Charades

Thoroughly enjoyable little film, which runs along at a nice pace before building up to an explosive finale. The audience are never in the dark here, kept interested throughout and up to speed by solid characters and an intriguing story. Video favourites Howell and Scalia are good as ever, as guests at host James Wilder's `friendly get together'. It was also nice to see former baywatch babe Erika Eleniak in an all too rare appearance, but it was most definitely sexy Kimberley Kates who really gets the pulses raising here playing the part of Wilders wife with more than a passing interest in his mysterious, and slightly unbalanced, work colleague.

I can't say I had high expectations when I began watching. It doesn't seem like this has been held in high regard at any point, and on a personal note, the last time I watched a movie with C. Thomas Howell (see 2010's 'Cupid's arrow' - or rather, please don't), it was one of the most abysmal pieces of trash I can recall. Somehow 'Charades,' also known as 'Felons,' still falls below those low expectations.

The screenplay is a choppy, unconvincing mess. Believe it or not, there was a time when movies involving recollections could tell a complete, cohesive, and compelling story without relying on active flashbacks to visualize them; modern filmmakers could learn a lot by revisiting movies from, say, the 1930s. But the narrative conjured between Richmond Riedel and Karen Black throws in so many frequent blasts from the past that communication of the plot becomes staggered and weak. That plot is dull and uninteresting in the first place, at best - if not boorish and aggravating - and its conveyance only makes it more so. Dialogue is much the same, and in addition is altogether juvenile at times, unreal, and less than believable. So it is, too, with the scene writing, and characters are distinctly unlikable and unsympathetic.

Stephen Eckelberry's direction is loose, and all but haphazard. Fima Noveck's editing is flagrantly overzealous, helping to further rip us out of the viewing experience with constant cuts from shot to shot, or between concurrent scenes. The acting from all involved ranges from bland to emphatically overcooked. Hair and makeup work bears the appearance of tawdry artifice, and Susan Helen Emerson's cinematography is unpolished and glaring in a way that sometimes all but hurts the eyes, and definitely doesn't help the visual presentation in any way. And so it is through and through, with one aspect of the feature after another not just disappointing but plainly infuriating for how very poorly it's all done. Rotten as 'Charades' is, there is no value to be found. Any instance of would-be sex, violence, or comedy is robbed of all possible stimulation and worth.

What's truly astounding is that there are glimmers in the concept of what could have been a good movie. It would have taken an entirely different writer, direct, cast, and crew to make it happen, and maybe also a trip through time to turn the clock back to the 40s or 50s, but it possesses recognizable noir-esque undertones. After all, the story carries all the major narrative elements - shady characters, dirty dealings, bad business, deepening holes, and so on. Yet from start to finish it's all just rubbish. In no time at all watching becomes an effort to find something, anything, to latch onto, a pinprick of positivity in an ocean of schlock. That effort is futile. However it came to be that you stumbled upon this title, there's no reason whatsoever to watch this. It's unquestionably one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I say that as someone who's embarrassed to even name some of the other titles I've watched. I hope in all sincerity that any potential viewer reads these words, and heeds them; if another pair of eyes never again suffers through 'Charades,' then at least some good will have come of my torment.

... but it's OK! Good cast, Thomas C Howell should be more exposed in the story - he's a great actor, even when he's a bit wounded. Wounds, blood and violence - remember, there is much of it here. The moment the first blood appears is both comic and shocking - worth waiting for! And we've got two pretty flowers here - Erika and red-headed, sexy, unfaithul wife Kimberley Kates. And remember - don't ever do the same thing to the guy who takes your car away from your neighbour's pavement!

Another of C Thomas's films that fits this bad quota. An afternoon party turns deadly with the arrival of an older narcissistic, forward, and shady executive guy, Barry, who does the red headed hottie of the guy who's hosting the party. Things start to take a nasty turn, after a quite challenging and sinister game of charades, where we then see Barry's true colors. I didn't like the film. I liked the woman in it, not Black who actually wrote this tripe, and directed it if I recall. It's just a ridiculous movie that doesn't make sense. One scene has Barry outside, beating a poor young kid, who towing the hottie's car. C Thomas Howell actually brings of relief of sanity to the movie. He's about to marry a familiar Baywatch face, where you can also recall, this bird popping out of a cake naked in a popular Seagal film. James Russo is wasted as a cranky, lonely and hateful neighbor who becomes a 187 at the murderous hands of Barry. This movies only good for eye candy and Howell, the rest of it, is an excursion into "What the f..k territory?"