Réactor

I'm one of those people who enjoys low level films, at least to some extent. I like the idea that there are people in show business who are doing their best despite the fact that they are not very talented. Some low budget films are very good indeed with high quality actors, clever writers and maybe marginally competent directors. You can hire writers and actors to do a job and do it well just for the exposure and a little money, but quality directors won't attach themselves to a piece of trash. This film is not high quality trash. It is barely adequate trash. The secondary characters are not bad. The male lead, who is also the director and helped work on the screenplay, is not very good. Look at his output on IMDB. It is a history of trash. He has worked a lot over the years but has never been attached to anything very good. The narrative has a certain coherence. The world is divided into good people and bad people. The bad prey on the good. The good have to learn to stand up for themselves. The high point of this movie is the appearance of Stuart Whitman. Whitman was always more than a character actor but less than a big star. He could always be depended upon to turn in a solid, professional job and that is what he does here but all too briefly. If, like me, you enjoy scrounging in Hollywood's weed patch for small but interesting pieces of junk, I applaud you. If you find this one however, throw it back.

Where DID they get the screenplay and the actors for this laughable attempt at a movie? At times I wondered if perhaps there was a new school of acting where woodenness was considered a new art-form. The gaps in the dialogue let you can almost hear the prompter reminding them of their lines. Look out for the guy who jumps backwards a second after the shotgun blast hits him. Mind you, there is a cute girl who plays as major a role as any in the movie. She willingly shows off her body which goes a little way to reprieving this otherwise sad attempt at movie making. Mind you, I only paid 50 pence for the DVD so I really didn't expect much.

The tv station I work for recently showed this movie. The shootout at the end has to be one of the most poorly put together scenes I have ever seen in a movie. While watching you may be laughing to much at it to care though. Great movie to watch late at night with friends.

This was David Heaveners' laughable homage to/ copy of the westerns of Clint Eastwood, combining as it does elements of the Dollar films, Pale Rider and High Plains Drifter. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world purely as a cost-cutting measure. A Western would have required horses and costumes and you wouldn't be able to hire bikers to play the heavies for a couple of barrels of beer.

The other reviewers have amply covered the ludicrous aspects of this movie that make it so stupid, so funny and so entertaining. But the highspot to me came when the townsfolk were waiting for the biker gang to attack them. Our hero shows them how to use guns, but then, just before the gang are due to arrive, he leaves the town and the townsfolk to their own devices. WHY ? He liked the townsfolk. He loved one of the women. He wanted revenge on the bikers. Why ride away and leave the townsfolk to certain death etc ? And it suddenly struck me. That is what Eastwood did in High Plains Drifter......

There's a pretty good premise to this. A man's sister, neice, and nephew are killed in the post-apocalypse where only the Amish and outlaw gangs seem to have survived. He is trained by an old timer the ways of the cowboy to seek revenge.

What sadly drags this down though is the horrible acting, weird pacing, and shacky directing. The gang themselves are a little to over the top as well and exceptionally rapey even at weird times. This was Heavener's second attempt at directing and he would get a little better on later efforts like Twisted Justice and Prime Target.