Ricercati vivi o morti

You can't watch this film for a history lesson. This was the first I had heard of the Ma Barker saga, but I could tell almost immediately that the facts were way off. And with a little internet research I realized I was of course right. Ma Barker sure as hell isn't the sexy, calculating woman the movie portrays her as, and apparently did not orchestrate all the bank robbing schemes, kiddnappings, and murders that her criminal boys carried out.

But don't expect a brilliant crime drama. The script and the acting are adequate, the gunfights are excessive and mostly unrealistic, and there is a very laughable slow motion death scene. So why did I give it a 7 out of 10?

Because it was damn entertaining. The gunfights are fun to watch but there are some deeper themes that emerge between them. The movie has a strong sense of ego intimidation among it's cast of alpha males, each of whom has his own agenda. And I appreciate the minimal use of swears for the period. The set pieces are great, reproducing a convincing 1930s era.

So watch this film like you would a cult film, and take the excessive bloodiness and ruthlessness in stride with the cheesy ultra serious comments from the FBI man who wants to take the Barkers down at any cost. Inotherwords, don't take it too seriously, just have fun with it. And if you like this, you'll love Serial Mom.

It's too kind to call this a "fictionalized" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.

Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.

I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.)

But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.

Only for die-hard Russell fans.

Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as "Black Widow", which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.

Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the "HBO's", and I can't believe they picked it up.

In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her "sons" all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.

The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience.

By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.

Now, i was up late one night flipping thourhg the HBOs, Cinemaxs, what have you when I came upon Public enemy No.1. It starred Theresa Russel and other actors I've never heard (except for Frank Stallone and that name does not really spell greatness) so I was expecting something along the lines of a low rent Impulse only with more nudity, sex and all the good stuff and less of everything else. However as I read the little synopsis given, listed as a biography, it said tels the the story of Ma barker and her boys robbing banks in the 1930s. So now I did not know what to expect and what I got was rather enjoyable. The production did a rather nice job of recreating early 1900s America which is interesting in and of itself. Not knowing of Ma Barker before seeing this, I cannot really comment on the accuracy of Theresa Randle's portrayal of her but it appeared that all the actors and director were going for a more pure fun approach rather an authentic one. Also, as is the case with all movies about gangsters from the 1930s, it is, at time's over romanticized and it is trying too hard to make you like these people even though, in reality, you would really want nothing to do with them. What really surprised me was the amount of action that was in it. It has a slow beginning, as it kinda should since its developing the Ma Barker character and her kids but once they decide to rob banks, its like almost every ten minutes guns are being fired. These shoot-outs are well-done too and seem to adhere to the thinking of the 1930 gangsters (who had no real professional training in firearms) with some of the strategies taken by the Barker family. These scenes are also rather violent (another nice surprise).

I wouldn't go as far to say it was gratuitous or gory but the gunshot impacts are realistically graphic and the carmae rarely, if at all, shys away from them. What also made this film fun to watch was the portrayal of the early FBI. Again, I don't know if its accurate or not but it was very entertaining to watch the FBI guys do their thing because they were treating there job like a game (albiet a very serious one): the FBI vs. The various gangsters (The main FBi guy got a cigar for every one he either brought in or killed). All in all it is a very entertaining movie that does deal with a real family of robbers and killers that has god quality (and a good amount) of action. Speaking of action, you also get to see Alyssa Milano as a whore for a nice chunk of the film and she is always easy on the eyes and she does the part well.