Change Your Image
CheeseDogX
Reviews
Trancers III (1992)
Possibly as good as the original, definitely better than II
Trancers was a very enjoyable B Sci-Fi flick. The sequel was rather poor, and left me questioning the wisdom of making the movies into a franchise. However, Trancers III made me rethink that.
Trancers III reunites us with Jack Deth, a cop sent to 20th-Century Los Angeles to protect the future. In this brief installment, Jack is temporarily brought back to his own time to find that things have gone terribly wrong in Angel City (though no one seems to call it that in this movie for some reason). He is then sent back in time to 2005, to try and destroy the project that originally created the titular Trancers; humans turned into killing machines.
Charles Band appears to have wanted to amp up the action in this movie, I think it had more shoot-outs than the first two movies combined. However, it fell into the trap a lot of movies (especially Sci-Fi movies) do. The bad guys had worse aim than a company of Star Wars Imperial Stormtroopers. It sort of takes the wind out of an action scene when one guy is able to take on foes who outnumber him 10 to 1 and walk away without a scratch.
One thing that I was pleased by was the main villain in this movie. I won't give anything away, but I will say that he was the more complex than the bad guys in the previous two films. He had motivation beyond the typical Evil Overlord Megalomania used by lazy screenwriters.
Jack Deth didn't toss off one-liners quite like he did in the original film (and the one at the very end felt rather forced), but Tim Thomerson nevertheless was enjoyable to watch. The cameos by Helen Hunt (who by this point was on Mad About You) and Megan Ward were nice touches, as well.
The internal logic of the movies always seemed non-existent to me, and this one was no exception. I get the feeling Charles Band was more or less making up things as he went along, as there was little continuity in the movie. But, that's true of the series as a whole, and if you're willing to ignore such things, then you should get a good deal of enjoyment out of this movie.
Trancers II (1991)
A Sad Sequel
The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.
Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.
A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.
I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.
The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.
The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.
Trancers (1984)
This is the bad movie that got me into bad movies
Five out of ten might seem a bit generous for a movie I just called bad, but Trancers is a rare gem. It's a low-grade B movie that knows it's a low-grade B movie and isn't ashamed. There are some gaping plot holes (the bad guy's entire scheme, for instance), but even with that it's a fun ride if you're into cheesy Sci-Fi films.
Jack Deth, a nearly-but-not-quite cookie cutter rogue cop, has to travel 300 years into the past to the year 1985. He is after a notorious cult leader/terrorist from his time named Whistler, who is killing the ancestors of the council of Angel City (the remains of Los Angeles). Whistler has the ability to turn people into the titular Trancers, mindless killing machines.
One of the charms of this movie is the fact that it at times pokes fun at itself, such as when people point out the main character's rather strange name. Also, some of Deth's wise-acre comments are genuinely amusing in a dry, hard-boiled sort of way.
The movie is handicapped mostly by its thin and at times ridiculous plot, as well as its at times wholly uninspired script. In the first few minutes of the film, the screenplay seems to be trying to cram the Jack Deth's renegade persona down your throat, but Tim Thomserson manages to take the role and turn Deth into a surprisingly likable character. The acting is pretty good across the board for a film of this caliber, and I'm a little surprised Helen Hunt is the only actor who went on to bigger and better things.
If you're the kind of person who likes to sit back and chuckle at a well-made turkey, this film is right up your alley. If you've got friends who just don't understand why you like B films so much, this one might change their minds. As long as you can set aside things like plot holes and low budgets, you should be in for a good time.
Sasquatch Hunters (2005)
Not as terrible as I'd expected, but still bad.
I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.
The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.
The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.
So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the "background" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.
The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.
The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that "home movie" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer.
If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs.
Ancient Warriors (2003)
I've seen worse, but not much
A friend of mine got me this little turkey for Christmas, because he knows I enjoy watching bad movies. Usually I do this as a group event, so my friends and I can all sit back and mock the movie together, but out of boredom I decided to check it out by my lonesome. Next time I watch something like this, I'll make sure to have a suicide watch on hand.
From the title, as well as the box, I assumed this would be a horror flick, with at the very least some cheesy death scenes. Sadly, I didn't even get that much. Ancient Warriors is a low-grade action flick with vague supernatural elements awkwardly shoehorned in. You got some characters with psychic abilities and a dying man looking for a miracle cure buried in a cave in Sardinia, which is guarded by the ghosts of, you guessed it, Ancient Warriors. In any other movie, this would have been the focal point, but in the case of this flick, you have to wonder why they even bothered putting it in. As the gentleman who did the previous review remarks, the eponymous warriors get maybe five minutes of screen time. Most of the rest of the movie consists of boring action scenes and ham-fisted attempts at character development.
I think one of the many, many problems with this film is there's so much going on that nothing gets accomplished. Perhaps that's because there were three writers. It certainly feels like it's trying to be three movies at once. They loaded the movie with about a dozen characters and tried to flesh them all out, which might have worked if they'd gotten decent actors. I mean, you know you're in trouble when Daniel Baldwin is the most gifted actor on the set. The movie seems to be pulling in at least three directions at once; one minute it's a buddy movie, the next it's a shoot-em-up, and for brief spurts it's a supernatural thriller. It's a textbook case of "too many cooks spoil the broth."
If this movie had come out 20 years ago and had at least one famous action star (Jean-Claude Van Damme springs to mind), this movie might have made it on the big screen as a summer blockbuster. As it is, it seems destined to be the kind of movie you find on cable at 3 am when you can't fall asleep. And that's probably where it belongs. If you happen upon this movie in the store at some point, do yourself a favor and leave it on the shelf.