike the pimp). Despite being an early work in her long porn career, Rene Bond shows she has a natural aptitude for the acting skills required, some decent comedic timing, as well as the ability to perform sexually in front of the camera. There is plenty of male and female full frontal nudity in this one, giving flesh fiends all that they could want and then some, and while most of the women are very nice looking, Rene Bond easily stands out as the most attractive of this bunch. She and her arousingly enhanced curves will never disappoint you here.

As for the actual script, the rape and murder scene is a bit shocking for the times. There's some really bad country music sequences, which are lip-synced by the guys, and some unintentionally humorous dialogue from the campy writing that will bring out more than a chuckle or two, but overall, the script and acting in this one just doesn't quite get over the well-endowed hump(s), as the film's ending, unlike the girls in the film, is totally flat as a board. Basically, it's main worth is to see the sensual Rene Bond in one of her early roles.

"Country Hooker" might only rate as "okay" in the realm of sexploitation film, but thanks to the always sultry form and skills of Rene Bond you'll get a bit of fun and enjoyable mileage from this outing. Yee-haw, good buddies!

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Ruins

Synopsis: A group of friends whose leisurely Mexican holiday takes a turn for the worse when they, along with a fellow tourist embark on a remote archaeological dig in the jungle, where something evil lives among the ruins.

Review: I'll admit right upfront, I've never read the book that "The Ruins" is based from. So, I can't really comment on how true the movie is to the original story. What I can say, though, is that this movie did nothing to make me want to seek out the book it is based on.

I really wanted to like this movie. I've been so hoping for a good rated R horror movie for some time. All these remakes and torture films masking as horror, have really had me thinking maybe no one knows how to make a new and original horror movie anymore. I was praying "The Ruins" would change that feeling for me, but it has only intensified it.

The film starts off well enough, with a couple of young college couples vacationing in Mexico, when they are given the opportunity to check out some "off the tour guide" ruins, before they have to leave. The first 30-40 minutes of the film is pretty solid stuff. You even come to like the characters a little. Once they reach the ruins, though, the movie starts to lose it. It never is explained exactly where these vines came from, or what the deal with them is. We come to see the nearby villagers are trying to keep them from spreading, but we don't know how or why. The whole threat the vines pose really isn't given any kind of explanation, which only leads to unsatisfying questions that don't get answers.

There are a few really gory moments in the film, but most of it happens within the last third of the film. And by this point, you really just don't know what to make of anything that you care a whole lot about it. It just feels like gore for the sake of it.

The only truly "jump from your seat" moment is when the girls first come to learn of the danger the vines represent, otherwise there is little in the way of suspense in the movie. In fact, the vines seem to do less damage to these tourists, than they end up doing to themselves. So they don't seem to pose much of a threat, after all. And when the lone survivor escapes, you are left wondering what this means for the rest of the world, since keeping the vines contained was made into such an important point in the film. And the ending of the film? Total rubbish, which is all I have to say about that.

"The Ruins" starts off like a classic horror film from the late 70's and early 80's, but soon degenerates into little more than a plodding and uninteresting film, that relies on some torturous moments of gore to try to shock you awake again. It almost feel disingenuous to call it a horror film, since the only thing to provide you with horror, is the realization that you aren't going to get the those 91 minutes of your life back. If there was a moral to this movie, I guess it would be to stick to the tourist traps, when you are in a strange country. But I'd impart the additional moral to stick to renting a good horror movie, over viewing this poorly done effort.

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Hellcats

Synopsis: A soldier comes back from the war and goes undercover to avenge the death of his cop brother. His link to the murder is the fiancée of his brother, who also wants vengeance. The two would-be avengers infiltrate the Hellcats, the girl gets abducted, and now it's the retired soldier against all the bad guys.

Review: Normally, I'd go into a nice little paragraph which sets up my thoughts of the film, followed by a quick synopsis of the plot, my thoughts of the various attributes of the film (acting, directing, cinematography, etc.) and close with a pithy little nugget that sums up my overall feelings.

I can't do that with "The Hellcats," because I still have no idea what I just saw. It certainly wasn't a coherent movie. There was no discernible plot to be found here. No interesting performances, no dramatic tension, nothing you would except to see when watching a film. As far as I could tell, it's basically a film that throws together every stereotypical biker cliché in the book and tries to let a story unfold from that. And it epically fails.

I know dropping acid and smoking weed was the hip thing going in the late 60's. It is pretty obvious that almost anyone involved with this venture was using them before, during, and after production. Maybe if I'd have done so before watching this... spectacle, I might have been able to understand it. Regardless, it had the same effect on me any illegal narcotics could: It warped my perceptions of logic and reality, killed off a large number of brain cells, and when I awoke from the stupor it put me in, I couldn't have told you what time of day it is. Avoid this crap pile like the plague it is! I wish I had. It's probably THE worst film I've ever seen (and given some of the ones I have, that's saying something)!

Rating: 0 Stars (out of 4)

Review: 10,000 B.C.

Synopsis:A epic prehistoric tale, that follows a young mammoth hunter's journey through uncharted territory to secure the future of his tribe and save the woman he loves.

Review: "10,000 B.C." is a classic example of a film where all the budget was put into the cinematography and special effect, with little regard given to the script and acting. The results are an epic adventure tale, that is neither adventurous or epic.

This story of a young hunter who faces his predestined fate to lead his tribe, could have been a compelling and intense story of human history. But the script is so horribly flawed and the acting so bland, that there is nothing to emotionally connect the audience to the characters or the story. You simply don't really care about any of it.

I never bought the love story between the two lead characters. Their unemotive acting skills, hampered by a scripted romance that is so schmaltzy and unbelievable, that it isn't even worthy of being used as a dime store romance novel, much less a major budget motion picture, never brings about any sense of true emotion from the viewer. You not only don't believe these two people love each other, you don't even care enough to wonder why you feel that way. I'll admit I wasn't around back then to see how these people interacted with each other, but I can tell you it was probably nothing at all like this. And the way the girl survives to be with her man in the end, is so mind-numbingly unbelievable, it is more of an insult to the viewers intelligence, rather than the uplifting emotional moment the writers and director probably intended it to be.

Another problem with the film is all the historical inaccuracies. When you want to make a film that is based on the history of the human race on Earth, if you can't create a stirring tale of fiction with human history as the backdrop, you'd do well to try to keep as close to the facts as you can. I mean, while the ancient Egyptians did use slave labor to build their vast cities and monuments, I don't believe that Woolly Mammoths were there to help in that. If this movie was about some alien world, I might be able to overlook this kind of thing, but if you are going to use actual Earth history as your setting, either use it right or don't use it at all. When it can be said that "One Million Years B.C." is a more historically accurate film, you know something is seriously wrong with your film's script and research.

Of course, the biggest problem I personally had with the film was the extremely slow and plodding pace, as the characters spend lots of time just walking around. I could have taken mini-naps between the major scenes of the film and not felt lost when I awoke and started watching it again. We get it, alright? They are traveling great distances. You don't need to make the audience feel like they are on one themselves, as they watch the film. An adventure tale is supposed to be exciting, not boring.

The one place the film does get it right, though, is the cinematography. There is some brilliant and breathtaking camera work here, with some very gorgeous wide angle shots of the lands the characters travel through. It is the one place where the film truly shines. It is not, however, anywhere near enough to reverse the detriments in the script, acting and researching of the film to make the story even remotely enjoyable.

"10,000 B.C." could have been one of the great epic adventure stories of the the last decade, but being saddled with poorly emoting actors, an unbelievable soap opera romance, historical inaccuracies you could fly a jumbo jet through, and a pace so slow and tedious it would put a snail to sleep, the film instead becomes one of the biggest and most costly of viewing disappointments, perhaps of all time ("Waterworld" has nothing on this film, believe me)! Unless you have a bad case of insomnia, give this film a major pass.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: The Incredible Petrified World

Synopsis: Four adventurers descend into the depths of the ocean when the cable on their underwater diving bell snaps. The rest of their expedition, believing them to be lost, abandons hope of finding them alive. Exiting the diving bell, the group finds themselves in a strange network of underwater caverns, as they search for a way back to the surface.

Review: When you think of 1950's sci-fi film, you generally think of something cheesy and scientifically unsound, but not being without a certain quaint charm and some unintentionally hilarious moments. "The Incredible Petrified World," however, will give you none of that, as the only charm it has is to bore you out of your ever-loving mind.

The basic premise of this snoozer of a story, has to do with a group of scientists who are looking to reach the hidden depths of the ocean, but end up in a strange world of undersea caves, deep below the surface, when their diving bell snaps from its cables. Now, they search for a way back to the surface world. Will they make it? Can they find the way? Is there one? Oh, the suspense is killing me...

Actually, the only thing that has any lethal power in this turkey of a film is the incredibly boring pace of the story, which has about as much suspense and tension as watching paint dry. There's just nothing here to engage you. Director Jerry Warren, who's name is synonymous with cheap craploa films, gives the viewers nothing to hold their interest. When you aren't laughing at the inane lack of scientific fact and premise (like how when they find an old man in the caves, he says he's been there for 14 years. But how was he able to tell time down in there?), you'll be bored into a coma with wooden acting and a plodding plot that goes nowhere fast. Even the cast seems to have absolutely no interest in this lame duck of a film. Veteran actors, John Carradine and Phyllis Coates (who's best known as Lois Lane on the 50's Superman t.v. show), are simply wasted in their roles. Carradine spends almost the entire movie standing around and looking worried, while Coates spends her time trying to be catty with the only other female present (played by Sheila Noonan), when she isn't fending off a clumsy attempt at rape by an old cave dweller (played by Maurice Bernard). There is simply no noteworthy performance at all, even if the script did give them something to work with.

The special effects are equally bland. The volcano eruption near the end of the film is a joke, as we never even see the volcano itself. You'd think Warren could have swiped some stock footage of one doing so. About the only bit of interest the film can muster is within the first few minutes after the opening credits, where we are treated to some stock footage of sea life, which is capped off with a pretty neat fight between an octopus and a shark. The film is strictly downhill from there, all the way to its obligatory Hollywood happy ending.

I can forgive a movie being bad. I can forgive it for being cheap and cheesy. I can even forgive it for being pandering. But I cannot forgive it for being boring, which exactly what this waste of celluloid is. The only things that are petrified in "The Incredible Petrified World" are the acting and sense of suspense. Avoid this dreck at all costs, unless you run out of sleeping pills.

Rating: 0 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Exterminator

Synopsis: A Vietnam veteran hunts down the gang that assaulted his best friend and becomes the target of the police, the CIA and the underworld in this bloody and brutal tale of murder and intrigue.

Review: Something that can be found in all the best grindhouse films, is their ability to tap into the most primal of human emotions. The rawness of the film style brings a gritty realism to the proceeding. That is certainly true in the case of the vengeance-fueled fantasy that is "The Exterminator!"

Former vet, John Eastland (played very effectively by Robert Ginty), finds life in New York City is even more savage than the jungles of Vietnam, after the near-fatal assault of his best friend causes him to wage his own personal war on the criminal element of the city. Of course, such actions will not go unnoticed.

Right from the start, writer/director James Glickenhaus lets you know just what you are in for with this film, as it begins with a horrific flashback to Eastland's time in 'Nam and sets the tone of the violent displays that will soon follow it. While the special effects are not what one would call "high quality," the sheer brutality of what is shown (and often what is not shown) adds a degree of realism that most big budget special effects extravaganzas never could hope to achieve. The beheading scene during the wartime flashback (done masterfully by special effect artist Stan Winston), for example, perfectly illustrates what I mean. It's a gripping moment, due to the harshness and savage way it is presented. Most of the violence is presented in this fashion and it gives the film an edge over many of the like-minded ones that were being produced at the time. They also did a very good job of portraying New York City in the late 70's. The feeling of urban decay, filth, and human misery is almost palpable. Quite simply, you might almost feel the need to bathe after watching this film.

As far as the story goes, it's pretty straight-forward. Just your typical revenge style fantasy stuff, which was like a cottage industry back then. There are some bits about the political climate of the time woven into things, as Eastland's actions are not taken well by political figures, who feel his war on crime makes them look inept and weak. But while the politics are in the background, they never really dominate the story. Instead, the focus is kept on Eastland's private war. Most of the performances range from adequate to banal, but then one doesn't watch this kind of cinema expecting Oscar-worthy acting. Robert Ginty was never really a great actor, with this film being his biggest claim to fame, but he truly brought out a great performance here. You can understand and relate to him and why he's doing what he is. I also liked the role of the cop out to stop him (played solidly by Christopher George). However, the romance he strikes up with a nurse (played by Samantha Eggar) doesn't really fit in with the rest of the tone of the film. As a result, it feels tacked on and unnecessary, only serving to take time away from getting more insights into Ginty's character. The ending of the film is, without question, not your typical Hollywood kind and the film only benefits from that.

While many might see "The Exterminator" as just a fairly typical entry into this sub-genre of film, I think some of the smaller bits within it shine through enough that it stands out from most fare of this nature. Within the realm of grindhouse flicks, this one is certainly one of the better ones out there. The rawness and grit of the setting and the downtroddened feeling in the performances, gives the film a legitimacy few others of it's kind ever have. Genre fans would do well to seek it out.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Drive Angry

Synopsis: A vengeful father escapes from hell and chases after the men who killed his daughter and kidnapped his granddaughter.

Review: Nic Cage's career has been one heck of a roller-coaster ride. From highs so high, you'd think he was worthy of a place among Hollywood's leading men legends, to lows so low, that you wonder if his agent is out to sabotage him to never working in film again, his film credits have run the gamut. In the grand scheme of all that, "Drive Angry," while not the lowest point he's ever hit, certainly is on that end of the dividing line.

Cage plays a man named Milton, who's come back from the depths of Hell, to revenge his daughter's murder and grand-daughter's kidnapping at the hands of Jonah King (played by Billy Burke) and his devil cult. All while picking up a sexy sidekick (played by Amber Heard) and dodging a hell-born truant officer (played by William Fichtner).

If that plot sounds completely preposterous, that's only because it is.The film is on the level of a low-budget grindhouse affair, but is lacking in the true grit and feeling of sleaziness that a true one would have. Cage spends the entire film with the same expression on his face, whether he's blowing people away, talking about his love for his daughter, or getting it on with a cheap floozy. Meanwhile, Billy Burke's character is simply evil incarnate, without a single redeeming factor or any complexity of any kind. He doesn't just lack depth of character, but shallowness of character. Amber Heard is simply somevery sexy arm candy for Cage, as the plot shows her to be little more than the perpetual damsel in distress, even when she's trying to kick some ass herself. The only one to bring anything of value to this proceeding, is William Fichtner as the hellspawn retriever known as "the Accountant." His deadpan expressions and flippant remarks make up most of the humor to be found (which isn't much) in this action-paced mess.

Co-Writer/Director Patrick Lussier, who's resume includes such cinematic gems like "Dracula 2000," "The Prophecy 3" and "White Noise 2" opts to leave out such unnecessary trivialities, like a coherent plot, character motivations and explanations, and emotional drama, to give more time to the much more important special effects, action sequences, and 3-D elements. Why create a mood, when you can simply blow things up?

Pretty much everything else is just explosions, car chases, and blood-letting. Some of which is fairly well done and the one sole area the film tries to excel at. We get no real insights into Cage's or Heard's characters. The script has Cage telling us how much he loved his daughter and how Heard was "waiting for something" in her life, but it's never really bought to life in the film. There is absolutely zero emotional investment in any of these characters. Even in the most shoot-'em-up action-fest around, you need to make folks care about what happens to the hero. Such is never the case here, because to do that would take time away from blasting people with shotguns and watching cars race down the highway. Despite it's R-rating, the film actually feels like it's aimed to appeal to boys between 12-16 years-old, which is only fitting as the film is on the same maturity level.

In the end, "Drive Angry" is an empty barrel, as the amount of noise made during the viewing should no doubt tell you. It hits one-note throughout its 104 minute run time and never even tries to go beyond it. I could almost believe they wanted to make a grindhouse film, except the budget for the action and special effects goes against that, as well as going after a star of Nic Cage's level (although, with films like this to his credits, that might start to change). It's too "shiny" to be a grindhouse film, but too poorly conceived to be a true Hollywood action blockbuster. I suppose if you had a couple hours to kill and were looking for a totally mindless experience, you could do worse than this film. But for the action junkies out there, you have many other offerings that will fill your need for carnage, and are better made films, than this one is. It's really only one to see, when you've seen most everything else this film genre has to offer.

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Prostitutes Protective Society

Synopsis: When Madame Sue and her girls become the targets of some small-time gangsters, by failing to give them a cut of their prostitution profits, the women band together and show that the boys aren't the only ones who can get bloody violent.

Review: The tales of the harsh life of the hooker, are almost as old and well-worn as the actual profession itself. The 1960's were a hotbed of such films. "Prostitutes Protective Society, " while just one of many such offerings, has an interesting flavor, even though it is far from the best this sub-genre has to offer.

The story here revolves around Madame Sue and her bevy of brothel beauties, as they run afoul of some low-rent gangsters who are trying to muscle in on their profits. When the girls fail to capitulate and hookers start turning up dead, Sue and her clan arm up and bring the fight straight to the guys!

These no-budget crime sexploitation films are a dime a dozen. But what helped this one to stand out from some others I've seen, is the sheer amount of brutality in it. While certainly tame, even laughable, by today's standards, back in the mid-60's this was no doubt very shocking. Watching the hookers as they are killed one by one was very sadistic. One of the worst examples was the first killing, where the girl and her john are machine gunned down right in the bed. Not to be outdone, though, the girls get their revenge in the end, as the gangster boss ends up getting "Bobbited." Such visceral assaults help to break up the dullness and monotony of the rest of the film.

Barry Mahon, who wears many hats in this outing (listed as director, producer and cinematographer) is no stranger to this brand of film. He really gives you a good feeling of the seedier side of this lifestyle and vocation. Some excellent scenic shots of 60's NYC really helps to give you a good visual display of the world in which people such as this dwell. Some of which, I'm sure is to accommodate the complete lack of a budget.

Of course, the violence and atmosphere aside, this is far from a good film. While the scenic shots are great, there is just way too many scenes of watching the girls and gangsters just walking around town. It drags the scenes between the violence to a slow crawl. This wouldn't be an issue, if the actual story had some truly interesting aspects to it. But there are the many segments where the budgetary constraints take you out of the moment. One scene that exemplifies this, is when Madame Sue and a couple of her girls "go to the country," as they plan how to take out this gangster boss, which consists (I kid you not) of them laying nude on their bellies in a pile of sand on the floor. The acting skills of the cast is pretty much non-existent, as well, which is only belabored by the fact that many of the girls walk around topless in many scenes, where nothing sexual is even inferred (much less shown), including multiple shower scenes. The girls have no problem peeling for the camera, even though the sexual content reasoning for them to do so is very minimal. So, flesh fiends will certainly get more than their share here. It's just an obvious shortcut to generate interest, in a plot and script that has little of such to offer. The dialouge is laughable and the delivery of it even moreso. Cue card reading at it's finest, I'm sure.

In the end, "Prostitutes Protective Society" isn't a film that will appeal to many. Genre fans will probably be able to derive some entertainment value out of this, thanks to it's seedy vibe and violent panache. Those who are not already cineophiles of this stuff, though, would do well to stay away from this outing. Only die-hard grindhouse sexploitation fans need apply here.

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Toy Box

Synopsis: Ralph persuades his girlfriend, Donna, to participate in a bizarre swingers party, where the guests are to perform erotic plays in the presence of a corpse - Ralph's millionaire uncle. The players are promised gifts from the "toy box." But it's not long before they discover the players are being murdered and that the uncle isn't all he seems to be!

Review: Without a doubt, this is probably the strangest and most bizarre sexploitation film I've ever seen. And given the amount of them that I've watched, that's truly saying something.

The plot revolves around a swingers party, where the guests act out sexually perverse scenarios for a man called "Uncle" to obtain gifts from a mysterious "toy box." But when a couple of the guests suspect all is not as it seems, including the identity of "Uncle," we go from a very commonplace sexploitation piece and veer off into an insanely wild and absurd story involving aliens and humans sold as drugs.

This film isn't so much shocking, as it is it off-the-wall kooky. For the first 45 minutes, I had little idea what I was watching. It isn't until the end of the second act that the pieces of this oddball story start to fall into place. The film does live up to it's perverse billing, though, as you see plenty of weird sexual antics, not the least of which is faux necrophilia, faux cannibalism, and the first (and only, I believe) display of a woman molested by a bed. Yes, you heard right, she is sexually pleasured by an actual bed. The murders, such as they happen, are mostly off-screen implied than shown. And when you get the big revelation of who "Uncle" really is, as well as what this party is really all about, well, it'll make about as much sense as anything else you've seen up to that point.

The cast is a virtual who's who of 60's and 70's exploitation films, with the curvaceous sex bombs, Marsha Jordan and Uschi Digard, among the most notable of them. All the actors don't really do much acting, as the film is much more centered on the sexual displays, as most films of this kind are. They are well shot scenes and a few are even quite erotic. As is typical of such fare, the guys are the average, hairy males you would find walking the streets in the 70's, while the women as all have bodaciously banging bods and curves. No one ever said that sexploitation films were bastions of gender equality.

Writer/director Ronald Victor Garica was obviously out to make this a very different kind of exploitation film. In that he certainly succeeded, as there is no other film I've seen that is anything like this. Of course, being unique doesn't make this an excellent effort. During most of the first act, much of the voice dubbing is off, which can be distracting. To cover for this, Garcia falls back on Doris Wishman's classic trick, of have the actor that's supposed to be speaking facing away from the camera, thereby circumventing the need for proper dubbing. The music sounds exactly like what you'd hear on old episodes of the classic "Star Trek" series and some of the special effects are, well, just not that special. Garcia's attempt to blend horror, sci-fi, and sexploitation into a cohesive form doesn't really play out, but it does make for some strange and intriguing scenes, which will probably hold your attention, until you get to the revelations behind what you've seen.

"The Toy Box" is unlike anything you could ever hope to see, then or today. While I can't quite call it "good," the quirky and outlandish nature of the film does have a very strange entertainment value to it. Within the world of sexploitation films (and, more broadly, of film in general), this one defies easy categorization and stands alone in its erratic and eccentric tone. Fans of the genre should check it out at least once, just for the experience of the sheer spectacle of it all. But don't expect it to make any kind of lasting impact on you, except to, perhaps, have you never look at your bed the same way again.

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Acid Eaters

Synopsis: A group of office workers go every Friday afternoon to the White Pyramid, a 50-foot tower of LSD run by the Devil. Groovy!

Review: Films that focus on the psychedelic side of the 60's are always something that will leave most people scratching their heads at some point, with linear thought not a major concern of the film-makers. But this sexploitation attempt at doing so will more likely leave you bored out of your skull!

The basic plot, if you can call it such, is about a group of 9-to-5 workers, who spend their weekends getting high on LSD and having body-painting sex orgies at the lake. That is, when they don't go looking for a giant white pyramid of LSD and end up trapped inside by "the devil." No, really. That's the story here.

Director Byron Mabe is no stranger to the sexploitation genre. His work on films like "A Smell of Honey, A Swallow of Brine" and "The Head Mistress," while certainly not award-winning material, at least had some of the sleazy and entertaining charms one expects of this brand of film. With this one he over-reaches his bounds, as the attempts to marry the drug culture to soft-core porn is a mix that just does work here.

None of the characters ever really get developed. You don't really learn enough about anyone to care or understand what's going on with them. In fact, only the script seems to outdo them in the underdevelopment department. If there was some kind of coherent plot here, I surely missed it. Nothing in this film gels together. One scene we're watching them get high and frolic at the beach, then someone is killed, and then we go to the white pyramid. There's no rhyme or reason to any of it. The camera work isn't all that great, as we get "treated" to an over use of looped segments of the gang riding on motorcycles and scenes that just drag on way too long, or pathetic attempts at being psychedelic, with some swirling colors and the like. Really, it's like they just took every tired cliché of these kinds of films, slapped in some boobies jiggling around, and called it good. At just around an hour long, it easily feels four time that in length as you are watching it. Even the ample curves of the delicious Pat Barrington can do nothing to make this piece of garbage watchable. The fact half the cast of this film never did any others after it, I think pretty much says all that needs to be said about the quality and worthwhile value of this bomb. Heck, I don't even think getting stoned could help you to enjoy this pointless and pandering mess.

It is possible to make an interesting as entertaining psychedelic film. "The Acid Eaters," however, will never be one of them. It is a blatant and obvious cash-in on the drug culture of the times, that does nothing to advance any insights into it and only insults the intelligence of the audience that watches it. I really can't say enough about how horrible this movie is. It really gives stoners a bad name... even worse than the one they already have. Avoid this turkey at all costs, as I'm pretty sure it'll do more to damage your brain cells than actual LSD will.

Rating: 0 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI

Synopsis: When Tommy Jarvis goes to make sure Jason Voorhees is dead for good, he unintentionally brings him back to life. Now, the unstoppable killer is off on another killing spree! Will Tommy stop Jason, or will it be vice versa?

Review: As one of the longest running horror franchise in movie history, there really isn't much left up the sleeve of the "Friday the 13th" series to scare us with by the sixth installment. So, they decided to focus less on horror and a little more of fun. The results are not too bad, as far as sequels go.

Determined to make sure Jason is dead once and for all, Tommy Jarvis (played by Thom Mathews) digs up his body with the intent to cremate him. Instead, he accidentally reanimates Jason and the killing spree begins again. Can Tommy stop the now-undead murder machine, or will the local Sheriff (played by David Kegan) and a town that wants to move on from the horrors of Jason Voorhees end up getting him, along with all of them, killed in the process?

Right off the bat, if you are expecting straight-on horror from this outing, you are sure to be disappointed. Writer/Director Tom McLoughlin opts to take things a bit less serious than past chapters of this saga have been, adding in an element of humor to the mix and toning down on the graphic gore (although, personally, I think we could have used a little bit more of the latter). It's a formula he would use in many of the horror works he'd do after this, for both the big screen and the small one. While in less capable hands such things usually become a train wreck, McLoughlin never lets the humor stray too far into goofy slapstick and utter parody. There are a few of the in-jokes and camera mugging moments that are groan worthy, but overall the humor never totally overpowers the more horrific aspects of the film, as has happened in other attempts like this.

The cast, which is mostly a "who's who" of television roles, does an overall solid job with the material they are given, with Thom Mathews and David Kegan the real standouts. Mathews does a great job of making you feel for Tommy's plight, while Kegan's sheriff is a great foil to Tommy. Jennifer Cooke (who fans of the 80's television series "V" will remember) is sexy, but never in a trampy way. In fact, there wasn't really anything in the way of nudity in this film, unlike so many others of its kind, but I never even missed it, as I was just having a lot of fun watching things unfold.

In a lot of ways "Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI" was one of the earliest films that help to bridge the gulf between horror and humor, that many others would follow for the next couple of decades. And while those efforts are certainly a mixed bag, I think they made it work well enough here to make an enjoyable little popcorn horror-comedy, provided you don't think about the actual plot too much. Die-hards of straight-laced horror and gore, as well as this saga's previous chapters, will probably not find this film to their tastes. But for horror buffs who can take their scares a little less seriously, this film is a great way to kill an hour and a half and have some fun doing it. It's a fairly enjoyable sequel to this franchise and certainly a decent horror-comedy in its own right.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Deadly Weapons

Synopsis: After the mob hits a guy with a list, one of the hoods keeps the list for himself to blackmail the people on it. When the mobsters find out he's a double-crosser, they off him, which angers his busty girlfriend. She then goes after them using the only two weapons she has.

Review: Crime drama and sexploitation go together like peanut butter and jelly, and Doris Wishman is certainly one director who made a career off blending the perverse with the criminal. So, you'd think with a gimmick like Chesty Morgan at her disposal, you'd have an easy winning sleaze-fest. Sadly, you'd be very much mistaken.

In "Deadly Weapons," Chesty plays a woman named Crystal, who's boyfriend is a member of the mob. But when he double-crosses his boss, he ends up dead. So, Crystal sets out to revenge her lover with the two best weapons she has: her enormous breasts! That's as far as any story development goes.

To say the plot here is tissue thin, is really an insult to tissues. Little in this freak show makes any sense. We never learn what the information is that the crime boss is so eager to recover. And when Chesty's character goes for her revenge, there is absolutely no planning of any kind. She just packs up and miraculously finds her targets. The attempt for a twist ending, unlike Chesty herself, falls completely flat. Throw in some of Wishman's typical directorial excesses throughout the film, like lingering camera shots of the floor or ashtrays and plants, as well as a group of actors who don't know how to deliver lines, even they are sent by Western Union, and you have a train wreak larger than Chesty's own boobs.

And speaking of which, let me say, as an American male of the heterosexual persuasion, I love me some boobies. But Chesty's aren't sexy at all. Not just because their massive size is so unseemly, but she really doesn't even know how to use them effectively. There's a striptease scene she does about halfway in the film and it has to be the most unerotic thing I've ever seen. She just looks like she walking through the whole movie bored out of her mind. Even a scene where she bathes is completely unenticing.

Is there anything worth seeing here? Well, there is some nice scenic shots of the old 70's Las Vegas and Miami. And the opening montage during the credits is as close as Chesty comes to doing anything of value with her ample mammaries. That's about it, however.

No one ever goes into a sexploitation film like this expecting great cinematic brilliance, but you do expect some level of entertainment value, either by arousal or unintentional humor and a fun plot. This film has neither of those qualities, which given Chesty's figure you might think wouldn't be possible. There was certainly enough potential with the material and assets here to make something that could have been some dirty fun, but there was simply no follow through by anyone involved with this production. What you end up with is an uninteresting and unerotic film, which is pretty much a kiss of death in this genre. Unless you are a total Doris Wishman die-hard, this one should be an easy skip for you.

Rating: 1/2 Star (out of 4)

Review: Sweet Georgia

Synopsis: Georgia is the sex-crazed nympho wife of rancher Big T. Unfortunately, because Big T is an ugly, abusive drunk, Georgia looks for her lovin' elsewhere - from the stud ranchhand, to Virginia, her virgin step-daughter. But when Georgia makes it with dumb ol' Leroy, everything gets violent.

Review: Southern hick sexploitation films from the 60's and 70's are not exactly a rare commodity, but this one is a little something special because you have two of the genre "royalty" working together: Harry "The King of Sexploitation" Novak and Marsha "The Queen of Soft Core" Jordan.

In "Sweet Georgia," Marsha Jordan plays the title role. Georgia is an insatiable nmypho, who has no problem getting it on with anyone, from the ranch hands to her own virgin step-daughter. Seems everyone gets a piece of her sweet loving, except her drunk, fat and abusive husband. But when a sexual encounter in the stables leads to a horrible accident, things take a dark turn for everyone.

As with most films of this type, the production values are pretty low and the acting abilities of everyone, save the sensuous Marsha Jordan, almost non-existent. It's pretty much left up to Marsha and her voluptuous curves to carry the film, which she actually does fairly well. The story is pretty thin, as it revolves around this group of people stay with the drunken head of the household, only until he strikes some gold from his mine. Of course, he never does and this part of the plot is quickly forgotten when everyone starts having their trysts with Georgia. There is some nice full frontal nudity of Marsha, too, which is always a treat for the viewer. The sex scenes are not over too quickly, nor do they feel as though they are dragging on, either. Marsha's girl-on-girl scene with Barbara Mills is particularly erotic. The dialog is corny and unintentionally humorous (with lines like: "Shut up and lay me!") and except for Marsha, all the other actors sound like they are reading their lines off cue-cards. Fortunately, Ms. Jordan's banging bod and steamy screen presence is enough to hold things together and keep it interesting enough until the final act.

The last third of the film does take a rather morbid and dark turn that you don't see coming, which really helps it to stand out from other such sexploitation efforts of the times and will help make it a bit more memorable than most. It's also one of the last films Marsha Jordan did, before leaving the business.

"Sweet Georgia" is slightly better than the typical entry of this genre and shows why Harry Novak really knew how to take such inane concepts as this and make them entertaining, if not always interesting. Genre fan are sure to get some fun mileage out of this effort. If you are a fan of the buxom Marsha Jordan, this one is definitely a keeper for your collection. All in all, it's pretty decent fare for this brand of film and certainly worth a viewing or two.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Fly II

Synopsis: The horror beings again, as a greedy businessman attempts to unlock the secrets to Seth Brundle's teleportation pods, by using the "genetic curse" of Brundle's son as the key, in the sequel to David Cronenberg's classic remake.

Review: If there is one thing I loathe almost more than remakes, it's a hollow and bland sequel film to a remake. "The Fly II" is, unfortunately, just such a beast.

We pick up where Cronenberg's creepy remake of this classic horror film left off, as we now follow the exploits of the son of Seth Brundle (played by Eric Stoltz). After his mother dies giving birth to him, he becomes the personal experiment of a greedy businessman (played by Lee Richardson), who is determined to use him to unlock the secrets of his father teleportation device. You know nothing good can come of that. Right off the bat, almost none of the characters from the original return to this outing, with the exception of John Getz, who reprises his role as the token jerk. Not a very good sign. Then, you have four screenwriters on the script, which doesn't give you much hope of a solid story. The old adage about "too many cooks spoil the broth" is in full effect here, as none of the characters ever really come to life (except, perhaps, a little bit from Richardson's).

Really, I felt like the cast was sleepwalking through their scenes most of the time. There's no passion or spark in any of the performances. To be fair, to follow up on the incredibly frenetic and passionate energy of Jeff Goldblum's character from the first film, would be a very unenviable task for most actors, but Eric Stoltz never even gets close to anything like it. None of the cast do. Maybe they were as bored with the dialog here, as I was, I don't know. But there's really no standout performances here. There's almost no performances of any kind. They are all just cyphers to the need of the plot (such as it is). Just plodding along until the "Brundle-Fly" can come out and play. This is only made worse by the fact that there's no really likable characters in the entire film. Even Stoltz and Zuniga's characters, who are supposed to be the "heroes," never evoked any kind of emotion from me, save apathy.

Director Chris Walas obviously wasn't interested in creating the eerie tension and drama that Cronenberg did in the first film, as he opts more for cornball performances and putting all his effort into the special effects. But even there the film is just lacking. You can tell he was trying hard to top the "gross out" appeal of the first film, but it never comes off that way. Much of the violence is pretty tame, especially compared to the first film. It comes off more like "Cronenberg-lite" and never really satisfies. Even the monster Martin becomes does more to invite laugher, rather than fear and revulsion.

This film is just a clear cut case of how one movie's success was used as just cause to create a pointless sequel. Everyone involved here could only have been looking to get a paycheck. It's b-grade horror at its most dull and boring. It's not even "so bad it's good" b-grade horror. There's no scares to be had here, nor any humor, save the possibility of the unintentional kind. If you seen the first film, you certainly don't need to see this one. And if you haven't seen it, go watch that instead of this. The only thing this poor production has in common with flies, is the fact that any kind of crap will usually attract them.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: Vice Squad

Synopsis: Pimps, hookers, lowlife scum... you'll find them all in the big city, where sex and violence rule the landscape. But that's just another typical night on the mean streets for the Vice Squad!

Review: I'm something of an amateur devotee of low budget, grindhouse films. From flicks of the 60's to the present, I've seen my fair share. However, "Vice Squad" is one that will probably always standout to me, both in good ways and bad.

The basic plot is that a prostitute named "Princess" (played by Season Hubley) helps a seasoned vice cop (played by Gary Swanson) to take down a violent and deranged pimp named "Ramrod" (played by Wings Hauser), after he kills another prostitute friend of her's (played by Nina Blackwood), but soon becomes the target of the pimp's homicidal rage, after he escapes custody. Now the race is on between the vice squad and Ramrod, as to who will get to Princess first! The film is certainly not for the faint of heart, or those who easily offend. No punches are pulled in the violence and degradation that is shown.

It has a sort of gritty realism to it, but it doesn't quite make it over the hump to where you totally buy it. This is due to the stretching of credibility in some key moments. I mean, would an entire vice squad really go all out to find a single prostitute, even if her life were in danger? No, probably not. One cop, maybe two, but not the whole squad. And the violent pimp, who seems to constantly flip from calm to psychopathic at the drop of hat, would he really be able to intimidate all the hard players of this underbelly of civilized society? Again, probably not. So, when such instances happen, it takes you out of the moment and costs the film a lot of the dramatic tension it's trying to build.

Director Gary Sherman certainly does a nice job of portraying the seedier side of the big city (in this case Hollywood), as the grunge and sleaze of society's "forgotten people" is well displayed almost constantly. Sadly, though, there is little shown to us beneath that grimy surface. You never get into the minds of any of the players. You get a brief scene with Princess sending her daughter away, to show she has a softer side, but you never get much context on it. Even worse is Gary Swanson's play at the vice cop who gives a damn. Besides a very wooden performance, you never really get any insight into his reasons for being a vice cop. As he is asked at the film's end, "Why do you do it, Walsh? The streets are never going to change." The question is never answered, either to the character in the film or the audience.

The one solid bit here, is Wings Hauser's turn as the ultra-violent Ramrod. He plays it up for all he's worth here. He is certainly one of the perennial heavies of the 80's, both in film and television, but he steps things up a notch here, going from mean to downright brutal. His use of a coat hanger to whip up on prostitutes, shows a level of darkness that goes beyond ordinary misogyny. While most of the other actors just sort of plod along in their roles, Wings uses his to be a force of nature in the story, which is where most of the drama and action stems from.

The film is certainly not what one would call "classic," either in the award-winning sense or otherwise, but despite it's many flaws, it still manages to hold your attention and stick with you long after you've watched it. Whether that is due to it having that special 80's vibe, that made many less-than-stellar films give you that sensation, or merely the fact you can't look away from the sometimes over-the-top slimy nature of it all, I can't say for sure. All I can say is that, for good or ill, this is one film you won't soon forget.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: My Tale Is Hot

Synopsis: Bored with the routine in Hell and looking to prove he's still the prince of evil, Satan attempts to get the man who is the "world's most faithful husband" to cheat, but the outcome ends up as far from what he expects.

Review: I wasn't really sure what to expect from this outing, because you never know what you are going to get when you watch one of these skin-flicks from the 60's, as the quality of them tends to run all over the place. But "My Tale Is Hot" is, if not a solid effort, at least stays on the right side of entertaining.

There's really not much to this film, as it's basically a string of burlesque-type shots of fairly attractive babes, which has a bookended plot about a super-faithful husband (played by Jack Little, under the name "Little Jack Little") being tempted by the devil (played by Max Gardens, under the name "Manny Goodtimes") to stray. That's about it.

Deeply involving this is not, but it is a good bit of fun and never really takes itself very seriously. As noted, the women are remarkably pretty attractive for the most part and have little problem peeling for the camera, while Little and Gardens provide somewhat humorous double entendre commentary during it. There's even a clever "little twist" (no pun intended) in the end, when the devil learns just why he can't tempt this most faithful husband to cheat. The dialogue is totally cornball throughout, with puns-a-plenty, some of it funny and some of it cringe-worthy.

Really, though, the film is pretty much centered on the buxom figures of the ladies, which is only to be expected. There is a nice go-go dancing scene about midway through, featuring the talents of Ms. Candy Barr which is very nice. At just under an hour long, the film doesn't tend to overstay it's welcome, even if a couple of the burlesque scenes do seem to.

In the end, it's just a fun and campy nudie-cutie romp, which is pretty indicative of this brand of film. It is certainly far from the worst effort this kind of film-making has created. If you are a fan of the genre, you might get a few chuckles of mileage out of this one.

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

We interrupt your white silence for this important news...

Hello there! How's that old saying go? Life's what happens, when you are busy making plans. Well, that's certainly true in the case for us here at The Video Drones Reviews. We do apologize to those of you who were stopping by to check out our thoughts on the myriad of films out there (all three of you, that is). Other matters in our lives have taken up much more time than we thought they would. So, we are returning, albeit it tentatively. You may not see the flurry of reviews you saw from us at the end of last year, but you will start seeing reviews here again on a semi-regular basis (God willing).

So, again, sorry for the huge break in the reviews here. Hopefully, we can get things going again for you. After all, there film's aren't going to review themselves (nor should they in most cases).

Review: Jennifer's Body

Synopsis: When a hot and sexy teenaged girl becomes possessed by a flesh eating demon, the boys of her high school end up the target of her new man-eating ways.


Review: "Jennifer's Body" is the kind of film that should remind us all that it takes a lot more to be clever, hip and interesting, then merely spouting a few modern slang terms and a sexy pout. They try to play up a campy teen angst kind of thing here, but it never rings true. It's more like pseudo-angst, thought up by a focus group of Hollywood suits, that tries to play to what they think teenagers would find "cool," only to fail miserably in the attempt.


The premise of this tale, is about how a teenage babe (played by Megan Fox) is sacrificed to Satan, by a loser indie band in the hopes they may be granted fame and fortune, only for her to become a flesh eating demon, because she wasn't a virgin when she was sacrificed. No, really, that is the basic plot outline here.


The film tries to come off as an edgier mix of "Mean Girls" and "Scream," but ends up as merely a putrid pile of trash, that is way too self-absorbed and into itself, and comes across as thinking it is way more clever and hip than it actually is. Most teenage horror-comedies are an extremely superficial affair, but this one is shallow at BEING shallow. There's nothing here beneath the surface at all. No insights, no meaning, no message. Heck, there's no real laughs or scares, either (unless you are of the kind who'd giggle during the make out scene with Fox and Seyfried). Like some vapid teen pretty girl, the film never looks out of it's own self-induced tunnel vision, thinking itself way too smart and cool, and the film loses any chance to be relevant or entertaining. It's not just style over substance, but a self-deluded and half-formed idea of style over substance. Why have a coherent story and plot? Look, Megan Fox is swimming naked in a lake! Isn't that just so awesome?!


It seems little thought was put into the script, direction, or anything else. It is merely a vehicle for Megan Fox to look ultra-sexy (in that slutty way she usually does). No one ever bothers to go beyond this, as everyone else is just some stereotype or cipher character, used for the demands of Fox's character, who looks like she has a totally vacant expression throughout the whole movie (the very same one you'll probably have, after you watch this crap). The only thing it goes to show, is that Fox is truly a horrible actress and is certainly not up to the task of headlining a film. It takes a lot more than a few cute slang terms being thrown around, and some pathetic attempt at controversy (with a little girl-on-girl make out moment), to make a worthwhile story. Honestly, the thing feels like it was written by a couple of 13 year-old boys, who got a look at their father's Playboy collection for the first time, and thought this would be a great idea for a film. It is just a blatant attempt to appeal to the "teeny-bopper" crowd, who love films like "Twlight" and the like, and has absolutely no regards to the intelligence of the target audience (or any other audience, in general). Writer Diablo Cody won an Oscar for her work on "Juno," but her sophomore effort is just a meandering and sophomoric dud! It tries too hard to be too many thing: funny, scary, emotional, dramatic, all while trying to drive home some feminist-minded clap-trap about the relationship between teenage girls and power structures of sex among teens. I'm sure Cody had the best of intentions with this film, but the execution is so bad that it ends up a jumbled and lackluster effort, which should have never been made.


This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I've seen all year. If this doesn't register on many a film critics and film fans "worst of" lists for 2009, I fear for the mental sanity of the industry. "Jennifer's Body" is honest as a title for this travesty of celluloid, though, as the only thing the film ever concerns itself with is how "hawt" the title character looks. Unless you are a hormone-raging teenage boy, with Megan Fox as your ultimate fantasy plaything, avoid this dreck at all costs! Heck, even if you are one, you should avoid it, as even hormone-raging teenage boys deserve to be marketed to better than this.


Rating: 0 Stars (our of 4)

Review: Terminator Salvation

Synopsis: The fourth installment of the classic sci-fi action story takes us into the future, as John Connor and the human resistance battle the forces of Skynet. But when a mysterious strangers enters their fold, will he be the key in destroying Skynet or the end of the human race?

Review: I had high hopes, like many, going into this film. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to that "blown out of my seat" experience the other films of this saga have given me. Besides which, this is the film we've all been waiting for since the beginning, right? The future war! The resistance vs. Skynet! It couldn't possibly be bad, could it? Oh, you couldn't be more wrong!

This film lacked anything in the way of atmosphere or suspense. The mood of the film was extremely flat from almost the start and never really came to life. On top of that, I feel too much time was spent on the machines and not enough on John Connor and the humans (whom you'd think we should be rooting for). Sam Worthington's character, of the man made into a machine, never gained any sympathy or interest from me. The fact they gave away the "secret" to his character in the trailers, certainly didn't help that, either. His character's actions are schizophrenic, at best, half the time making little sense, if any, and almost never ring true. A major flaw, to be sure, with how much time he gets on screen.

Then you have Christian Bale, who plays John Connor as a "Batman-lite" affair. He uses the same kind of voice here, that he did in "The Dark Knight" and it just doesn't work. He portrays none of the charisma and leadership that we know the character is supposed to have. All the emotions we've felt for him in the past are all stripped away here, as he comes off like a whiny and self-absorbed jerk. Hardly one you'd want being the savior of the human race. None of the other resistance members get enough screen time to make any kind of impression on you, so you never develop any bond in what might happen to them. I don't know if the cast just didn't care about the film, or if the script just gave them nothing to work with, but there is no fire in any of the performances.

And even if the script doesn't let the actors down, it has more than a few problems itself. They never really explain why Sam Worthington's character is the one chosen by Skynet. The story never gives you any feelings of dread or panic, despite tons of action on the screen. And while those action sequences are well shot and choreographed, they lack any real excitement. It never gets your pulse pounding. Plus there are tons of little things in the film, like Connor's wife being pregnant, which get no explanation or even a passing mention. I mean, what's the point in doing that, if it doesn't mean anything? And why is Skynet herding people into camps (ala the Nazis)? Shouldn't it simply be destroying all human life, to protect itself and win the war? It is another plot point that makes no sense, nor is given any reasoning for, in a script filled with them. Worst of all, and the one major flaw that ruins the whole film for me, is how, after Skynet has captured Kyle Reese (played by Anton Yelchin, in one of the few decent performances in the film), it doesn't kill him immediately, but uses him as bait to lure John Connor into a rescue mission. This kind of thinking, in terms of revenge and greed, is an emotional human failing Skynet should not have. It is a machine. It should know the simple equation: "Kill Kyle Reese, John Connor is no more!" The only reason for it, is to provide the big end battle, where Connor faces the Terminator 101-model (with CGI used to show Arnold in his prime). It's all just a wasted effort and doesn't deliver any thrills.

Many folks blasted "T3" for some of the inconsistencies it had, but compared to this mess of a film, it was sheer cinematic brilliance! "Terminator Salvation" could truly be considered a franchise killer, on par with the fiasco that "Batman and Robin" was for the Batman one. Old school fans of this saga will not find this enjoyable, and any attempts to bring in new fans will be dashed at the overly-complicated back-story used to get them up to speed on this film. In short, this is a film that will appeal to few people, be they fans of these films or not. It is a complete waste of time, money and talent. And that is the purest definition of the term "whipped up movie," which this effort most assuredly is, that I can think of! It is easily one of the most disappointing films of the year.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)