willbrax

Sequels like this always seem to believe the second one always needs more...of everything. If this sort of thing is your cup of tea (can of cheap beer) , you will be in good ol' boy heaven.

Just saw Wicked Games @ Cucalorus Film Festival. You know something bad is coming, you just don't know when. That's part of the success of this film: the tension in the viewer builds up to where you're like, okay already when's it going to happen? This film will surprise. And again. And again.

The process shots of the cattle stampede near the very end the film are some of the worst I have ever seen in a film. Hokey and completely unbelievable.

I liked this film very much...until the end. I thought, "NO! Please don't give us a fairytale ending!" For me, the film should have ended after Red found what Andy had left for him, or maybe showing him on his way to be reunited with Andy. The scene on the beach was out of character with the rest of the film, even though Andy had talked about it earlier. And HE IS WORKING ON SOME PIECE OF SH*T BOAT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE?! HOW did it get there? I thought, "WHY such an ending to what up to now had been a great film? So I was very relieved when I discovered that Frank Darabont wanted a different ending, and it was the studio wanted it that way (how many times has THAT happened in the history of Hollywood -- f*cking up a good thing).

What a waste. Utterly moronic. Depressing as hell. Actually makes you want to root for the cops. The only thing this pile of crap has going for it is some desert scenery and cool vintage panhead H-D choppers. And here's a surprise: Nancy Sinatra was NOT an attractive woman. She looks more like the daughter of the "Chairman of the Abhorred." Gayle Hunnicutt, however, was HOT, HOT, HOT! Too bad SHE wasn't Sinatra's daughter, or we'd probably have seen more of her in the film. She's featured more prominently in 1969's "Marlowe," with James Garner. Michael J. Pollard is way out of place as a biker, as is Buck Taylor (Newly from TV's Gunsmoke). However, the most miscast, out of place "actor" has to be Norman Alden, as Medic. Norman Alden is the epitome of "square." He's probably best known as Lou, the repairman on those Delco TV commercials, playing (most likely) himself -- an utter bore. Lordy. A "better" biker film is "Hell's Angels on Wheels," with Jack Nicholson, but still not really a good film.

There's no point in going into detail -- it would take too long -- as EVERYTHING in this thing stinks. I loved The Born Losers, and even Billy Jack had its moments, but The Trial of Billy Jack is just too painful to endure. It was almost as if they made a conscious decision when making this film: "Okay, let's ramp up the hokeyness TENFOLD, and have Delores Taylor's character be sad, and cry through what seems like the entire film. We'll even have our daughter's character get all sad and cry a bunch, just like her Mother does!" You would think one would learn something about film-making after your first two films, but apparently Tom Laughlin and Delores Taylor were more interested in making a personal statement based upon their views of the condition of society in America at that time, than in making a quality film, and for that I respect them, and give them the "power salute." And thanks for giving more screen time to Lynn Baker in this one, even if much of that time SHE was crying too. She was kind of earthy and appealing in Billy Jack, but wasn't on screen enough to suit me. Check out the Billy Jack Collection, as it includes The Born Losers, and features 2 different commentaries by Tom Laughlin and Delores for each film! The second one for The Born Losers is very interesting and informative, as that was their first film.

Boy, it stinks that one has to waste time to come up with 10 lines to write about this pile of dinosaur dung. The screenplay was stunningly BAD, the casting was HORRIBLE, and so not surprisingly, the acting STUNK as badly as the so- called "plot." Schlockberg has completely "Lost" whatever it was he had. So apparently, all one needs is a bunch of "great" computer generated visuals, and that is enough for knuckleheads to gush over something that is just dinosaur-sized BAD. How do you not end up "padding the comment with junk" when you are writing ABOUT junk? Is this to eliminate HONEST, insightful commentary, which on a terrible film, won't take up much space? Why not LIMIT the number of lines to less than it is now (is there a limit?) so we don't have to read on and on to a bunch of gushing goop?