Author: Jim McLennan

Wonder Woman 1984

  By

★★
“Left feeling quite Cheetah’d…”

Before COVID-19 hit, this was scheduled to be the year’s biggest action heroine movie. Originally slated for a June release, it was the sequel to a film which earned a well-deserved $800+ million worldwide, and a similar return seemed within reach. But its opening was first delayed, and then it was announced the movie would only get a limited release, coming out in North America on HBO’s streaming service, HBO Max. Difficult times. But the sad fact is, this feels more like a contractual cash-grab. Even with the same star and director, it seems sadly lacking in genuine, emotional heart.

There are quite a few other problems. Firstly, this is set in 1984, because… Well, there’s no real reason. At least Captain Marvel gave us a fight in a Blockbuster Video store. Here, the period flavour seems limited to one Frankie Goes to Hollywood song, randomly dropped in at a party. Otherwise, it could easily be set now. Another issue is the sheer length. This is 151 minutes: that’s only 10 minutes longer than its predecessor, but it feels a lot more. Part of this may be because after the opening, you then have to wait for over an hour, before there is any further significant action. While I’ve not pulled out a stopwatch, the ratio of that to talk overall just seems considerably worse.

Then we have the plot, which centres on a magic hunk of rock, the Dreamstone, that grants one wish to anyone who touches it. Diana Prince (Gadot) naturally wishes for the return of dead lover, Steve Trevor (Pine). Mousy work colleague Barbara Ann Minerva (Wiig) wishes to be like Prince, a process which ends up turning her into supervillainess Cheetah. And eventually gives her a tail, making her look like a refugee from Cats. At least dodgy oil-baron Maxwell Lord (Pascal, who amusingly also appeared in the much-derided 2011 Wonder Woman television pilot) reads the fine print, and uses the Dreamstone to try and take over the world. Of course, the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for” comes into play. You just KNOW Diana’s wish will have to be revoked, parting her from Steve once again. Which would be okay, if it hadn’t seemed like a cheat all along, robbing their separation of any emotional impact.

As is, Steve seems almost entirely superfluous here. His main contribution is a poorly-considered scene where this resurrected 1917 aviator is able to fly a modern jet with no trouble or instruction. This seems about as plausible as a 1917 accountant being able to sit down at a desk and immediately use QuickBooks, and that’s ignoring completely the fact that the Smithsonian would exhibit a plane that’s fully fuelled-up and ready for take-off Hey, he does somehow have a hand in teaching Wonder Woman to fly. Elsewhere, it doesn’t help that every time I saw Lord, I kept expecting Baby Yoda to show up, and Wiig is hardly convincing as a plain Jane. Maybe one day, Hollywood will realize that it takes more than just slapping a pair of glasses on an actress.

Gadot is still very good, but there just isn’t anything close to the sense of passion which she brought to the character in Wonder Woman. Here, saving the world seems like a day job, rather than something done out of a fierce, unbreakable conviction. The action sequences are merely alright. There’s some surprisingly poor CGI (even on a non-cinema screen), and they often seem short on physicality, with a couple of exceptions. A battle between WW and Cheetah in the White House is well-assembled, and there’s an opening sequence depicting a young Diana taking part in the Amazon Games. If it were a series, I’d be watching every week – my money would be on American Ninja Warrior star, Jessie Graff, who plays one of the competitors. That was nice.

However, even this falls short, both in emotional and technical aspects, of the iconic “No Man’s Land” sequence. And thus we reach the crux of the issue: in just about every way, it’s not as good as the previous movie. That was a genuinely groundbreaking effort, in which everyone involved seemed fully invested, and which deserves to rank among the best of the new wave of comic adaptations, be they Marvel or DC. This tastes more like heavily generic comic-book fare, with a story too heavily reliant on convenient happenstance, supporting characters that distract rather than support, and a resolution that is not much more than a 21st-century version of Wonder Woman demanding, “Clap your hands if you believe in fairies.”

Philosophically, I was intrigued by her explicitly stating at one point, “I hate guns.” I recently finished The Boys, with its slew of malevolent superheroes. In that world, firearms were one of the few things that could level the playing field and give “normal” humans a chance. Guns are, simply, a great equalizer, and hearing the super-powerful express blanket disdain for them is… interesting. Similarly, we were expected to believe Barbara Ann is simultaneously so plain nobody sees her, yet can barely take two steps without getting creeped on. Look, I expect Wonder Woman to be pro-feminist. But a degree of consistency is apparently too much. For when given a wish for anything, the two lead women want a) to be hot, and b) their boyfriend back? I am woman, hear me… whine?

There are some positives. If not exactly period appropriate, Hans Zimmer’s score is effective and elevates a number of scenes. And the film does, at least, leave the audience on a positive note with a really lovely mid-credit sequence. However, it’s also telling that those 60 seconds are likely more impactful – and, certainly, more emotional engaging – than the other 150 minutes combined. It has been a long time since I’ve seen a sequel, with the same director and star, that has fallen so far short. Maybe The Matrix: Reloaded? All told, you would be better off just watching the trailer. It certainly provides a greater jolt of eighties energy than the movie has any apparent interest in delivering.

Dir: Patty Jenkins
Star: Gail Gadot, Pedro Pascal, Kristen Wiig, Chris Pine

Rearview

  By

★★
“With hindsight, I shouldn’t have bothered.”

I must confess, I was perversely intrigued when I read a review on the IMDb, apparently from one of the directors, disowning this film: “Terrible, and despite it having my name on it, I had no say in the final cut.” While it is true to say that the synopsis – “Based on true events, a girl fights for her life on the Road – Tears Of Souls – chased by a gang of slave traffickers” – is almost entirely inaccurate, it’s not that dreadful. Oh, it’s… not good, to be sure. But I’ve seen worse (hello, Agent Jade Black): it’s not annoyingly dreadful, thanks mostly to a decent central performance by Thomas.

She plays Nicky, who is driving through the English countryside when her car stalls out, beginning an escalating series of misadventures. For this particular area is apparently ground zero for a series of mysterious disappearances of women, who subsequently turn up dead in what the police call suicide. Of course, that’s far from the case, with what appears to be a loose-knit collaboration between a pair of psychos (Sives and Simpson), predating the highways and byways out of a truck-stop, and certain elements of the authorities. Quite where the “slave traffickers” mentioned by the synopsis come in, escapes me entirely. To be honest, on reading that bit, I was expecting this to unfold in the middle East, rather than middle England.

Nicky is likeable enough and does, at least, appear slightly smarter than the average victim in these things. Or, at least, is not required to behave with the idiocy which is par for the course. However, the downside is that the sensible thing – staying locked in her car – is far from thrilling cinema. There is way too much sitting by the side of the road for this to work, even if you take into account the whole “being menaced by a pair of psychos” thing. Eventually, even they get bored with standing around, passing comment, and smash the side window, forcing Nicky out of her relatively safe-space and into the surrounding woods. From where there’s much running around, until we eventually circle back to the opening, in which she covers herself in fuel at an all-night petrol station, and threatens to set herself on fire after the cashier refuses to let her in.

There is only one scene which genuinely sticks in my mind, which sees Nicky strangle one of the people after her. It’s notable largely for the length, being an apparently endless exercise with the victim thrashing around in increasing desperation, trying to escape. The scene is nasty, brutal and tough to watch, which is exactly the way violence like this should be depicted. It also stands in sharp contrast to the pedestrian direction in the rest of the film, which contains little that is memorable or interesting. Maybe we Brits are just too gosh darned polite to do this kind of thing well?

Dir: Avril E. Russell, Orson Nava
Star: Antonia Thomas, Jamie Sives, Jay Simpson. James Floyd

The Golden Lady

  By

★★½
“The Gun With the Golden Girl”

This British film occupies an odd middle ground between Ian Fleming and Jackie Collins – with a garnish of… The Village People? Yeah, there were points where I genuinely wondered what I’d strayed into. The titular female is Julia Hemingway (Skriver, under the rather laughable screen name of “Christina World”, which seems more like a dubious theme-park), who is a corporate espionage specialist. She accepts a commission to infiltrate the bidding for oil rights in a Middle Eastern country, on behalf of one of the four participants.

With the auction about to take place in London, Hemingway brings in three agents (Danielle, Chadwick and Pavel), and tasks each with working on one of the other candidates – not least with their sexual wiles. However, as an increasing number of dead bodies start to show up, it becomes clear that this is not straightforward business. More than one government intelligence agency is highly interested in the outcome, and is prepared to stop at nothing to get the right outcome.

Director Larraz is best known for the cult horror movie Vampyres, and certainly seems out of his element here. There is probably a decent spy thriller in here – there’s a reason Desmond Llewellyn, the long-term Q in the Bond films, shows up in a minor role. Hemingway and her “angels” are all perfectly smart and capable too. Except, just when some momentum builds up, it keeps going off the rails, in a variety of directions. Some of those aren’t so bad: Ava Cadell, later to be a sexy radio host for Andy Sidaris, plays a modestly-priced hooker.

But then there’s the terrible soundtrack, book-ended with songs by The Three Degrees and (gack!) Charles Aznavour. And don’t get me started on the entirely gratuitous nightclub performances by Blonde On Blonde (a pop combo made up of two Page 3 models) and Hot Gossip, a “naughty” dance troupe, who at one point included future Mrs. Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Sarah Breitman, in their ranks. The kindest thing about them I can say is, there may be an alternate universe where these sequences made sense.

The action quotient is about as limited as you’d expect from a seventies British film, even if the ladies occasionally do get to engage in some brief fisticuffs of the limited kind. The best sequence is probably towards the end, when Dahlia (Danielle) is in a low-flying helicopter, blasting away at her target on the ground as they swoop back and forth; it looks rather risky, not least because it appears to be the actress herself present in the cockpit. I was also at least somewhat amused by the use of technology here. I imagine it was quite advanced for the late seventies, though they may want to recalibrate their database. Given the context of their work, I’m not certain that “nymphomanic” really deserves to be classified as a weakness for an agent. But generally, it’s boring stuff.

Dir: José Ramón Larraz
Star: Ina Skriver, Suzanne Danielle, June Chadwick, Anika Pavel

Tomboys

  By

★★★½
“What happens in the barn, stays in the barn…”

Dark in literally every sense of the word, this Australian film unfolds in close to real-time. Five women, fed up with the abuse of a local sexual predator, kidnap him and take him to a building on a farm owned by one of them, to teach him a lesson. However, it’s not long before their revenge begins to go off the rails. Firstly, not everyone is quite as on board as with the plan. Kat (Day) is the most gung-ho, intent on exacting the most brutal flavour of retribution. But at the other end is Imogen (Hall): barely have things got under way, and she’s already having second thoughts, as the apparent weak link. Then, after the savagery has got under way, the women get a phone-call, from their intended target. Yep, they got the wrong victim. But is anyone really innocent? Or should they just do a twofer?

This certainly doesn’t feel it was made over a decade ago; its themes are right up there with a post-#MeToo world. On that basis, it was interesting to compare this to the woeful recent Black Christmas remake, watched the same weekend. which was also (at least in its early stages) about a group of women coming to terms with “rape culture”. Tomboys adopts a much more direct approach, yet is also rather more nuanced, offering a broader spectrum of opinions, even as it’s basically five chicks in a shed for an hour and a half. Which tells you a lot about the dismal failure of Christmas, I suspect. This, however, doesn’t shy from violence: not so much in an explicit depiction as in reactions and results, which are arguably just as horrific. You wonder how Cat could possibly justify the savagery in which she indulges. Then, towards the end, you hear her story, and it’s thoroughly ugly, repellent stuff. Never mind, Cat – please continue wielding that blow-torch…

However, I was irrationally annoyed by the cinematic style, with Hill pushing the camera in too close, and also keeping the lighting at the dimmest level. I get why he opted for this approach, to create a claustrophobic intensity. It doesn’t mean I have to like it, however. For some reason, I prefer being able to see what the hell is going on when watching a film, and there are times here when I simply can’t. [The still, top, is considerably more well-illuminated than 95% of the film] Not sure we necessarily needed five female characters, either; Cat, Imogen and one other would probably be enough. Yet this remains solid where it matters most, in the story and performances. There were sufficient twists to keep me engaged, and the main roles were well-differentiated, despite the limited setting. This could very easily be a stage play, albeit one harkening back to the days of Grand Guignol. It’s a production I wouldn’t mind going to see.

Dir: Nathan Hill
Star: Candice Day, Naomi Davis, Sash Milne, Allie Hall

Kung Fu Femmes

  By

★★½
“What happens in Vegas…”

It’s weird what you stumble across on Amazon Prime. This is the feature-length version of a web series, originally made in 10 episodes. Just based on the title and description – “Delinquent girls are trained to perform risque but dangerous kung fu fight shows in a Las Vegas now owned and operated by the Chinese Mafia.” – I thought it best to wait until Chris was not around. Mostly because I’m not sure I could have stood the dripping sarcasm. Turns out, I needn’t have worried. Everyone remains attached to their clothes, and it’s resolutely PG-13 rated. Indeed, we actually see very little of the “risque” shows mentioned, which is a bit of a shame: the fragments we see, along with the training clips, suggest it’s something I’d love to attend in Vegas.

The story is mostly about Tyler (Tomlinson), who runs the troupe mentioned for casino magnate Michael Shang (Wong). He has taken over almost all the top locations there, for example, Caesar’s Palace is now Shang’s Palace. However, you don’t get to do that without some very shady business practice. Tyler is funneling information back to the FBI, in particular Agent Cook (Lorien), with the aim eventually being to take Shang down. It’s a perilous game for Tyler to be playing, and she also has to keep up appearances, finding and training girls for the show, which Shang wants to expand to a second venue. Not helping matters is the high mortality rate among the performers, apparently.due to in-show accidents.

The good news is, the actual fight scenes are pretty good. Not necessarily Tomlinson so much, but there are plenty of other actresses who know their way around a punch. Rising star Amy Johnston (Lady Bloodfight) shows up, briefly, as one of two girls who have a brawl… over a bag of chips! There are plenty of other good examples of fight choreography to be seen, sometimes for more justifiable reasons… The bad news? The video quality flat-out sucks. I’m hard pushed to believe this was shot in the late 2000’s, because it is horribly grainy and atrociously badly colour-balanced. Skin tones are particularly notable: there are times when people look badly sun-burned and suffering from jaundice at the same time. That’s quite some feat.

It’s so blatantly nauseating that it manages to distract badly from the other aspects, which are generally okay. [There are some gaffes, such as a scene supposedly taking place in Vegas, where a building in the background sports a 213 area code phone number. Uh, that’s Los Angeles…] The pacing is a bit off, as you’d partly expect from its origins as a web series. In particular, it feels like it ends, then suddenly we get a tacked on coda that bounces to San Diego, before returning to Vegas for a finale. Still, aside from the video, it wasn’t so bad. Creator Laudati has a bunch more short little films on Prime, and I might check a few out. Let’s just hope someone bought him a new camera…

Dir: Tony Laudati
Star: Michelle Tomlinson, Phoenix Wong. Serena Lorien, Anna Yosin

Personal Vendetta

  By

★★
“Heart in the right place, but…”

Bonnie Blackwell (Lesseos) is a battered wife, whose husband, Zach (Bottoms), eventually goes too far, putting her in hospital. He gets a spell in prison, and she decides to take control of her life and become a police officer. However, the scars of her abuse run deep, and she finds herself initially “freezing” when faced with potential threats, due to the PTSD resulting from her abusive relationship.  Encouraged by colleague Bill Starr (Douglas), she eventually manages to work her way past that, just in time for Zach to be released from jail without her knowledge. She discovers that he had been running a human trafficking operation, bringing in Vietnamese mail-order brides, and sets out to take him down.

After this, Lesseos would not star in another film for 15 years, until Double Duty. It’s easy to see why. Much like the rest of her filmography, I wanted to like this, but there were simply too many flaws for it to pass muster, even as a low-budget entity. There isn’t even that much action, to the point that I was teetering on the edge of not including it at all, until the final 15 minutes just about reached the minimum required level. Until then, it’s considerably more a drama, of the eye-rollingly boring TV movie type to boot. You can sense that it’s trying to be an empowering story of a woman’s climb out from under her traumatic experiences. Yet what I actually wanted, was Mimi kicking ass, not heart-warming soapiness unfolding over a shrill and cheap-sounding synth score.

Particularly in the first half, it’s therefore tough going, with Lieb’s directorial style not exactly helping – he apparently never met an opportunity for a montage sequence he didn’t like. Despite the copious efforts to convince us otherwise, there’s absolutely no romantic chemistry between Bonnie and partner John Beaudet (Wilson). Again, it’s an angle without which the film could quite easily have survived, since it adds nothing to proceedings. And don’t even get me started on the ridiculous story-line about Zach not just being a top-level white slaver, but having managed to conceal this activity completely from his wife for the entire duration of their time together.

As in the rest of her movies, Mimi is not the biggest problem here. There were moments where she looked like a middle-aged version of Zoe Bell, and she’s clearly putting in the work on the action side, even if the more emotional acting beats pose some problems. Occasionally the movie even looked like it might be going in an interesting direction. Not that it ever did, but the idea of her potentially teaming up with Vietnamese street gangs to go up against Zach was at least momentarily intriguing. This is the kind of movie which does not need or deserve anything close to your full attention, and if it’s going to be viewed at all, be sure to have something else handy, with which to occupy yourself.

Dir: Stephen Lieb
Star: Mimi Lesseos, Timothy Bottoms, Mark Wilson, Bill Douglas

Paradise Z

  By

★★½
“Slow, slow, quick-quick, slow”

This is all a bit confusing, not least because of the three different titles under which this is known. It also doesn’t help that it is one-third of an intended trilogy. This is the first part. I had previously seen the third, The Driver starring Mark Dacascos, a while ago (not GWG, but reviewed on my other site), and the second… hasn’t yet been made. Not quite the way I’d have gone about it. To be honest, you are probably better off having watched The Driver, since that explains a lot of stuff that this doesn’t. Which may well explain the eviscerating reviews on the IMDb. Though maybe it is the director: for a long time ago, he also made Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, which remains one of the worst-ever reviewed movies on Rotten Tomatoes.

There are really only two characters here: Sylvia (Gorum) and Rose (Tantayanon). They are the sole occupants of what seems to be a villa complex in Thailand, where they spend their days lying about and making yarn pictures. If you’ve seen The Driver, in which Sylvia and Rose appear at the end, you’ll know there’s a zombie apocalypse in progress, with these walking dead being particularly attracted to sound. Hence (because the film never explains it), S+R’s use of headphones, as well as a noise-cancelling toilet. Inevitably, it can’t last, and their idyll – “Another day in paradise,” as one of them sardonically comments – is eventually interrupted by a horde of fast-moving and extremely aggressive invaders.

Part of the reason I suspect it was critically eviscerated was that it’s fifty minutes or more before any zombies show up on screen, which is not what you’d expect from the trailer. It, quite deliberately, takes its time getting there, and depicts the boredom of our heroine’s daily life. Quite easy to mistake a portrayal of tedium as tedious itself, especially given the near-total lack of dialogue here. Even I, who was probably better prepared and informed than most, found this element severely overplayed. 10-15 minutes would have been fine, and done an equally good job of establishing the necessary atmosphere, rather than occupying the bulk of the film’s running time, as it does.

Eventually, and quite abruptly, it does kick into life, and there is an adequate amount of mayhem as the ladies realize their location has become untenable. It’s mostly close-combat, and in another interesting twist, the zombies are afraid of water (perhaps suggesting the disease here is akin to rabies?), something which can be used to humanity’s advantage. That said, it’s still not what I’d consider an acceptable payoff for the long lead-up, in which the sole point of note is probably some significant lesbian canoodling between Rose and Sylvia. This likely doesn’t count as enough, and as a standalone movie, falls short of satisfying. It might have worked as an episode of a long-running TV series, and is certainly different from your typical zombie film. Different, however, is not necessarily the same as good.

Dir: Wych Kaosayananda
Star: Milena Gorum, Alice Tantayanon, Brian Migliore
a.k.a. Two of Us or Dead Earth

Girls, Guns and Blood

  By

★½
“It’s trying. So very trying…”

Maybe I’m getting too old for this kind of thing. Perhaps there was a time in my callow youth when I would have been grateful for the light-to-moderate amount of gratuitous nudity which this contains. Now, though? Its flaws overwhelm any such merits. Or maybe it was the fact that I watched this while dozed up to the eyeballs on DayQuil, and frankly, coughing up phlegm proved to be a more satisfactory pursuit.

It takes place in a supposed “brothel” run by Monique (Love). Quotes used advisedly, since it looks considerably more like someone’s house. A party of high-rollers are scheduled to be coming in, dropping thousands of dollars: though quite why they want to, escapes me, since the staff here are no more than “somewhat attractive.” You could probably catch better fish with a bottle of Jager in your average night-club on a Friday evening. Anyway, doubts about this aside, it turns out this “party” is actually a robbery, who loot the place after abusing the women. 

Needless to say, they’re not standing for that, so Kitty (Nguyen), Trix (Amber), Beretta (Valentien) and the rest of the girls ride out in hot pursuit, intent on recovering the ill-gotten gains and punishing the perpetrators. Fortunately, the gang have gone their separate ways, which makes it easier for the women to take them down: the old “Let’s split up!” mistake. But perhaps things aren’t quite as cut and dried as they appear. Maybe there’s a snake in the grass, who is quite happy to let her fellow hookers thin out the herd on her behalf, because the fewer slices of the pie there end up being, the better it will be for the survivors.

It’s all tiresomely amateur. Not least, the feeble attempts at comic relief, such as the gangster kingpin, Kaiser, whose droning complaints about lost money to a ski-mask clad ninja, go on way past what could remotely be considered entertaining. The repeated us of Six Million Dollar Man sound effects also should also have been strangled at birth. The pacing in general is awful, and the lead performances generally reflect the fact that most of the actresses are better known for adult work than their Broadway resumes. Nguyen and Love are, at least relatively credible, capable of walking and delivering lines at the same time. Some of the others? Not so much. Let’s leave it at that.

There were a couple of moments in the action which did actually work. Though I’m not sure how much sense they could be said to make, e.g. one of the women suddenly pulling a flaming sword out of… well, I’m not even going to hazard a guess at that. But when you’re left yearning for the understated subtleties of an Andy Sidaris film, there’s clearly something wrong. It might have succeeded better with alcohol, but that would likely not have combined well with my medications. Not a risk I was prepared to take, at least.

Dir: Thegin German + Robert Rowland
Star: Christine Nguyen, Britney Amber, Kleio Valentien, Rebecca Love

Soeurs D’Armes

  By

★★½
“Army dreamers.”

This suffers from being almost exactly the same story as the previous feature we reviewed about women Kurdish fighters going up against ISIS, Les Filles Du Soleil. Both focus on a woman who is kidnapped by ISIS after they sweep through her town, and gets sold into slavery by her captors. She escapes, and joins of the all-female units who are battling the jihadist occupation. Bur there is a family member – in Filles, the heroine’s son; here, her younger brother – who is still with ISIS and has become a child soldier for them. Even if you haven’t seen the earlier film, you’ll not be surprised to hear this plays a key role in the film’s climax. The similarities are so startling, I kept expecting to hear this was a remake. It just appears to be a carbon-copy.

There are some differences, the most notable feature being the multinational nature of the women’s group here. As well as local Yezidi Zara (Gwyn), there are two young Frenchwomen, Kenza (Garrel) and Yaël (Jordana), an American sniper (Nanna Blondell, who was in Black Widow), etc. The ISIS are similar: the chief “bad guy” is English, with a strong Northern accent – though I’ve been unable to take English jihadists seriously, ever since watching Four Lions. It’s no easy task for the women’s commander (Casar) to mesh all these different upbringings, experiences and personalities into a cohesive unit.

And extending the similarity to Filles, the film has the same main weakness, and ends up spreading itself too thinly across the multiple stories it wants to tell. None of them manage to acquire the necessary depth, and most of which are more or less obvious. Not helping, the film has an unfortunate tendency to sink into drippy feminism. The montage sequence of the women training, accompanied by a pseudo-empowering “I am woman, hear me roar”-type song, marked a particular low point. More successful in general is the technically impressive action. The film’s best sequence depicts a battle between the women and a platoon of ISIS troops who are chasing a group of fleeing refugees, which includes Zara. It’s beautifully shot and well-staged, with a genuine sense of tension.

Yet, there are other, almost embarrassingly naive moments, such as the women entering a town their side has just bombed, and standing in the middle of the street for a chat, without checking the area has been cleared. I’m not a soldier, but even I know that’s… not wise. Such gaffes aside, it’s mainly the hackneyed and trite storyline that stops this from achieving any real degree of success. There is certainly a fascinating story to be told in the Kurdish women’s battalions and their part in the war against ISIS.  But that’s now two efforts which appear to have barely scratched the surface, or gone beyond the obvious. Particularly here, they seem more interested in political, religious and gender-based point-scoring than telling a good story.

Dir: Caroline Fourest
Star: Dilan Gwyn, Amira Casar, Camélia Jordana, Esther Garrel

Girls With Guns Calendars 2021

  By

Welcome to our eleventh annual round-up of girls with guns calendars. This one almost slipped my mind until I suddenly realized it was November 30! Still, given the all-round awfulness of the year, what better way to pass the time, then to look forward to 2021? The sooner it gets here, the better, I’d say… We do bid farewell to one of the icons of the genre, with Hot Shots having retired after their 2020 edition – maybe they knew what was coming this year! And sadly, it seems the pandemic and resulting shutdown has taken its toll, with definitely a smaller number available this time round.  Still, below, you’ll find prices (generally excluding shipping), sample images and links to purchase for all the calendars we could find. We’ll add more if we see them, feel free to email us if you know of any others

TAC GIRLS

TacGirls.com – $18.95

“The Tactical Girls® 2021 Bikini Gun Calendar is our Best of the Best Edition, with 13 months of the best photos from our 13 year history. Many of these shots were originally our cover photos or hugely popular fan favorites. For example, June 2021 is our 2010 cover model, Erin Banks with an M249 SAW, Vanessa Swainston, the 2013 cover with an Surgeon .338LM is January 2022 and our cover is Robin Raider from October 2019 with a DRD Paratus with a shoutout to the Marines. Every 2021 Best of the Best Tactical Girls Calendar comes with a 12X24 mini Poster insert with the cover girl Robin Raider on the front and a collection of other great shots on the reverse. It slides out of the calendar, no tearing or staples to pull. The remaining memorable shots bring you 13 months the best photos with some of the world’s most exotic weaponry in realistic tactical settings. The 2021 Tactical Girls Calendar Best of the Best Calendar includes the KRISS Vector SMG, the Cadex CDX-30 Guardian Precision Rifle and the Kel-Tec KSG Tactical Short bullpup Shotgun. All of these, along with a variety of carbines, battle rifles, machine guns, pistols and sniper rifles, all with gorgeous models in realistic settings.”

LIBERTY BELLES

LibertyBellesUSA.com – $14.49

:It’s the year 1777 and King George III has lost control of his naughty children. Even Captain America’s ass can’t compare to these Belles of the Revolution.  Get ready for another year as they pose for liberty and the right to bear arms, shoulders, and legs. Each month, the ladies portray important female figures (both famous and obscure) who nonetheless fought along side the men during the war that birthed our nation. The designs for this 2021 calendar is inspired by Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Alminac.” It features a Lunar calendar, a measurement tool on the side, and a bit of important wisdom from our second president & founder, John Adams, and —of course as always— girls with firearms.  This calendar also showcases the dates for some of the most infamous battles of the revolution. Only Federally observed  holidays are included in this calendar. The calendar also includes a 12″ x 18″ centerfold pull out poster.”

GUNS AND GIRLS

GunsAndGirlsCalendar.com – available through Amazon, $13.92

The website doesn’t seem to have been updated, but there does appear to be a new edition of this one available. Though maybe “Guns N Girls” is different from ‘Guns % Girls”? “The 2021 GUNS AND GIRLS wall calendar is packed with beautiful pin up models and many of today’s most popular weapons, everything from handguns to AR15s. This 16 month large format calendar is 17″x 28″ when hung up and a perfect gift for any Armed Service Member, Police Officer or Shooting Enthusiast. Also includes a bonus 12 month poster inside giving you two calendars in one package!”

ZAHAL GIRLS

zahal.org – $25.90

“We are proud to present our new ZAHAL Girls Calendar which combines the best of both sexy models and the tactical gear world. No gun bunnies! Only IDF veterans. Size is Approx A3. No gun bunnies! Only IDF veterans.”

WEAPON OUTFITTERS

WeaponOutfitters.com

In a cunning marketing plot, this one is available in two versions. Safe For Work ($19,95): “The safe for work version, features classic Weapon Outfitters landscape and portrait photography with a variety of models. Featuring:  Alex Zedra, fan-favorite Eva, Silvia Kitsune, KC, with special appearances from the Tacticats, Vanellope Von Floof, and more!”

Not Safe For Work ($29.95): “Twelve months of Weapon Outfitters After Dark (WOAD) spice! Not compliant with HR departments, nor endorsed by jealous girlfriends and wives. Featuring a published models including but not limited to: Casey, Calypso, Tabi, and Aurora! The 2021 NSFW calendar is a mix of studio and landscape photography. ”

DILLON PRECISION

DillonPrecision.com – $14.99

“The Dillon Precision 2020 Calendar is in stock and ready for your reloading room, office, or wherever you want to display the World’s Finest Models and Firearms.”

ALPHA GUN ANGELS

aga-guns.com – $14.99

“The traditional “Alpha Gun Angels” Calendar has arrived! This time we took our Calendar’s photםshoot to the next level! We gathered our BADASS squad to a crazy photoshoot in a CHOPPER! Every month will feature one of our GORGEOUS and BADASS girls with our sponsored products!”

WILD DAKOTA GIRLS

wilddakotagirls.com – $14.95

Not strictly a GWG calendar, but I think there’s enough overlap – as well as going by the pic of the bonus poster below – that it may be of interest. :) This is a fairly long-running charity effort, with the proceeds going to fight breast cancer since 2017.