DVD Collectors Online

Good Guys Wear Black, a review by GSyren

Title	Good Guys Wear Black (Disc ID: 5679-D6E2-A5EC-0B9B)
Director	Ted Post
Actors	Chuck Norris, Anne Archer, James Franciscus, Lloyd Haynes, Dana Andrews
Produced	1978 in United States
Runtime	96 minutes
Audio	English Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles	None
Overview	Undefeated six-time world karate champion, Chuck Norris, stars as John T. Booker, an ex-Vietnam commando whose war actions have landed him at the top of the CIA's hit list. Secret negotiations, dirty tricks, State Department cover-ups, a politically inspired murder plot. The headlines of the recent past come to life in "Good Guys Wear Black." Aided by a beautiful Senate Investigator, Norris unravels a devious scheme of treachery and intrigue in this stunt-filled, action-packed thriller, filmed against the backgrounds of championship auto racing, the ski slopes of Squaw Valley and the backrooms of Washington, D.C.
My thoughts	Good Guys Wear Black isn't a very good film, but it's interesting because it's an important film in making Chuck Norris an action icon. It's not his first starring role. That would be in Breaker, Breaker. But it's his first successful starring film. Chuck was, of course, discovered in Way of the Dragon in 1972, fighting with Bruce Lee. But that was a minor part that didn't call for much real acting. Six years later, Chuck has improved his acting skills, but still has a way to go. Good Guys Wear Black was still being written while they were shooting it, according to director Ted Post in later interviews. Maybe that's why the script seems kind of clunky. Chuck and his brother Aaron did the fight choreography, and it's painfully apparent that they haven't figured out yet how to do this for a movie. The fight scenes just aren't very interesting. The most interesting stunt is that when Chuck finishes off the bad guy by jumping through the windshield of an oncoming car. And even that isn't handled especially well. And it's actually not even Chuck doing it, but his brother Aaron. I guess the producers didn't want to risk Chuck getting hurt, even though he was certainly capable of doing the stunt himself. This film is also noticeable for having one of the least convincing airplane explosions in cinema history. It's a pity, because up until then the film didn't look that cheap. Ted Post had mostly directed TV shows, but he also had a few very good feature films under his belt, like Hang 'em High, Beneath the Planet of the Apes and Magnum Force, so it's a bit disappointing that this one didn't turn out better than it did. So, apart from the film's historical interest, the only reason to watch it is a young Anne Archer, who looks gorgeous, and who does a good job acting, too. I wouldn't say that Chuck was ever an outstanding actor, but if you just want a Chuck Norris movie, there are a lot of better ones out there.
My rating

(From Reviews and ramblings by Gunnar on November 21st, 2014)

Cabin Fever, a review by Jon

Cabin Fever
2 out of 5

Bunch of teens are staying at a cabin, but come into contact with a hermit who seems to be rather poorly and beyond the help of Aspirin or Germolene.

I'd planned to finish this marathon like Pete with Halloween, but after the marvellous Dead Set finished, this came on. I really like Eli Roth's Hostel films and feel his reputation as a purveyor of torture porn is unwarranted. Sadly this film is pretty pathetic and so my marathon ends with a whimper, not a roar.

It has a bit of Evil Dead, via Texas Chainsaw Massacre (weird neighbours, violently unhelpful locals), but misses the point of both of those films by not having a point! It just languishes in a depressing plot about the kids getting sick and dying in variously gory ways, often with help from said locals. The overall theme is obvious from early on so all you can do is sit through the turgid nonsense. It isn't helped that that the kids are all lying cowards without a shred of decency amongst them, played by a sub-par cast. I think it could have worked if at least some of the locals were vaguely normal, but no way. Instead they are all bat-shit crazy. So there's nothing for the viewer to latch onto. Except maybe the gratuitous tits and slow-motion arse. I'm in no way offended, but can anyone tell me why those shots are there?

But the worst thing is that while it has no point and is just an unfocused mess, it's also completely inert with nothing memorable at all. I can certainly understand Roth's reputation now. If I'd seen Hostel after this debut... what am I saying? I'd never have even given them a chance. Anyway, this suggests he has literally no talent as a director.

It does have it's good points. The shop owner's explanation about a rifle is hilariously explained in a twist at the end and some other late characters redeem it some way. In fact, the film is better once the annoying kids are no longer the sole focus. In the final few minutes, the film comes together completely with a blackly comic ending. As such, the film could be cut at least in half and become an episode in a pulpy horror anthology like Creepshow. It doesn't have the story or more importantly, the talent, to warrant feature length.

This is torture porn. A pointless, nasty little story to showcase various ways people can die. So I must stress, if you have seen this and have avoided the Hostel films because of it, give them a chance. They are nasty and gratuitous, but Roth's black humour that comes so late here is more evident in his next film and its sequel and his direction is more dynamic; his characters better formed. The theme of the stories means they are survival movies like this, but with the vaguest chance of actual survival, so you won't feel quite so cheated!

(From October Marathon: Horror! on November 1st, 2008)

Tom's Buffy and Angel Marathon, a review by Tom

06. Wild at Heart (1999-11-09)
Writer: Marti Noxon (Writer)
Director: David Grossman
Cast: Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy Summers), Nicholas Brendon (Xander Harris), Alyson Hannigan (Willow Rosenberg), Seth Green (Oz), Anthony Stewart Head (Giles), Marc Blucas (Riley Finn), Paige Moss (Veruca), James Marsters (Spike), Lindsay Crouse (Maggie Walsh)

I have the feeling, that this episode only serves to forcefully break-up Willow and Oz and write him out of the show. Even though they hinted at it the last few episodes, that does come too sudden in my opinion.

Rating:

(From Tom's Buffy and Angel Marathon on August 15th, 2009)