Description

The Old West comes to life in this taut, searing bloody tale of crime and vengeance starring Sam Elliot (Mask, Sibling rivalry) as Conagher and Katharine Ross (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Graduate) as Edie. Year: 1991 Director: Reynaldo Villalobos Starring:Sam Elliot, Katharine Ross, Barry Corbin ... Read more

Reviews (18)

Saddle Bum
When Louis L'amour suggested to Sam Elliot that he should read Conagher, a novel he wrote, I doubt he ever envisioned it would result in becoming an instant classic western. Sam Elliot befriended Louis L'amour while filming The Sacketts, a movie based on another L'amour novel series. Unfortunately, L'amour died before Conagher was filmed; I'm sure he'd have been pleased with the results.

After reading this novel as well as viewing the movie several times I would surmise that they are both equally extraordinary, but I like the movie better. It is a very rare occasion when a movie can hold up to the book it's based on; much less surpass it in quality and interest.

Conagher (Sam Elliot) is a drifter, working wherever enough money or a warm bed and a meal can be had. His job with the stagecoach and fate brought him to Mrs. Teal (Katherine Ross), but it was something else that kept bringing him back. Through his drifting, he made a few enemies of folks who swayed to the other side of the line between good and bad. He was always true to the brand he rode for though, and sometimes his honesty caused him to be outnumbered, but never outfought.

When something, like this movie, has so many good parts that make up the whole, a resulting masterpiece can often not be avoided. Elliot, the greatest living western actor, was able to co-script this movie, based on his friend Louis L'amour's novel, and star opposite his wife Katherine Ross (whom he finds love with in the story). The movie is a perfect balance of drama, action, and love blended beautifully into an accurately portrayed frontier western.

Excelent Western, Sensitive character study,
Sam Elliot has been in a lot of junk movies, but he himself is a GREAT actor, as intense as DiNero and as subtle as meryl Streep, when the writing is solid and the role actually gives him Something to do.This is a story about 2 sensitive people coming to terms with each other on the frontier. The chemestry between Katherine Ross and Sam is amazingly nuanced, no doubt a tribute to a very happy marriage.Her stoic lonliness and his sensitive reticence is heart breaking. The writing is solid, with no flaws. It's films like this that allow both of them to exercize their substantial talents, its a shame Sam is not in more Sam Elliott vehicle films that maintain the nuanced finesse and literary merit of this film. Too often he's dropped into a pop cult machine made mediocre action film as a macho icon: he has great moments in almost every film he's in, but he needs to be in more handcrafted, literary vehicles, and work with directors like Altman & Scorsese. Connagher is Sam's best film to date. the supporting cast is quite fine, Sam & Kathryn are brilliant.

"You couldn't hurt Conagher with an axe."

Format: Color
Studio: Warner Home Video
Video Release Date: May 11, 1994

Cast:

Sam Elliott
Katherine Ross
Gavin O'Herlihy
Daniel Quinn
Barry Corbin
Ken Curtis
Cody Braun
Anndi McAfee

Conagher was written by Louis L'Amour (Lamoore) about life in the West around the end of the 19th century, with trouble with the Indians, rustlers, and a widow woman (Katherine Ross) tryimg to raise her children on a hard scrabble farm. Conagher comes to their aid.

L'Amour was a student of Western history. He understood the common man, having worked as a cowboy, circus roustabout, merchant seaman, boxer and served in the U.S.Navy. He was also a prolific writer of Western fiction, among other things.

This is not the first L'Amour story that Elliott has played in. He also performed as Tell Sackett in The Sacketts, which was an amalgamation of several of Louis's stories in that series on that family.

This story of Conagher was one of his good stories, which you will find typical of L'Amour's writing...good entertainment.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

A lover of Western American history
Only a few westerns have become true favorites of mine over the last 40 years. Conagher ranks with the best of them. Why? The movie was not filmed in a movie lot specially made for movies, like Universal Studios or Old Tucson. But rather, you could say it was filmed 'on location' in a rugged, true-to-life environment that honestly represents what it was really like in the Old West. The Teal cabin and the surrounding country, the ranch of Seaborn Tay, the town - all have that authentic realism that lend excellence to the movie. Often in the film the lighting in certain scenes appears lacking as compared to other films in the genre. But actually, this is what gives the film a special feel, a special ring of realism. It's because you feel as though you are really there as a bystander, watching this drama play out right in front of you in the same way it would appear in real life. The direction of the film by Rebaldo Villalobos is superb and the performances by the actors are absolutely memorable. The musical score couldn't have been better because the selections chosen for the soundtrack apply perfectly and leave an indelible impression on the viewer. I don't know what Sam Elliot would think about this, but I believe this film is his best, most memorable performance of his career, bar-none. His rendition of Conn Conagher imprints Sam Elliot on my mind for all time - he IS Conagher. I don't think he has played characters in any of his other films that have struck me the way that Conn Conagher has in this one. But this is not to detract from the other performers in the film: Catherine Ross, Gavin O'Herlihy, Daniel Quinn, Barry Corbin, Ken Curtis, Cody Braun, Anndi McAfee, and the rest - they've all portrayed believable characters that make for a very enjoyable, memorable film that you will want to watch again and again over the years because it brings something special to the heart. Don't pass up the opportunity to see Conagher if you haven't seen it yet - you'll never regret it.

TALL IN THE SADDLE
IT APPEARS OUR ONLY HOPE FOR THE FUTURE OF GOOD WESTERNS LIES IN THE HANDS OF SAM ELLIOTT AND TOM SELLECK. I HOPE THEY DONT TIRE OF MAKING THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH IDEALLY SUITED FOR THIS GENRE.
THIS IS A SIMPLE STORY AS ALL GOOD ONES ARE. CONAGHER IS AN OLD SCHOOL COWHAND LOYAL TO HIS EMPLOYER AND TO HIS OWN TRUE BLUE MORALITY.
HE SIGHNS ON TO RIDE FOR A SMALL RANCHER EXPERTLY PLAYED BY THE LATE KEN CURTIS. A COMPETING OUTFIT WANTS TO KILL THE OLD MAN AND STEAL HIS STOCK. CONAGHER WONT ALLOW IT AND GIVES THE RUSTLING COWBOYS A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE.
HE ALSO TAKES A SHINE TO A WIDOW WOMAN, MRS. TEAL PLAYED BY ELLIOTTS REAL LIFE WIFE KATHERINE ROSS. THE LONELY WIDOW WRITES HER THOUGHTS DOWN ON NOTES AND ATTATCHES THEM TO WANDERING TUMBLE WEEDS. CONAGHER FINDS SOME OF THEM, NOT KNOWING TEAL IS THE AUTHOR. CONAGHER HAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HIS NOMADIC COWBOY LIFESTYLE OR TRUE LOVE AND FAMILY LIFE. ONLY HE FEELS UNFIT TO PURSUE THE LADY. LOUIS LAMOURS STORIES ALWAYS HAVE A MORAL THROWN IN AS ALL GOOD WESTERNS DO. ELLIOTTS CHARACTER STANDS HIS GROUND, RIDES FOR THE BRAND AND SHARES HIS PHILOSOPHY OF DOING 'THE RIGHT THING' TO YOUNGER TIN HORNS.
IN THE END HE WHIPS THE BAD GUYS,.... BUT DOES HE OPT FOR ROMANCE OR HIS WEATHERD WAY OF LIFE? HAVE TO SEE THE MOVIE TO FIND OUT. THE MUSIC IS GREAT IN THIS ONE. IT IS SWEET AND SIMPLE LIKE THE FILM ITSELF.

ELLIOTT IS TODAYS QUINTESSENTIAL COWBOY AND SITS THE SADDLE WELL. ... Read more

Description

Thriller about an honest-yet-overworked narc who gives into corruption while working undercover as an LA hooker. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

I've seen this movie, and it's a hit!
When will this movie be issued on dvd ... Read more

Amazon.com

Miles Utley (Tom Berenger) is a guerrilla for God, a gun-wielding member of the Danites, the militia wing of the Mormons during the late 19th century. Once the defensive arm of the besieged church, the Danites (dubbed "the Avenging Angels") are now feared by the Utah congregation and Utley is too good at his job: he's become, one accuser says, "A man who murders in the name of peace." After stopping an assassination attempt on the life of Brigham Young (a quietly authoritative Charlton Heston, whose star presence makes the most of a handful scenes), Utley is quickly hidden away and the details hushed up, but as he pulls at a few loose threads he unravels a conspiracy that shoots to the very top of the church. The twisting plot makes for an engrossing mystery and the locations are never less than gorgeous, but the real hook is that this conspiracy film is inspired by a real but little-known bit of Mormon history. Berenger is a natural as a buckskinned, quick-draw Mormon soldier, holding his own in scenes with grinning Western icon James Coburn as Utley's easygoing but ruthlessly dedicated mentor. As the mystery winds up, the more interesting dimension of Utley's crisis in faith is transformed into showdown heroics, which makes for a rousing old-fashioned conclusion if a disappointing character study. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Another GREAT TNT/Berenger Historical Action Drama
This movie, along with "Rough Riders", is another fine example of Tom Berenger's (& TNT's) talent for taking a historical setting, fictionalizing it (in a realistic way), putting in some subtle social/political commentary (disguised in a historical setting, kind of like the way science-fiction writers do it), & adding entertaining elements (in this case, rousing action sequences & romance to boot!) to make a story that both entertains & educates at the same time.

Most people who wouldn't be able to sit through a history class would, at the same time, enjoy movies like this. (I'm a history buff, but my friends aren't. However, when I had them over for a "movie-night" get together at my house, they really got into the conspiracy murder plot & they loved the action sequences & love story, as well as seeing Coburn & Heston in their roles as real-life historical figures.)

Berenger, as producer & star, knows how to choose a thoughtful subject for a film. This movie, in a historical context, is really about religious faith & the different levels of belief. His character, Miles Utley, is devoted to the Mormon church, which is both his strength AND his weakness, since he kills an innocent man at the beginning, in the name of God. As the film progresses, he uncovers a plot to murder Brigham Young (Charlton Heston, the former "Moses" from "The Ten Commandments!") by subordinates who wish to take over the church, in order to "save" it, according to their own beliefs & purposes.

With today's events & headlines concerning both "The War on Terror" & the Catholic Church abuse scandals (and cover up), this movie's theme is especially poignant today.

Historical dramas serve the same purpose as science-fiction stories. They make the audience think about current issues without preaching. The best ones also manage to entertain the audience in the process. "Avenging Angel" succeeds on all counts. It's a western, a mystery, a thriller, a love story, & an action-drama all rolled into one! It's "a thinking man's" action movie.

Besides purchasing this movie, I also suggest checking out the previously mentioned "Rough Riders", as well as "Buffalo Soldiers", "The Broken Chain", "Geronimo", "Wallace", & "Andersonville" (all from TNT), "The Tuskegee Airmen" & "In Pursuit of Honor" (both from HBO), as well as "Son of The Morning Star" (aired on ABC during it's initial run.) All of these shows prove that tv isn't just "mindless entertainment", as some pompous critics have claimed.

History isn't about dates & cold facts (the way most history classes are taught in high-school.) I agree with most people, in that history taught in that manner is boring! History is about people & the human condition. That's what "Avenging Angel" is about.

NO, SIR, THAT AIN'T HISTORY!!
A movie trailer for "Avenging Angels" claims that what the viewer will see is the "true" story of the Avenging Angel, in this case played by Tom Beringer. Let's face it folks, if this is a "true" story from the American West based on historical facts then we need to all go searching for the grave sites of Rooster Cogburn and J.B. Books.

True? Not nearly! Or as Brigham Young, himself, would have said, "As false as the hinges of Hell!" No Elder Rigby. Even if this character is supposedly based on Sidney Rigdon the story falls considerably short. Rigdon was no where near Utah at any time in his life having left the Church even before the historic days of Nauvoo.

No Brother Parker. No Brother Pike. No Alpheus Young with murderous intentions against a loving father. No Amanda Young. And no Brother Utley either.

But wait, as a western I loved it. Yes, I give it five stars for entertainment value. But don't watch it hoping to look into the cold, dark, historical secrets of Mormon Danism.

Want a more accurate film about the Latter-day Saints and their early history? Pass on this one. Try "Brigham Young" with Dean Jagger.

A real Utley
Avenging Angel is based on a book written by Gary L. Stewart about the life of his Great-Grandfather Gabriel Marion Utley. The movie is both fact and fiction. But well worth watching. The movie's discription of Miles' life and the real life of Gabriel's life are very similar.

Excellent Movie
I had seen this movie before and tried finding it for my collection. It's an excellent movie and one that I will watch many times more. I hope you give it a chance...it is a learning experience as well. Thank You Amazon.com for being here for a lot of movie buffs and the casual viewer.

No, Sir, That Aint History!!
A movie trailer for "Avenging Angels" claims that what the viewer will see is the "true" story of the Avenging Angel, in this case played by Tom Beringer. Let's face it folks, if this is a "true" story from the American West based on historical facts then we need to all go searching for the grave sites of Rooster Cogburn and J.B. Books.

True? Not nearly! Or as Brigham Young, himself, would have said, "As false as the hinges of Hell!" No Elder Rigby. Even if this character is supposedly based on Sidney Rigdon the story falls considerably short. Rigdon was no where near Utah at any time in his life having left the Church even before the historic days of Nauvoo.

No Brother Parker. No Brother Pike. No Alpheus Young with murderous intentions against a loving father. No Amanda Young. And no Brother Utley either.

But wait, as a western I loved it. Yes, I give it five stars for entertainment value. But don't watch it hoping to look into the cold, dark, historical secrets of Mormon Danism.

Want a more accurate film about the Latter-day Saints and their early history? Pass on this one. Try "Brigham Young" with Dean Jagger. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Just like "Lucky Chances", the book "Lady Boss" is so much
better than the mini-series. I do like the casting of Kim Delaney as Lucky instead of Nicolette Sheridan. The role just suits Kim better. The mini-series is is entertaining but in my opinion not worth purchasing. Get the book or wait till it comes on cable again!

Was this suppose to be based on the book?
A good movie wriitten by Jackkie Collins, but HEY COME ON! This followed the book hardly at all. I must admit, Kim Delaney is much more likable than Nicolette Sheridan as Lucky. Bridgette wasn't in this one just like she wasn't in the first movie (Lucky/Chances). next time Jackie write a mini-series not based on your books..... ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Steve Barnett's Scanners: The Showdown
This sequel, also known as "Scanner Cop II," marks the end of the series...or does it?

The rookie cop Staziak is now a plain clothes detective (he must have had one good year). He uses his scanning capabilities to rout criminals and foil evildoers. We also meet an evil scanner (yes, another one) who has escaped from a mental ward and is trying to kill Staziak. It seems he can also suck the "lifeforce" out of other scanners. You see the finale coming as scanner cop and evil scanner do scanner battle.

In the beginning of the film, the scanner cop fools a kidnapper into thinking he is an accomplice, not the cop. He does this by "scanning." The problem is the director uses the exact same special effect from "Scanner Cop," but in a completely different context. Did FX guru John Carl Buechler get lazy this time around?

One complaint I have had about the entire series, and I have now seen all five entries, is that the Scanner power is never really explained. We see scanners command others to do their will, we see scanners getting scanned, but what specifically does "scanning" entail? Reading minds? This question has never been adequately explained, especially when you throw in the fact that machines can be scanned as well.

The good scanner vs. evil scanner plot has been done to death, yet it is still trotted out for this video. This came out a few years ago, without a sequel, but after witnessing the rebirth of movie series like James Bond, Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc., I am not holding my breath. In a complete pageant of unoriginality, every single episode of this film series has had an exploding head, but none of them ever matched the gore of the first film. This showdown is underwhelming, and I cannot recommend it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, mild sexual violence, strong gore, and profanity.

A Sad Ending to an overall well done series
Scanners: The Showdown (Otherwise known as "Scanner Cop 2:Vlrokins Revenge and "Scanners 5: The Showdown") is a sadimpression of a movie. I'm not sure, but I think that this was made for Canadian Cable TV. While there are some good special effects, the story is almost an exact copy of every Scanners film made. The performances are dull, dreary, and unoriginal. If yo're interested in special effects, or are a fan of the series, see this film. All others, stay away. ... Read more

Description

A ruthless gang of Confederate soldiers after the Civil War rob Yankee banks for a living, killing anyone who gets in their way. But when the gang rebels against their leader, he has no choice but to hunt them down, bloodily murdering them one by one. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Not bad.....But
This seemed like a sure-fire hit, and it could have been, except for two things:

Rourke's makeup and costumes are almost laughable. The stupid mustache, the big, floppy hat, and ten layers of clothes in the hot summer plains are ridiculous! The makeup and costume guys should be selling used cars.

Second, the final scene was ludicrously short, bloodless, and unbelievable, especially given the bloody action that proceeded it. Someone please explain to the man who directed this film about the velocity and deadliness of small handguns.

Still, it's worth watching just for Rourke and Mulroney. Rourke is THE quintessential bad guy, and he plays it to the hilt, here. Muldoney is always good, no matter what role he plays. The supporting cast is great, too, so it's not a complete wash-out!

Best dam western ever
Mickey Rourke is the best I've ever seen him in this film. He is cruel and ruthless to the core. He makes Clint Eastwoods noname caracter seem rather friendly. If you are a fan of violent westerns with a heartless main character this is the one for you.

The last outlaw
This is the best damn western ever! I swear the plot is one that will keep you guessing and intrigue you. The outline:
A band of bank robbers pull off a heist not exactly as planned. The outlaws quickly blame their leader and shoot him believing this to be his demise. Yet he awakes in the hands of the very posse hunting him down and strikes a deal with them, help hunt his former gang down.
Slowly he picks off the members one by one until what used to be a "lieutenant" kills him with a very good cliche. Over all I give this all 5 stars, it deserves it!

Good Western
This is a damn good movie. The story's awesome and Rourke's character is a badass. It drags in some spots, but overall this is probably the coolest western since TOMBSTONE. The stylized direction by Geoff Murphy(YOUNG GUNS 2) is real effective. Check this one out.

Geoff Murphy's The Last Outlaw
An interesting idea is put through the Western ringer and comes out soaked in blood. A band of bank robbers barely escape after a muddled attempt. They kill their psychotic leader, and continue on. The leader lives, and joins the very posse hunting down the robbers. He takes his bloody revenge on his old gang one by one, until just his former second in command is left.

What a great idea. Reading the back of the video box, I thought this would really play with your mind. Then I watched the movie...

Mickey Rourke, thanks to his facial hair scheme and boxer's eyes, looks like an Old West version of Fu Manchu. His southern accent is constantly dubbed in, since he mutters through this more than Marlon Brando in "The Godfather." Rourke plays the robbery gang's leader left for dead as a psychotic. It takes the rest of the posse forever to discover this fact as he gets most of them killed. There are no smart scenes where the posse does not know he is a robber, like I thought there might be. Instead, after killing the marshall and the bank president, he is made head of the posse, since the other posse members are too stupid to see his murderous ways.

Dermot Mulroney, who has never been good in a film, is good here. He plays the second in command a little to sensitively, but he is a likeable hero. Ted Levine is also good as a shoot now, ask later moron who is with the gang.

The robbers are nothing more than stereotypes. Mulroney is the good guy. Levine is dumb. John C. McGinley is the coward. Keith David, because he is black, practices voodoo and is convinced Rourke is a ghost. Steve Buscemi is the dreamer, who is talking about his little home on the beach in Mexico he hopes to have one day right before having his head blown off by Rourke. Loomis (the character's name) is the injured guy they will eventually sacrifice. Rourke is psychotic just because. The posse's marshall is a he-man who is killed way too early. The bank president is nerdy and bespectacled, and also killed in an outlandish way.

The constant blood and shootings are exhausting. The whole film is just a bunch of guys riding around in the desert getting shot. The opening bank robbery, reminiscent of "The Wild Bunch," is handled well enough, but screenwriter Eric Red never gives us any characters, just warm bodies full of blood. Why does this robbery go wrong after 29 went right? Why does Rourke pick this robbery to go mental and get "killed" by his own men? How did the posse know the bank was going to be robbed? After the opening credits, you feel like you just walked into the middle of the film, not the beginning. These professional bank robbers and cold blooded posse members also spend most of the film fighting amongst themselves, and bickering in a way that made me think of my son's daycare class.

The final mistake here is having Mulroney narrate the film. Since Eric Red is no Billy Wilder, Mulroney obviously lives through the film, meaning he probably defeats Rourke in the finale. I sat through 90 minutes of bloodshed to witness a showdown that I had already figured out in the first ten minutes.

While not an utter failure, "The Last Outlaw" does not have enough going for it to be recommended.

This was rated (R) for physical violence, strong gun violence, strong gore, strong profanity, and sexual references. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Steve Barnett's Scanners: The Showdown
This sequel, also known as "Scanner Cop II," marks the end of the series...or does it?

The rookie cop Staziak is now a plain clothes detective (he must have had one good year). He uses his scanning capabilities to rout criminals and foil evildoers. We also meet an evil scanner (yes, another one) who has escaped from a mental ward and is trying to kill Staziak. It seems he can also suck the "lifeforce" out of other scanners. You see the finale coming as scanner cop and evil scanner do scanner battle.

In the beginning of the film, the scanner cop fools a kidnapper into thinking he is an accomplice, not the cop. He does this by "scanning." The problem is the director uses the exact same special effect from "Scanner Cop," but in a completely different context. Did FX guru John Carl Buechler get lazy this time around?

One complaint I have had about the entire series, and I have now seen all five entries, is that the Scanner power is never really explained. We see scanners command others to do their will, we see scanners getting scanned, but what specifically does "scanning" entail? Reading minds? This question has never been adequately explained, especially when you throw in the fact that machines can be scanned as well.

The good scanner vs. evil scanner plot has been done to death, yet it is still trotted out for this video. This came out a few years ago, without a sequel, but after witnessing the rebirth of movie series like James Bond, Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc., I am not holding my breath. In a complete pageant of unoriginality, every single episode of this film series has had an exploding head, but none of them ever matched the gore of the first film. This showdown is underwhelming, and I cannot recommend it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, mild sexual violence, strong gore, and profanity.

A Sad Ending to an overall well done series
Scanners: The Showdown (Otherwise known as "Scanner Cop 2:Vlrokins Revenge and "Scanners 5: The Showdown") is a sadimpression of a movie. I'm not sure, but I think that this was made for Canadian Cable TV. While there are some good special effects, the story is almost an exact copy of every Scanners film made. The performances are dull, dreary, and unoriginal. If yo're interested in special effects, or are a fan of the series, see this film. All others, stay away. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Pierre David's Scanner Cop
The producers of the "Scanners" series decided to take this in a whole new direction.

This time out, we meet a young scanner whose birth father goes insane. He is adopted by an understanding cop. Years later, his adopted dad is police commander and Staziak is a rookie cop. He is on drugs to keep his scanning under control, but helps out his dad after a bunch of cops are shot by usually normal people. It seems perennial villain Richard Lynch is programming people to kill cops as revenge for his being shot by the commander.

The whole plot is just fine and dandy, but this film feels like one of those syndicated TV action shows like "VIP" or "Silk Stalkings." Better action has been witnessed on "T.J. Hooker." It seems all the budget was spent on the special effects by John Carl Buechler, which are fine except for a hilarious finale involving a defibrillator (sp?). The film makers also do not remember their own mythology, as we see the scanner cop chase someone in an elevator by taking the next elevator that comes along. As we know, and the film shows us, scanners can "control" machines, so why doesn't he just scan and tell the elevator with the criminal in it to stop? In the finale, as the scanner cop is running all over a hospital looking for his injured dad, he scans everyone he comes in contact with. The facial contortions and scanning take longer than just using his mouth and asking where his father is.

I had the same reaction to this that I did with "Scanners" I and II. Fine, I have now seen them, time to go outside. This is average in the purest sense of the word, and I wish the film makers had taken more chances with this by-the-numbers production. I cannot recommend it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, strong gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, very brief male nudity, and drug references.

A Welcome Return to the Roots of the Original "Scanners"
After the dismal "Scanners III" This movie, the fourth in the five movie series, Gives kind of a new twist to the concept of scanners, and shows what would happen if one became a cop, and how much good he could do for the world. Has a good budget, and great special effects for direct-to-video. Reccomended. Followed by "Scanners: The Showdown", which is also known as "Scanner Cop 2: Vlrokin's REvenge." I'll review that one soon ... Read more

Reviews (3)

better then people think
one thing that is eerie about this film is the fact that it was made long before the whole LAPD crash unit down fall.thats why this movie is so interesting to watch.because of the parallels with current events.its not as cliched as everyone thinks.you have vigilante cops who is protected by the powewrs that be,judges,prosecuters etc etc.some of theses people....no let me rephrase that MOST of these people actually know of the wrong doing that the SIS is doing.innocent people gets killed but its the ends that justify the means for them.the sad fact was when dan vaughn was in the street at the end of the movie saying "they love us" meaning(the citizens)of LA.
he might be right some people see it as a necessery evil but alot don't. its hard to take well protected cops down like that.but its worth watching to see what happens to them when one of them speaks

Not to be taken seriously
This movie has all the stereotypical, flat characters of any renegade cop movie-- a hard-nosed female reporter, loose cannon rookie... even the dialogue is predictable. The only redeeming quality of this movie is how much fun it is to watch it with a big group of nerds shouting witty comments at the screen a la Mystery Science Theater.

Lots of Action and blood
I thought that this is a good movie if you are sick of crimials that get away with the crime. There are a lot of gun fire and they have a good cast. Lou Diamond is a very rough guy but he can be calm and nice when he wants to be. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

this is an exciting movie
okay, even though it looks like it had a budget of 5 bucks or something, it still is a good movie, i haven't enjoyed a Wayne Crawford movie since Jake Speed ... Read more

Reviews (1)

I've seen this movie, and it's a hit!
When will this movie be issued on dvd ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Really lousy
I haven't seen Spiders 1, so I can't compare it to its sequel, but for its sake I hope that the old saw about a sequel being worse than the original is true. Spiders 2 was awful. Terrible. Stupid. Poorly acted. Badly written. Unimaginative. Even badly lit.

Now, granted, a B (or C or D) movie like this isn't going to have a plot out of Shakespeare, but why not have a story that makes a modicum of sense? There are so many flaws I can't possibly enumerate them all, but here are a few: Spiders 2 takes place on a cargo ship containing a secret lab in which spider and human DNA has been combined--what better place than a ship rolling on the high seas to have a lab full of glassware for experimentation? Human DNA does nothing but make the spiders supersized, like a McDonald's Value Meal--there are no hideous human/spider creatures (think The Fly or Alien Resurrection), just big bugs. At the end of the movie a truly gigantic spider as wide as the entire ship and ten times larger than the human sized spiders we'd seen before emerges--where this beast could have been throughout the rest of the film we have no idea, and it does nothing more than go down with the ship. In the final scene, guys in the rescue helicopter drop a hand grenade down to the heroine, who's holding on to her husband with one hand, being pulled down by a giant spider on one leg, with the wash of the helicopter rotor affecting her from above and the motion of the sea on the crate the spider is in from below--and she catches it one handed. Sign the girl up as an outfielder in the big leagues! Even the shoes the heroine wears are stupid--she was rescued from a sailboat where she'd undoubtedly be wearing deck shoes, and we're told that she's the only woman on board so the clothes they give her will probably be too big for her (fortunately, they aren't, and the tank top she wears is quite fetching)--where did the pumps with two inch heels come from? Is the ship not only infested with giant spiders, but also drag queens? Hmm, come to think of it, that would have made a better movie. There are a few decent special effects, but some really awful ones. Frankly, much of the film looks like what my son did when he was about five years old, playing with his rubber toys.

The only two reasons to see this are if you think it's campy enough to be funny (maybe, especially if you're influenced by hallucinogenic substances, but remember, the drag queens were my idea) or if you've got the hots for Stephanie Niznik. She's a fox, but can't save the film for me. Better spend your money on Deep Rising, a terrific, scary, funny film with another gorgeous heroine.

Spiders 2: Mad Scientist Meets "Aliens"
There is absolutely no connection between the original SPIDERS and SPIDERS 2, except for the inevitable big crawling and bouncing arachnids. Director Sam Firstenberg tries with middling success to meld the traditional Big Bug movies of the 50s with the claustrophobic feel of Sigourney Weaver battling the slimy Aliens of that series. The result is a mess that does not allow for either plot believability or character/audience involvement.

Stephanie Niznik is Alexandra, who, with her remarkably wimpy husband, is picked up out of the ocean by a sea captain (Daniel Quinn) and a mad scientist type (Richard Moll), both of whom are conducting experiments to combine spider with human DNA. Naturally, no explanation is given as to why this should inevitably lead to spiders growing as big as Buicks. SPIDERS 2 starts out more as a dramatic mystery that only hints at the existence of huge spiders. Alexandra's husband is less interesting than the Daniel Quinn character who takes a liking to her. Richard Moll gets to prance about waving his arms as he shouts out, "My experiments will revolutionize genetic science!" The second half bogs down into a scene by scene ripoff of ALIENS 2 and 3. Ms. Niznik battles both evil henchmen and mutated spiders, even as she wears the same T-shirt worn by Sigourney Weaver. The assorted spiders seem more disgusting than threatening. SPIDERS 2 would have been greatly improved had director Firstenberg tried for originality rather than variations on the tough broad in a T-shirt theme.

THEY TOOK THE SEQ OUT OF SEQUEL
Why didn't they just go ahead and name this Breeding Ground or something? It does not pick up where Spiders left off. It really has nothing to do with the original. So why do these movie makers try and "cash in" on a previous films success by fooling the viewer that it is a true sequel. Anyway, now that we've dealt with that, let's move on to this subpar sequel. First of all, Richard Moll (the only known actor) in this movie is worse than any of the less known performers. Makes one wish Vincent Price was still alive or they had the money to pay for someone like Christopher Lee. At any rate, he is so inane and ineffectual, one can't wait till he gets his just dessert!
Stephanie Niznik could easily pass for Susan Sullivan (Falcon Crest) daughter, and joins the countless females who finds the opportunity to strip down to her Sigourney Weaver t-shirt when it comes time to battle the monsters. It ticks me off that they're gearing away from male heroes, particularly when Niznik is so unsupportive of her husband when he was right. The film-makers then decided to make her husband (the dimpled Grant Cromer) look wimpish. Add Daniel Quinn as the oh-so-nice captain who wants to woo Niznik away from her seemingly demented husband, and what a remarkable cast of bad actors looking good. As for the effects, considering the budget, they were okay. Some shots looked good; others not so good.
But after all was done, I still had a good time. There was some tense moments and the ending pretty wild. (Kudos to the writers for not having the happy ending turn sour, and believe me, they could have.)
Anyway, Spiders 3 should bring back Josh Green and carry on with their storyline.

Not a direct sequel
Although the first Spiders movie was quite good, this one lacks most of what made the first enjoyable.

There is no solid plotline, no interesting lead characters, no conspiracies, aliens, Men in Black, etc. All it really has going for it is seeing Bull, from TV's Night Court, as the villain.

A couple are rescued at sea by a large freighter. On board is a doctor who is conducting experiments on giant spiders. The couple figures out what is going on, realize they are intended as victims and accidently release all of the spiders.

In the original movie, the spiders were fearsome and nasty. Here they are almost backdrops. With the surface of the ship literally crawling with the beasts, they mostly just stand around and do nothing, not even chase their prey.

Stick with the first movie and avoid this thematic sequel.

my oh my
what are people thinking when they make a film anyways? the first spiders was actually a pretty good movie but then they make a complete disaster here in the sequeal, i mean just terrible, good god what happened?? one scene it looks like toy spiders crawling on a boat made from legos or somethin, i mean just terrible. nothing realistic looking at all in this film. i wouldn't pay a penny for this flick. its just that bad people! ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Really lousy
I haven't seen Spiders 1, so I can't compare it to its sequel, but for its sake I hope that the old saw about a sequel being worse than the original is true. Spiders 2 was awful. Terrible. Stupid. Poorly acted. Badly written. Unimaginative. Even badly lit.

Now, granted, a B (or C or D) movie like this isn't going to have a plot out of Shakespeare, but why not have a story that makes a modicum of sense? There are so many flaws I can't possibly enumerate them all, but here are a few: Spiders 2 takes place on a cargo ship containing a secret lab in which spider and human DNA has been combined--what better place than a ship rolling on the high seas to have a lab full of glassware for experimentation? Human DNA does nothing but make the spiders supersized, like a McDonald's Value Meal--there are no hideous human/spider creatures (think The Fly or Alien Resurrection), just big bugs. At the end of the movie a truly gigantic spider as wide as the entire ship and ten times larger than the human sized spiders we'd seen before emerges--where this beast could have been throughout the rest of the film we have no idea, and it does nothing more than go down with the ship. In the final scene, guys in the rescue helicopter drop a hand grenade down to the heroine, who's holding on to her husband with one hand, being pulled down by a giant spider on one leg, with the wash of the helicopter rotor affecting her from above and the motion of the sea on the crate the spider is in from below--and she catches it one handed. Sign the girl up as an outfielder in the big leagues! Even the shoes the heroine wears are stupid--she was rescued from a sailboat where she'd undoubtedly be wearing deck shoes, and we're told that she's the only woman on board so the clothes they give her will probably be too big for her (fortunately, they aren't, and the tank top she wears is quite fetching)--where did the pumps with two inch heels come from? Is the ship not only infested with giant spiders, but also drag queens? Hmm, come to think of it, that would have made a better movie. There are a few decent special effects, but some really awful ones. Frankly, much of the film looks like what my son did when he was about five years old, playing with his rubber toys.

The only two reasons to see this are if you think it's campy enough to be funny (maybe, especially if you're influenced by hallucinogenic substances, but remember, the drag queens were my idea) or if you've got the hots for Stephanie Niznik. She's a fox, but can't save the film for me. Better spend your money on Deep Rising, a terrific, scary, funny film with another gorgeous heroine.

Spiders 2: Mad Scientist Meets "Aliens"
There is absolutely no connection between the original SPIDERS and SPIDERS 2, except for the inevitable big crawling and bouncing arachnids. Director Sam Firstenberg tries with middling success to meld the traditional Big Bug movies of the 50s with the claustrophobic feel of Sigourney Weaver battling the slimy Aliens of that series. The result is a mess that does not allow for either plot believability or character/audience involvement.

Stephanie Niznik is Alexandra, who, with her remarkably wimpy husband, is picked up out of the ocean by a sea captain (Daniel Quinn) and a mad scientist type (Richard Moll), both of whom are conducting experiments to combine spider with human DNA. Naturally, no explanation is given as to why this should inevitably lead to spiders growing as big as Buicks. SPIDERS 2 starts out more as a dramatic mystery that only hints at the existence of huge spiders. Alexandra's husband is less interesting than the Daniel Quinn character who takes a liking to her. Richard Moll gets to prance about waving his arms as he shouts out, "My experiments will revolutionize genetic science!" The second half bogs down into a scene by scene ripoff of ALIENS 2 and 3. Ms. Niznik battles both evil henchmen and mutated spiders, even as she wears the same T-shirt worn by Sigourney Weaver. The assorted spiders seem more disgusting than threatening. SPIDERS 2 would have been greatly improved had director Firstenberg tried for originality rather than variations on the tough broad in a T-shirt theme.

THEY TOOK THE SEQ OUT OF SEQUEL
Why didn't they just go ahead and name this Breeding Ground or something? It does not pick up where Spiders left off. It really has nothing to do with the original. So why do these movie makers try and "cash in" on a previous films success by fooling the viewer that it is a true sequel. Anyway, now that we've dealt with that, let's move on to this subpar sequel. First of all, Richard Moll (the only known actor) in this movie is worse than any of the less known performers. Makes one wish Vincent Price was still alive or they had the money to pay for someone like Christopher Lee. At any rate, he is so inane and ineffectual, one can't wait till he gets his just dessert!
Stephanie Niznik could easily pass for Susan Sullivan (Falcon Crest) daughter, and joins the countless females who finds the opportunity to strip down to her Sigourney Weaver t-shirt when it comes time to battle the monsters. It ticks me off that they're gearing away from male heroes, particularly when Niznik is so unsupportive of her husband when he was right. The film-makers then decided to make her husband (the dimpled Grant Cromer) look wimpish. Add Daniel Quinn as the oh-so-nice captain who wants to woo Niznik away from her seemingly demented husband, and what a remarkable cast of bad actors looking good. As for the effects, considering the budget, they were okay. Some shots looked good; others not so good.
But after all was done, I still had a good time. There was some tense moments and the ending pretty wild. (Kudos to the writers for not having the happy ending turn sour, and believe me, they could have.)
Anyway, Spiders 3 should bring back Josh Green and carry on with their storyline.

Not a direct sequel
Although the first Spiders movie was quite good, this one lacks most of what made the first enjoyable.

There is no solid plotline, no interesting lead characters, no conspiracies, aliens, Men in Black, etc. All it really has going for it is seeing Bull, from TV's Night Court, as the villain.

A couple are rescued at sea by a large freighter. On board is a doctor who is conducting experiments on giant spiders. The couple figures out what is going on, realize they are intended as victims and accidently release all of the spiders.

In the original movie, the spiders were fearsome and nasty. Here they are almost backdrops. With the surface of the ship literally crawling with the beasts, they mostly just stand around and do nothing, not even chase their prey.

Stick with the first movie and avoid this thematic sequel.

my oh my
what are people thinking when they make a film anyways? the first spiders was actually a pretty good movie but then they make a complete disaster here in the sequeal, i mean just terrible, good god what happened?? one scene it looks like toy spiders crawling on a boat made from legos or somethin, i mean just terrible. nothing realistic looking at all in this film. i wouldn't pay a penny for this flick. its just that bad people! ... Read more

Reviews (3)

better then people think
one thing that is eerie about this film is the fact that it was made long before the whole LAPD crash unit down fall.thats why this movie is so interesting to watch.because of the parallels with current events.its not as cliched as everyone thinks.you have vigilante cops who is protected by the powewrs that be,judges,prosecuters etc etc.some of theses people....no let me rephrase that MOST of these people actually know of the wrong doing that the SIS is doing.innocent people gets killed but its the ends that justify the means for them.the sad fact was when dan vaughn was in the street at the end of the movie saying "they love us" meaning(the citizens)of LA.
he might be right some people see it as a necessery evil but alot don't. its hard to take well protected cops down like that.but its worth watching to see what happens to them when one of them speaks

Not to be taken seriously
This movie has all the stereotypical, flat characters of any renegade cop movie-- a hard-nosed female reporter, loose cannon rookie... even the dialogue is predictable. The only redeeming quality of this movie is how much fun it is to watch it with a big group of nerds shouting witty comments at the screen a la Mystery Science Theater.

Lots of Action and blood
I thought that this is a good movie if you are sick of crimials that get away with the crime. There are a lot of gun fire and they have a good cast. Lou Diamond is a very rough guy but he can be calm and nice when he wants to be. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

better then people think
one thing that is eerie about this film is the fact that it was made long before the whole LAPD crash unit down fall.thats why this movie is so interesting to watch.because of the parallels with current events.its not as cliched as everyone thinks.you have vigilante cops who is protected by the powewrs that be,judges,prosecuters etc etc.some of theses people....no let me rephrase that MOST of these people actually know of the wrong doing that the SIS is doing.innocent people gets killed but its the ends that justify the means for them.the sad fact was when dan vaughn was in the street at the end of the movie saying "they love us" meaning(the citizens)of LA.
he might be right some people see it as a necessery evil but alot don't. its hard to take well protected cops down like that.but its worth watching to see what happens to them when one of them speaks

Not to be taken seriously
This movie has all the stereotypical, flat characters of any renegade cop movie-- a hard-nosed female reporter, loose cannon rookie... even the dialogue is predictable. The only redeeming quality of this movie is how much fun it is to watch it with a big group of nerds shouting witty comments at the screen a la Mystery Science Theater.

Lots of Action and blood
I thought that this is a good movie if you are sick of crimials that get away with the crime. There are a lot of gun fire and they have a good cast. Lou Diamond is a very rough guy but he can be calm and nice when he wants to be. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Steve Barnett's Scanners: The Showdown
This sequel, also known as "Scanner Cop II," marks the end of the series...or does it?

The rookie cop Staziak is now a plain clothes detective (he must have had one good year). He uses his scanning capabilities to rout criminals and foil evildoers. We also meet an evil scanner (yes, another one) who has escaped from a mental ward and is trying to kill Staziak. It seems he can also suck the "lifeforce" out of other scanners. You see the finale coming as scanner cop and evil scanner do scanner battle.

In the beginning of the film, the scanner cop fools a kidnapper into thinking he is an accomplice, not the cop. He does this by "scanning." The problem is the director uses the exact same special effect from "Scanner Cop," but in a completely different context. Did FX guru John Carl Buechler get lazy this time around?

One complaint I have had about the entire series, and I have now seen all five entries, is that the Scanner power is never really explained. We see scanners command others to do their will, we see scanners getting scanned, but what specifically does "scanning" entail? Reading minds? This question has never been adequately explained, especially when you throw in the fact that machines can be scanned as well.

The good scanner vs. evil scanner plot has been done to death, yet it is still trotted out for this video. This came out a few years ago, without a sequel, but after witnessing the rebirth of movie series like James Bond, Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc., I am not holding my breath. In a complete pageant of unoriginality, every single episode of this film series has had an exploding head, but none of them ever matched the gore of the first film. This showdown is underwhelming, and I cannot recommend it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, mild sexual violence, strong gore, and profanity.

A Sad Ending to an overall well done series
Scanners: The Showdown (Otherwise known as "Scanner Cop 2:Vlrokins Revenge and "Scanners 5: The Showdown") is a sadimpression of a movie. I'm not sure, but I think that this was made for Canadian Cable TV. While there are some good special effects, the story is almost an exact copy of every Scanners film made. The performances are dull, dreary, and unoriginal. If yo're interested in special effects, or are a fan of the series, see this film. All others, stay away. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

this is an exciting movie
okay, even though it looks like it had a budget of 5 bucks or something, it still is a good movie, i haven't enjoyed a Wayne Crawford movie since Jake Speed ... Read more

Reviews (1)

this is an exciting movie
okay, even though it looks like it had a budget of 5 bucks or something, it still is a good movie, i haven't enjoyed a Wayne Crawford movie since Jake Speed ... Read more

Description

A ruthless gang of Confederate soldiers after the Civil War rob Yankee banks for a living, killing anyone who gets in their way. But when the gang rebels against their leader, he has no choice but to hunt them down, bloodily murdering them one by one. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Not bad.....But
This seemed like a sure-fire hit, and it could have been, except for two things:

Rourke's makeup and costumes are almost laughable. The stupid mustache, the big, floppy hat, and ten layers of clothes in the hot summer plains are ridiculous! The makeup and costume guys should be selling used cars.

Second, the final scene was ludicrously short, bloodless, and unbelievable, especially given the bloody action that proceeded it. Someone please explain to the man who directed this film about the velocity and deadliness of small handguns.

Still, it's worth watching just for Rourke and Mulroney. Rourke is THE quintessential bad guy, and he plays it to the hilt, here. Muldoney is always good, no matter what role he plays. The supporting cast is great, too, so it's not a complete wash-out!

Best dam western ever
Mickey Rourke is the best I've ever seen him in this film. He is cruel and ruthless to the core. He makes Clint Eastwoods noname caracter seem rather friendly. If you are a fan of violent westerns with a heartless main character this is the one for you.

The last outlaw
This is the best damn western ever! I swear the plot is one that will keep you guessing and intrigue you. The outline:
A band of bank robbers pull off a heist not exactly as planned. The outlaws quickly blame their leader and shoot him believing this to be his demise. Yet he awakes in the hands of the very posse hunting him down and strikes a deal with them, help hunt his former gang down.
Slowly he picks off the members one by one until what used to be a "lieutenant" kills him with a very good cliche. Over all I give this all 5 stars, it deserves it!

Good Western
This is a damn good movie. The story's awesome and Rourke's character is a badass. It drags in some spots, but overall this is probably the coolest western since TOMBSTONE. The stylized direction by Geoff Murphy(YOUNG GUNS 2) is real effective. Check this one out.

Geoff Murphy's The Last Outlaw
An interesting idea is put through the Western ringer and comes out soaked in blood. A band of bank robbers barely escape after a muddled attempt. They kill their psychotic leader, and continue on. The leader lives, and joins the very posse hunting down the robbers. He takes his bloody revenge on his old gang one by one, until just his former second in command is left.

What a great idea. Reading the back of the video box, I thought this would really play with your mind. Then I watched the movie...

Mickey Rourke, thanks to his facial hair scheme and boxer's eyes, looks like an Old West version of Fu Manchu. His southern accent is constantly dubbed in, since he mutters through this more than Marlon Brando in "The Godfather." Rourke plays the robbery gang's leader left for dead as a psychotic. It takes the rest of the posse forever to discover this fact as he gets most of them killed. There are no smart scenes where the posse does not know he is a robber, like I thought there might be. Instead, after killing the marshall and the bank president, he is made head of the posse, since the other posse members are too stupid to see his murderous ways.

Dermot Mulroney, who has never been good in a film, is good here. He plays the second in command a little to sensitively, but he is a likeable hero. Ted Levine is also good as a shoot now, ask later moron who is with the gang.

The robbers are nothing more than stereotypes. Mulroney is the good guy. Levine is dumb. John C. McGinley is the coward. Keith David, because he is black, practices voodoo and is convinced Rourke is a ghost. Steve Buscemi is the dreamer, who is talking about his little home on the beach in Mexico he hopes to have one day right before having his head blown off by Rourke. Loomis (the character's name) is the injured guy they will eventually sacrifice. Rourke is psychotic just because. The posse's marshall is a he-man who is killed way too early. The bank president is nerdy and bespectacled, and also killed in an outlandish way.

The constant blood and shootings are exhausting. The whole film is just a bunch of guys riding around in the desert getting shot. The opening bank robbery, reminiscent of "The Wild Bunch," is handled well enough, but screenwriter Eric Red never gives us any characters, just warm bodies full of blood. Why does this robbery go wrong after 29 went right? Why does Rourke pick this robbery to go mental and get "killed" by his own men? How did the posse know the bank was going to be robbed? After the opening credits, you feel like you just walked into the middle of the film, not the beginning. These professional bank robbers and cold blooded posse members also spend most of the film fighting amongst themselves, and bickering in a way that made me think of my son's daycare class.

The final mistake here is having Mulroney narrate the film. Since Eric Red is no Billy Wilder, Mulroney obviously lives through the film, meaning he probably defeats Rourke in the finale. I sat through 90 minutes of bloodshed to witness a showdown that I had already figured out in the first ten minutes.

While not an utter failure, "The Last Outlaw" does not have enough going for it to be recommended.

This was rated (R) for physical violence, strong gun violence, strong gore, strong profanity, and sexual references. ... Read more