from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
I'm not sure what the deal is with
this movie, but there must be some good dish somewhere. Despite the
presence of Tom Sizemore and a pretty decent widescreen transfer, this
is one howlin' stinker.
|It is dishwater dull, and
features Steven Segal, former action hero, in a role in which he has
gained a lot of weight and spends almost the entire movie in a chair
tapping on a computer keyboard. Not only that, but they almost always
shoot him in extreme facial close-up. Of course, he was more
impressive than the bad guy - Dennis Hopper with an Irish accent! Ah,
there was a fresh breath of Killarney, right there, me boyos! Y'kin
hear the angels singin' when that man assumes the lilt.
|none. It would
have improved the movie. Of course, anything would have
improved the movie, even Jeff Fahey.
| As for the direction
by Albert Pyun, I think I can best sum it up by linking to his
page at IMDb. He has made 20 movies rated below 4.0 at IMDB.
That's out of 27 rated. Six of them are rated below 3.0. His average
movie, after 20 years in the business, is rated 3.6. Ed Wood is
about 3.2. John Derek is probably the worst I know of, at least among
those who did more than one movie. Derek's highest rated film at IMDb
is Tarzan, at 3.0. Take note - that was his masterpiece.
||The DVD actually features
commentary from Pyun. Sorry to say that I don't have two hours to
spend on that, so I can't share any of his insights with you, but
listening to that would have to be better than listening to the
By the way,
"Ticker" is below Pyun's average. Fair warning. And don't
think it's going to be entertaining. The only real laughs come from
the Irish accents used by Hopper and his band of rogues. Aside from
that, it's just boring.
- With their
dollars ... straight to vid in the USA, but had a
theatrical release in some other countries in summer, 2001
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, this film is an E. It is technically OK. Some
scenes even look pretty good. That's the only positive.
the Movie House home page