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)