Snake Eater III (1992) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Say what you want about those artistic mofo's like Atom Egoyan and Don McKellar, but the Snake Eater series represents the very zenith of Canadian cinema.

Well, except for Meatballs 3, of course.

As you have undoubtedly deduced from the title, this movie was the third of three in the Snake Eater series.  The Snake Eaters are an elite Marine Corps unit, and Lorenzo Lamas used to be one of them.


  • Tracy Cook -breasts
  • Tracy Hway - breasts, top of pubes
  • Holly Chester - breast, buns in thong
  • Unknown - breasts

Now he's a cop, but he doesn't always do things by the book ...

... blah, blah, blah

... suspended

... turn in badge and gun

... damsel in distress

... army of bikers with very polite Canadian accents (Hey, OK, maybe he's out there, eh?), and automatic weapons

... one colorful sidekick and some heavy equipment from a construction site

... his lieutenant is pissed off, does the "Lieutenant pissed off at McCloud" speech

... blah, blah, blah

DVD not currently in print
  • no widescreen

  • minor features: a trailer and a tribute to 30 years of Dunning/Link films

One of the key bad bikers was played by Bam-Bam Bigelow, a 400 pound wrestler with a shaved and tattooed head. My theory is that they placed him in so many scenes with Lamas to make it seem that Lamas was a decent actor.

Fundamentally, these Snake Eater films are the Canadian equivalent of Charles Bronson movies, with plenty of vigilante justice, except that Lamas acts more like Burt Reynolds than Bronson. He's a good looking guy, makes plenty of sarcastic remarks and sees plenty of naked women.

The Critics Vote

  • no major reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even 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. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). 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. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-. I hate to admit it, but I enjoyed this movie in a real guilty pleasure kind of way. The filmmakers don't take this stuff seriously, and the film moves quickly with plenty of action and humor and nudity. I'd love to give it an F or something, but I have to be honest and say it's a C-, a film which you can enjoy if you're into seeing Burt Reynolds crossbred with Charles Bronson.

Return to the Movie House home page