Molly is now a freelance photographer in New York. She runs across a woman at an art show that looks familiar. She goes to L.A. to find out that this woman is in fact, her mother. She also ... See full summary »
Molly is now a freelance photographer in New York. She runs across a woman at an art show that looks familiar. She goes to L.A. to find out that this woman is in fact, her mother. She also finds out she has a sister. The reunion is short-lived when her mother calls her to tell her that her sister is in danger and later, gets killed in an explosion. Molly must once again, become Angel to try and find her sister. Written by
The best of New World's "Angel" movies... but is it GOOD? Well...
If you have been reading my reviews, you will have seen that I have reviewed the original "Angel" movie and its first sequel "Avenging Angel". So what took me so long to get to "Angel III"? Well, I DID see this movie years ago... but on commercial television, and it seemed unfair to review an exploitation movie when it had been extensively edited. But today I found an uncut copy at a thrift store and watched it, so I'll review it now.
First, the good stuff. The production values of this movie are not only good, they are the best of the three New World "Angel" movies. It looks like some serious money was spent at times. It's odd that this movie went straight to video when the cheaper-looking first two movies were theatrically released.
When it comes to sleaze, the movie delivers more than the first two movies combined. There is a significant amount of nudity, and some of this sleaze is pretty funny to watch (like the porn film shoot.) The performances by the cast are pretty good, giving us likable good guys and hissable bad guys. (But it's clear that Adams and Roundtree only spent a few days being filmed for their surprisingly smaller-than-you'd-expect roles.)
Now for the not-so-good stuff: I thought the confrontation scene of Angel with her mother made less than an impact that I think it would in real life. (Maybe the filmmakers were afraid of being too harsh.) The main ways the movie screws up is that the movie is both too long (100 minutes long!) and too slow. There's a lot here that could be eliminated, which would have given the movie an appropriately zippy pace. Also, there is the unexplained thing about Angel being a photographer in this movie - in the previous movie she was studying law... what happened?
If you suffered through the disappointing first two "Angel" movies, this movie will give you some relief... though you'll still think it could be better. As for "Angel 4" (made by a different production company), I guess I will review it if I find a copy - I've gone through this series so far, so I might as well stay to the very end.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?