Radical Jack

Horrible and only redeemed by the RiffTrax version which makes it amusing. Who invests money in this crap?

If not for RiffTrax, I'd never attempt to see a film like this. Their commentary truly gets one through it, but also repeatedly reminds me that trusting my instincts on films has always been a good idea.

To put it perspective this is a year AFTER The Matrix and the same year as Gladiator and Snatch. The worst film I intentionally saw in 2000 was Charlie's Angels. I rated that a 5 for the same reason someone here rated this a 7. As vapid as Charlie's Angels and its storyline was, at least it had big name actors and hot actresses, and actual ACTION.

My goodness, in the year 2000 this film could not have picked a worse bunch of lead actors for bad guys. BRC was bad enough yet he was quite decent and appealing compared to most of the remaining cast. It was like they wanted to make sure the star looked good by picking worse-acting bad guys and a completely unimaginative film location. Wow!

The production quality, filming style, acting, directing and story content were all at the level of a late 80s, early 90s made-for-TV movie - but in the year 2000! I gave it a 2 because it did have a couple decent actors and the storyline was at least mildly plausible and stayed on track. I've seen worse films. Like, maybe 5 or 6. :-/

Even watching it via MST3K / Rifftrax is an incredibly painful experience. Radical Jack is basically Road House and an episode Walker Texas Ranger mixed together and filtered of ANYTHING that could be possibly considered watchable. It doesn't even work on the "so bad it's good level." It's so bad, it's just bad, Billy Ray Cyrus plays a former Navy SEAL who has hazy flashbacks of fighting in a war that occurred outside an abandoned rural motel. He's our protagonist I guess, despite being imminently unlikable. Buck Flower shows up as the bad guy. His off the rack Ill fitting suit jacket and the prom limousine the producers rented for an afternoon makes it clear he's very rich. I can only assume Buck had a late alimony payment and needed a couple hundred bucks. I could go into plot but who cares? Bar fights that look like they were staged by an Amish person. A town sheriff that drives a station wagon. Country music so bad that could be used as psychological warfare against Vietcong guerillas. Billy Ray's upsetting mullet. Radical Jack is offensively and aggressively bad. It makes Future War look like Citizen Kane. To watch it is to risk eye cancer. The only practical application of this movie would be to air drop copies of it on ISIS training camps in Syria.

A CIA agent, code named Radical Jack (Billy Ray Cyrus), goes deep undercover to bring down an international arms dealer. In the process, he hopes to find the man responsible for killing his wife and child.

Radical Jack may have been released in 2000, but it feels like an 80s action movie. All the standard 80s clichés are there. I could just imagine someone like Van Damme or Stallone playing the lead. Instead, we have Billy Ray Cyrus. And to my utter amazement, Cyrus is not the biggest weakness in the movie. In fact, I'd say he's one of the few bright spots. As I've already alluded to, the biggest problem comes from a tired, cliché filled plot that brings absolutely nothing new to the action genre. A loner on a motorcycle arrives in a new town and takes a job tending bar. He immediately runs into trouble with the local gun runner's son when the son's girl takes an interest in the new guy. He's an ex-Navy Seal (at least I think he is) who manages to fight off a half-dozen thugs. He's eventually beat-down and goes into hiding. The girl nurses him back to health and the pair fall in love. Together, they bring down the baddies. Sound familiar?

Other low points include: poor fight choreography, a remixed Achy Breaky Heart, and (mostly) bad acting. Other highlights include: Dedee Pfieiffer and . . . well, that's about it. A 3/10 seems about right.

I thought the "action movie" genre had its lowest level set at Van Dammit and Steven Seagull movies. I was mistaken. Wow, I'm impressed that Billy Ray Cyrus took the bold move of making an action movie almost totally devoid of action. That takes guts. Too bad it doesn't work any better than you think it would.

They throw a few gallons of flaming gasoline around, toss a car off a cliff, give a standard gun fight, and have some of the most horribly choreographed fight scenes ever put to film, but that about wraps it up for the action. There is a point where a guy takes a swing at Billy in a bar, and the punch is so far off target that it looks like the guy aimed it at the next county, but Billy goes flying anyway. They didn't cut the scene and shoot it again. They just left it in the movie. Too funny.

The rest is all a cliché-fest, right down to the corrupt sheriff and fired bullets throwing sparks when they hit anything besides flesh. (When will movie makers figure out that lead and copper are soft metals and don't ever throw sparks when they hit something? This little movie lie always pisses me off.) Other than that it's just Billy Ray Goodguy vs Bobby Jo Badguy, who proves how bad he is by hitting women and driving a black Hummer. And we know Billy is a good guy because he has a dream catcher hanging from his rear view mirror.

Add some grade Z actors working for free (and worth every penny), and there you have it; a straight to video movie made for those gals that think Billy Ray and his mullet are two of the cutest things ever.