Ticker (2001) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

I'm not sure what the deal is with this movie, but there must be some good dish somewhere. Despite the presence of Tom Sizemore and a pretty decent widescreen transfer, this is one howlin' stinker.
It is dishwater dull, and features Steven Segal, former action hero, in a role in which he has gained a lot of weight and spends almost the entire movie in a chair tapping on a computer keyboard. Not only that, but they almost always shoot him in extreme facial close-up. Of course, he was more impressive than the bad guy - Dennis Hopper with an Irish accent! Ah, there was a fresh breath of Killarney, right there, me boyos! Y'kin hear the angels singin' when that man assumes the lilt. 

NUDITY REPORT
none. It would have improved the movie. Of course, anything would have improved the movie, even Jeff Fahey.
 As for the direction by Albert Pyun, I think I can best sum it up by linking to his page at IMDb. He has made 20 movies rated below 4.0 at IMDB. That's out of 27 rated. Six of them are rated below 3.0. His average movie, after 20 years in the business, is rated 3.6.  Ed Wood is about 3.2. John Derek is probably the worst I know of, at least among those who did more than one movie. Derek's highest rated film at IMDb is Tarzan, at 3.0. Take note - that was his masterpiece.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1

  • Full-length director/producer commentary
The DVD actually features commentary from Pyun. Sorry to say that I don't have two hours to spend on that, so I can't share any of his insights with you, but listening to that would have to be better than listening to the movie. 

By the way, "Ticker" is below Pyun's average. Fair warning. And don't think it's going to be entertaining. The only real laughs come from the Irish accents used by Hopper and his band of rogues. Aside from that, it's just boring.

The Critics Vote

  • No articles online

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 6.6 
  • With their dollars ... straight to vid in the USA, but had a theatrical release in some other countries in summer, 2001
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 E. It is technically OK. Some scenes even look pretty good. That's the only positive.

Return to the Movie House home page