Reviews

Largely forgotten now, this movie was viewed by a lot of people in the 1970s. Parents saw it, mainly for Ann Margeret, in movie theaters during its 1st run, older kids caught it, mainly for Joe Namath, during its drive-in run and all us youngsters saw it when it made it's way to TV in the mid-1970s. I remember it fondly.

A product of a by gone era, it's really not as bad as some have made it out to be. Worth it for the novelty of Joe Namath and the 1970s cheese factor alone. Broadway Joe isn't really half bad because he did have tremendous charisma and a screen presence which somewhat compensates for his lack of acting chops. Plus as his adversary, we have quintessential 1970s bad guy, William Smith (the unforgettable Falconetti from Rich Man, Poor Man mini series or bad-ass Jack Wilson in Clint Eastwood's Any Which Way You Can) who turns in a fine performance. Throw in Sid Haig, Crispin Glover's father Bruce (of Diamond's Are Forever fame) and a delightfully campy performance from Teda Bracci and you have a pretty memorable Biker gang.

I wonder if Ann Margret and her husband originally thought of Elvis for the title role because this film is similar to many of his mid-sixties on screen personas (misunderstood rebel woos wary girl, defeats opposition in race at end). Fortunately for Elvis, his career, unlike Miss Margret's at the time, had just been spectacularly reignited with his TV Comeback Special and Vegas headlining. Anyway, Ann always possessed a great screen presence of her own; enough, along with all the outdoor scenery, to keep the viewer interested.

I think if you take this movie for what it is, a mindless artifact of late 1960s/early 1970s culture starring one of that era's biggest icons, you won't regret having spent 90 mins. watching it on a dreary Saturday afternoon.

Well, at least compared to the two Matt Helm flicks immediately preceding it. After a couple of pretty big missteps, the series returns to the fine form of the first film, The Silencers. This is in no doubt very much due to the return of that film's director, Phil Karlson of Walking Tall fame.

While the budget was obviously reduced for this one, it may have helped the pacing, which is not bogged down by cumbersome set pieces and elaborate gadgets. From the time Helm first arrives at Contini's château, the movie races breezily along helped by well choreographed (by Bruce Lee!)fight scenes in place of the earlier movies' overblown hovercraft chases, runaway spaceships and the like. Additionally, this is the only one of the 4 Helm movies where the main villain's death doesn't seem anti-climatic. The soundtrack is great and absolutely helps to keep things moving along as well.

This cast is most enjoyable, with Nigel Green stealing the show while stealing the gold. He delivers many of the best lines in the movie, nay the series. Nancy Kwan and Elke Sommer are excellent as a couple of deadly femme fatales and Tina Louise is rescued from Gilligan's island just in time to give Helm his first lead. Sharon Tate showed a proclivity for comedy that was so deft and popular with movie goers that she was supposed to reprise her role in the never to be made The Ravagers. Also notable was the film debut of a little known martial arts expert named Chuck Norris. Dino himself seems to be enjoying the proceedings this time around and is a little more energetic. MacDonald, Helm's boss, is now being played by John Larch and actually takes part in some of the action.

In conclusion, this is one tight, exciting and truly funny (without being silly) little movie, at least by Dean Martin Matt Helm standards. It's too bad this was the last in line, because it could have served as the action comedy template going forward.

Great, breezy show whose best feature is that it was filmed on location in fabulous Las Vegas. Created by Spelling-Goldberg productions in the same vein as its previous heavyweight crime series Starsky & Hutch and Charlie's Angels, it featured the same types of plots, music, action and parade of beautiful people and period heavies only now in a much more exciting locale!

Robert Urich was perfectly cast as private detective and Vietnam vet Dan Tanna, replete with a showgirl secretary, Beatrice and bumbling guy Friday, Binzer. Tony Curtis was really only present during the first season as casino owner Philip Roth, whose retainer to watch over his various Vegas hotel holdings basically allowed Dan to do a lot of pro-bono detective work. After appearing in the pilot, Greg Morris didn't join the regular cast as Lt. Dave Nelson until season 2 and then stayed through the series' end effectively replacing Tony Curtis' Roth as the authority figure in Dan's world. And no one could forget Tanna's amazing drive-in pad.

While there seemed to efforts to try and make Tanna a deeper character with complex emotions, we're talking seventies TV, so it was unfulfilled. Things had to be wrapped up with a neat, little bow in an hour with no time wasted on a character's personal struggles. Same thing with the plots which were great on the surface but rarely fully developed. But it was escapism at it's best given the setting and the setup.

I wanted so bad for this series to work, but it was just horrible. I tried watching the pilot but couldn't make it past poor writing, bad acting and the racing from action sequence to action sequence with zero character development. Why was it necessary to make the Angels bad asses? And that bit about Bosley being a hunk with mad computer skills is just plain dumb.

The next episode I tried to watch was the one where an aspiring model disappears and the Angels are called in to find her. They learn that this model shared a big house with some other models, so they have to go undercover and infiltrate. So far so good, as I anticipate they'll spend the rest of the episode at the mansion trying to find out what misfortune befell their client's daughter, just like the original would have. I assumed it would be about typical criminal activity like prostitution or white slavery gone wrong. But no, they turned it into an episode of international intrigue by having the models marrying foreign criminals for green cards! Turns out the model they were looking for got killed by her green card husband because she stumbled onto his global assassination plot, lol. Of course the requisite computer hacking, gunfire and action sequences ensue.

Same with the most anticipated episode, Angels in Chains. They go to a prison in Cuba? Again they take an original series' idea and try to "make it more relevant" by introducing 24-like elements, with the CIA getting involved and the plot evolving into one of international intrigue. What kind of nonsense is this? These women are private eyes, not Navy Seals!

In short, the producers writers/decided to forgot all about the charmingly cheesy and campy elements of the original series and instead created some mindless action shoot-em-up. Furthermore, the Angels in the original were very engaging and enjoyed great reporte with each other and none of that his present in this incarnation. I guess between all the explosions, machine gun fire, global threats and computer hacking there just wasn't any time left for good old-fashioned character interaction.

First saw this on HBO numerous times in the mid-1980s. Didn't see it again until recently, and I have to say it holds up pretty well. Decent plot, passable acting and plenty of eye candy. The odd thing is, this low-budget movie, comprised of unknowns and just a T&A sexploitation flick, holds together better than many contemporary big budget star comedies, such as Grown-ups or Hot Tub Time Machine. There is more cause and effect here than in either of those two current movies. Meaning, instead of starting with an idea and then just moving from one comic vinette to another, the actions of the characters are actually germaine to the plot throughout the movie. The movie breezes along, but keeps the viewer interested the whole time.

Gotta love it when people say things like "you have to suspend reality" and "this movie was not made to win Oscars", like this somehow excuses the fact that this is just a bad movie, plain and simple. There is no character development whatsoever. The plot has holes you could drive a truck through. Just because you set out to make a silly movie doesn't give you free reign to ignore all cause and effect. The 1980s are presented in an unrealistic, two-dimensional and clichéd manner. I went skiing all the time in the mid-eighties and never encountered a lodge and people like in this film. Depictions of rampant drug abuse and casual sex only work in the context of advancing the plot of a well thought out movie. And a massive amount of toilet humor as appears here is just the crutch of the unfunny. I can't believe some people actually like this wretched piece of film making.

The original Smokey and the Bandit was a monster of a film, finishing behind only Star Wars at the Box Office in 1977. It was one of the last movies seen by Elvis, who arranged a private viewing due to it's popularity. I myself, barely a teenager, saw it several times in the theater.

Now, when a sequel was announced, we all just knew it would pick up where the first one left off and follow the gang's exploits up to Boston and back to Georgia in 48 hours with clam chowder for the Enoses. But no, the producers and writers chose to create an entirely new exploit, which is basically a rehash of the route traveled in the first, but going in the other direction and pretty much at the speed limit! First off, the Enoses could have hired anyone for a lot less money, as obviously time was not of the essence. Afterall, after they accept the job, considerable time is spent getting the Bandit back into shape! Or did the writers expect us to believe it only took one day? They may have, considering they also threw in a scene where Burt, during his rehab outruns a racehorse. And what were they thinking having Carrie marrying Junior again? Sheriff Justice said at the end of the first he wasn't giving up his pursuit of Bandit, so he didn't need this motivation, again.

So, obviously, instead of a good ole' boy movie like the first, we have a cartoon with humans! See Jackie Gleason utter sombitch 6 dozen times! Hear Dom Deluise spout nonsensical Italian phrases! Watch truckers run over police cruisers with no regards to consequences (like causing lawman's death)! Become aghast at Jerry Reed turning into a tough guy life coach. Experience Burt Reynolds trying to show he has a heart! Look at Sally Field's expression of disdain for her agent! And don't miss the ending blooper reel!

This was the beginning of the end for Burt as he started becoming a caricature of himself. People began to view his movies as just an excuse for Burt and his buddies to get together and party while not having to bother themselves with any strenuous acting.

First off, I love how history is rewritten and the 1980s is blamed for something once again by liberal filmmakers. In fact, it was the liberal "me decade" of the 1970s that all this Satanic Cult nonsense happened. Look no further than their coverage of the Manson family trials or David Berkowitz "Son of Sam" murder investigation for proof of that.

Even 1970s TV cop dramas had episodes entirely devoted to satanic cults. Starsky and Hutch alone had two satanic cult episodes and several other episodes where it was referenced.. And that's the problem, the Starksy and Hutch TV episodes, directed by Michael Mann, were more complete and scarier than this film.

This film does a great job of recreating the atmosphere of the horror films of the time, but really is kind of boring and uneventful, until a contrived 'surprise" ending. If it had been originally released around 1980, it would have been a failure, because there were so many more complete ands scarier horror tales at the time.

Just because the creator of the Twilight Zone (TZ), Rod Serling, was "involved" in this mess doesn't make it better than it was. For those of us who were around for both, it was an extreme disappointment. Those little blackout sketches were more often than not extremely cringe-worthy and no doubt embarrassing to Serling. And, let's keep in mind, that Serling didn't have the creative control that he was allowed in the TZ and it shows. What we often have here are stories that go nowhere, have no point or whose conclusion is illogical. Not necessary a bad show, but definitely forgettable and not worth some of the accolades heaped upon it here.

On the surface, a movie like the Poseidon Adventure is almost impossible to screw up. Put a bunch of well known faces on the screen in a life or death situation and you should have something compelling and interesting. Sadly, this is not the case in this below average remake. That's because the script never developed the characters enough to allow us to empathize with or feel for them. The death of Mrs. Rosen is a prime example: in the original it made you cry, not only for her, but for her husband and Gene Hackman's Reverand Scott. Here, she was a widow who's only contribution was to udder silly reminisces about her dead husband Manny. Her death was like "Goodbye Mrs. Rosen, we hardly knew yee", as Rutger Haurer's character appears only mildy disturbed, as if her death is an unneeded distraction. Furthermore, the direction was unsuccessful in creating the suspense and sense of impending doom that dominated the original. There is no conflict or tension between the characters like in the first either, mainly because there is no definitive leader of the group akin to Reverand Scott. What it comes down to is you can't have a disaster movie where you can't relate to the characters and fully appreciate the danger they're in. That's what it's about. Any discussion of special effects and the plausibility of the plot is just ancillary.

I enjoyed this two-part movie, but why oh why did they stop so abruptly at the 1968 comeback special? By doing so, they left out quite possibly the most interesting part of Elvis' life: His rise from the dead to become the world's preeminent performer once again. The years 1969-1973 were great ones for Elvis professionally and chaotic personally. If they wanted to stop short of showing his demise and death in 1977, they could have stopped at the 73' Satellite concert from Hawaii. Anyway, Meyers and Quaid were good as Elvis and the Colonel, respectively. Manheim was also convincing as Elvis' mom and Rose McGowan captured the raw sexual energy of Ann Margeret. However, the woman who played Priscilla was not very good. All in all, it is a very watchable portrayal, but it could have been better had they attempted to cover the "Vegas Years".

They didn't know what type of Bond film to make: an overblown action comedy best personified by Moonraker or a down to earth action thriller like they had done in For Your Eyes only, the previous picture. Solution: they gave the audience both! Result: this movie is very uneven. There are some great sequences: the teaser featuring the mini jet, the killing of 009, the auction, the backgammon game and subsequent chase scene, the fight in Octopussy's bedroom and the train sequence all come to mind. But there is just too much misplaced humor in between and the rest of the movie after Bond diffuses the bomb is unnecessary and somewhat silly. Moore really shows his age in this one too, as does Maude Adams. Stephen Berkoff is awful, but Louis Jordan is great. Christina Wayborn deserves top marks as well. While not a bad film, and certainly one of Moore's better outings, this could have been so much better. Some of the best Bond scenes ever are present here, but they are overwhelmed by the shear enormity of it all: the producers just tried to put all of the past elements into this movie to please every Bond fan. So while there is something for everyone and it is entertaining, Octopussy is ultimately a victim of it's own excesses.

Why do I tune into this unbelievable, implausible and silly show? I have no idea. Maybe I'm just an old horn-dog at heart and enjoy the bountiful displays that the four female leads offer. But my wife sits through this tripe with me. Maybe it's because I love Las Vegas, the town. Too bad most of this show is not filmed there. The premise is a good one: It's SUPPOSED to deal with inner workings of a Las Vegas Casino, primarily security. However, the head of security and his minions act more like they own the joint and are too busy off solving crimes unconnected with the casino and dealing with personal problems to actually do their jobs. It's no small wonder that the guy responsible for The Fast and The Furious is the brainchild behind this mindless exercise of glitz and glamour without substance. Half Baywatch, half Baywatch Nights, for me this show gives new meaning to the term guilty pleasure. I should probably just read a book if there's nothing else on in this time slot, but I always tune in. Maybe I watch just for the fantastic theme song, courtesy of the King, Elvis Presly. I just don't know.

Unlike the 70s sitcom it sometimes mocks (Happy Days), this show has no peaks and valleys, and never "jumped the shark". It's just a rock solid, funny show and has been for the duration of its run (so far). I have watched just about every episode since the beginning, and have never been let down. It's an extremely underrated show which could reach ledgendary status if it runs for a few more years. Everyone in the cast is very funny and endearing in their own way. The best thing is that they never stray from the original characterizations. And you never doubt for a minute that you're back in the seventies, unlike Happy Days, which was set in the 50s yet much of the cast (Scott Baio anyone?) sported contemporary haircuts. This show is a gem. Watch. You won't be disappointed.

In recent years the character of Lt. Columbo had become a caricature of itself. He had a comical theme accompanying his every move and to everyone involved, until he solved the crime, he appeared to be an idiot. Many of the culprits were caught because of their own stupidity and inherent lack of respect for Columbo. That's not the case here, as the detective goes back to deploying real sleuthing skills. You can see from the first interaction with the opposition that Columbo is regarded as a very serious threat, even though one of the killers maintains he "has nothing". Early on, Columbo shows he means business when he asks his suspect "do you find something funny about this?". There is less interaction with the protagonists in this one, which some may find distressing, but it's only because Columbo spends most of the episode doing realistic detective work, rather than relying on the killers' stupid mistakes(there aren't any). He really pieces this one together, and the climax where he determines the location of the missing man is very good. All in all, I enjoyed a return to the more realistic Columbo of the seventies.

Terribly overblown action flick offering nothing in the way of plot or character development. Since when did Bond films become so mindless? Ian Fleming, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman must be turning over in their graves. There is absolutely zero intrigue in this one. It just races from one action sequence to the next seemingly without regard to consequence. I won't even examine the performances of the actors, because nobody was given the chance to act, save for being stand-ins for the stuntmen. Even the bad Bond movies of the past (ex:Man with the Golden Gun) always had a certain style and mood to them and tried to make the plot believable. This reminds me of Mission Impossible II, where they got a director who obviously didn't do his homework on the series and/or just wanted to leave his own imprint. That said, this is not even a good spy action movie on its own, XXX was ten times better! Could this be the end of the Bond series? Doubtful, but it should be, unless the make a clean break (like they did after comedic Moonraker) and return to the elements which set Bond films apart in the first place.