No Safe Haven (1987) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
I grew 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. 

NUDITY REPORT
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 the boom. 

 Problem two, the acting was on a par with psychodrama in a deeply disturbed ward of a mental hospital.

DVD info from Amazon.

no widescreen

no features
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.

Scoop's note:

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. 

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews on line

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.1 
IMDb 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 is.

My own 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.

Return to the Movie House home page