No Safe Haven
from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
up in Southern California. There is an island, Terminal Island, next
to the Long Beach, Los Angelus, San Pedro coast connected to all three
cities by bridges named Terminal Island. An eclectic little island, it
is home to Naval Ship Yards, a Navy Base, a prison, the Coast Guard,
and a bunch of tuna canneries on Tuna Street. As a side note, members
of my mother's family owned a lot of the island before WW-II, before
the Navy took it over. When the canneries were active on a hot summer
day, the stench was the sort of thing that twists your nose in a knot
and makes you gag. What has this got to do with a film review, you
ask? This film stinks far more than Tuna Street ever did.
|A star football player is
told to throw a football game (semi-finals, next stop Superbowl) by
his South American drug buddies whom he owes money to. Rather than
throw the game, he breaks his arm. The drug lords didn't enjoy losing
the $3meg they had bet, so they execute him, his mother, and his young
brother. They didn't count on a second brother who worked for the CIA
in Honduras. The rest of the film is all revenge action.
|see the main
body of the text
| Problem one, it was
just plain poorly made. I have seen boom mikes dip into films before,
but never most of the mike, a lot of the boom, and the hand holding
Problem two, the acting was on
a par with psychodrama in a deeply disturbed ward of a mental
||There was exposure, first, before the
opening credits, by unknown topless bathers at a party, and then by
Paula Preston getting laid in the back seat of her car outside a bar.
What did the exposure have to do with the plot? I don't know either.
Paula isn't listed at IMDB as being in this film. There are no reviews
anywhere, and no box office information. The 7 IMDB people who have
voted have it at 4.1/10, which is 4 points too high in my opinion.
Even if you can turn your brain off, and ignore the technical
problems, there is no curve of excitement and no suspense. Stay upwind
of this one.
I haven't seen
it, but grade-z actor Wings Hauser wrote it! (He's in it as well) He
also has another writing credit at IMDb, all of which is news to me.
Sounds like his writing is ever bit as good as his performing, though.
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, this film is an F.
the Movie House home page