Category: Review

Getaway

  By

★★
“Witch, finder, general.”

This was likely not going to qualify for inclusion here, until a twist in the final 15 minutes. Up until that point, it had been a largely irritating saga, that was considerably more horror than action heroine – and not even good horror at that. I’m still significantly unconvinced about the quality, but must grudgingly admit, this was a twist which I did not particularly see coming (though there is a large clue dropped near the beginning). Three gal-pals, Tamara (Betham), Maddy (Taylor-Compton) and Brooke (Allbright) head for a weekend’s lakeside R&R. On the way, Tamara’s car runs out of fuel, and she encounters the local creeps, but eventually arrives, and joins the other two in scamming drinks out of horny guys.

However, the creeps are lurking, and a drugged beverage leads to Tamara waking, tied up in a farm outhouse. Turns out they’re not just creeps, but have a particular religious bent. They kidnap women, rape them, and then kill them so they can go to heaven and have “angel babies”, because… Look, they’re religious nutters, okay? Yet, that might be their fatal weakness, something Tamara can use against them, as she curses them, claiming to have occult powers. For if she is a servant of Satan, she’s hardly going to be capable of having those adorable little cherubs, is she? This is, actually, a potentially interesting aspect. However, it’s discarded in favour of the twist mentioned above, and even though it brought the film more into our wheel-house, I’m inclined to wish they hadn’t bothered.

The bigger problems start with the characterizations. The three girls are thinly-sketched at best: two are lesbians, because… well, presumably for the same reasons there is a pointless African-American sheriff’s deputy with a crush on Tamara. Not sure. None of the women seem very likeable, and indeed, I’d be hard pushed to tell you much about any of the trio as people: Maddy and Brooke barely serve any purpose, and the film might have worked better with Tamara operating as a lone wolf. The villains are equally shallow: the Wyatt Family from WWE exhibited more complexity and personality. And if you are hoping for gore or nudity, you are respectively going to be largely and completely disappointed.

It is one of those films where it reaches the end, and you find yourself wondering where things will go from there. Now that the little secret is out of the bag, any sequel would of necessity have to be completely different in its approach, yet that might prove to be more successful. However, it would have to work considerably harder to retain the viewer’s interest than the effort put in here. There were a number of occasions where I simply found myself no longer paying attention, and had to crank back the film a few minutes, just to be sure in my role as a conscientious film reviewer, that I had not missed anything. I hadn’t, and my suggestion is that you should probably skip the whole thing.

Dir: Lane Toran
Star: Jaclyn Betham, Scout Taylor-Compton, Landry Allbright, Lane Toran

She Wolf

  By

★★½
“The black-and-white widow.”

Turns out, interesting is not the same as good or entertaining. Who knew? If you watch this unaware, as I did, you are certainly going to be very, very confused initially. What’s important for you to know, is that the lead character is played by three completely different women (Lairana, Docampo and Ariza). This wasn’t because the first two died or anything: it’s a deliberate artistic choice, with the trio representing different aspects of her personality. It’s quite a trip, because they swap in and out between scenes as appropriate, or sometimes even during the same shot. There’s Lobo, the violent one; Rubia, the nymphomaniac; and Joven, who is shy and as close to normal as you’ll find here. You’ll understand why it took me a while to figure out what was going on.

Our “heroine” [or “heroines”?] is a serial killer, whose territory covers the streets and, in particular, the subway of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. She preys on men, going back to their place and indulging in their sexual fantasies, before offing them with poison. [As the tag-line above suggests, I’d have said this was more the behaviour of a black widow than a she-wolf, though this is going off what I’ve seen on the Discovery Channel] But one of her targets – who almost gets her before she can get him – turns out to be a cop. Garcia He is hunting the serial killer – yet, not necessarily for justice, as there’s something creepily personal about his search. There’s also a young guy called Leo, living in her apartment building, for whom at least one of her personas begins to have feelings. And by that, I mean ones which do not involve his death.

This is certainly for mature audiences, with the sex scenes pulling almost no punches – some of the dialogue is perhaps more graphic than the images. However, it just goes to prove that sex is not intrinsically interesting (well, if you’re not taking part!), even when artfully photographed in moody black and white, as is almost exclusively the case here. Another issue is the lack of development. Until the final twenty minutes or so, once you’ve wrapped your mind around the basic ideas, not much more happens. Things perk up somewhat towards the end, with the three personalities starting to show up simultaneously, as they seem to battle for domination. Will Joven prove capable of retaining her innocence, or will she succumb to the dark desires of her other facets?

I must confess, I wasn’t particularly enthralled to find out. That’s probably a good thing, since the ending here is as inconclusive and ambivalent as everything which had preceded it. This would likely have made an amazing short film, with a very good idea at its core. Stretching the material out to feature length, however, leaves it perilously thin. It’s just not enough, with 80% or more feeling like empty padding.

Dir: Tamae Garateguy
Star: Mónica Lairana, Guadalupe Docampo, Luján Ariza, Edgardo Castro
a.k.a. Mujer Lobo

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

Perfect Victim, by Kelley Armstrong

  By

Literary rating: ★★★★ Kick-butt quotient: ☆☆☆

35-year-old series protagonist Nadia Stafford owns and operates a wilderness guest lodge in the wilds of the vast Canadian forests northwest of Toronto, and her 53-year-old live-in boyfriend Jack helps out in this enterprise at times. (They’re a loving and committed couple, but they can’t legally marry because Jack no longer has any legal ID under his real name, and it would be very dangerous for him to try to get any.) Our story begins at the lodge, but after the first six chapters (and these are short chapters), we head out with the pair to sunny Hawaii, ostensibly for a sudden quick vacation. But it’s really a business trip; they’ve been hired to work together, which is unusual. Since they both occasionally moonlight as hired killers (although only of genuine baddies, not innocents), a typical employment contract for one of them calls for bringing about some villain’s demise. This time out, though, their main job is really the converse: to protect a good person from an untimely demise. Over the past year, a social worker and a judge, both working in Hawaii’s family-court system, died in phony suicides that have been unmasked as concealed murders. Now a lawyer specializing in these kinds of cases has been blinded in one eye by a bomb, meant for him, that killed his teenage daughter. Gallant young lawyer Angela Kamaka has stepped up to take over his caseload –and since she has, her dog has been poisoned; she discovered a bomb attached to her car before turning the key, which would have detonated it, and her boyfriend was shot at in her backyard, and has decamped. An old acquaintance (not a friend; they didn’t part on the best of terms!) of Jack’s, one Tyrone Cypress, cares about Angela’s safety. To his mind, ensuring it means taking out the killer behind this string of murders and murder attempts. The problem is, nobody knows who this is; the police are stymied. (They have suspects, but that isn’t the same thing as hard evidence.) So, he’s not just hiring a hit on the culprit; first, that culprit will need to be unmasked. That’s where he thinks Nadia’s talents will come in handy; and knowing her attitudes by reputation, he’s pretty sure Angela’s the sort of person our favorite lady assassin would care about and want to help. He’s definitely not wrong on that score; and Nadia does have more investigative chops than either Ty or Jack. She’s as adept with a computer as she is with a gun; and as an ex-cop (she was kicked off the force for dishing out some vigilante justice) she has police experience. But she was a beat cop, not a detective. As she notes here, while she has solved mysteries before, she was able to because she already knew something the police didn’t, or because the solution essentially dropped into her lap. Investigative technique isn’t really something she’s trained in, and here she’s soon conscious that she’s in over her head. (But she IS smart, very good at deductive reasoning, and gifted at reading other people….) As in the preceding novella, Double Play, Nadia is our first-person narrator in the chapters identified with her name, while Jack is viewpoint character for the third-person chapters identified with his name, and told with his perspective and vocabulary. Unlike the earlier book, though, the plotting here is impeccable; it’s a very nicely-constructed traditional mystery, without logical problems or excessive stupidity on the criminal side. (After a big reveal, I did guess another development before Nadia did, but not much before.) ‘ Also in an improvement over Double Play, Jack’s use of the f-word is toned down significantly in his chapters (and Nadia’s always been, for someone with her background, relatively temperate in her use of bad language). The worst language here actually comes from Tyrone. There’s no explicit sexual content, and violence is minimal and not overly graphic. Armstrong’s prose style is serviceable and spare, without being overly “minimalist;” there’s a strong narrative drive, and the plotting is tight, making for a quick, page-turning read. Both main characters are likeable (just because we know they occasionally dispatch some bad guys doesn’t mean we can’t like them :-) ), and I really liked the ending, though I’ll write no spoilers! Armstrong mentions in an author’s note that Tyrone Cypress is a cross-over character, who also appears in the second novel of another of her series, the Rockton series. I haven’t read any of those books, or indeed any of her work but the two novellas in this omnibus. I would probably try one of her supernatural series before starting another of her descriptive fiction series. But before doing either, my priority would be to read the original Nadia Stafford trilogy; and I hope to do that sooner rather than later! Author: Kelley Armstrong Publisher: KLA Fricke Inc.; available through Amazon, both for Kindle and as a printed book –but only as an omnibus edition paired with the previous novella, Double Play. A version of this review previously appeared on Goodreads.

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