Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

videorama-759-859391 Yes, we're in desperation stakes again. This almost has the feel of a lot scenes, bits, desperately pieced together. This pathetic excuse, (let's not even call it a movie) for a number three, sees Angel (played by yet another actress, then again, so are the Griswald kids) not a lawyer, a photographer now, who stumbles onto a story, that may'be hits too close to home, more so on a personal note, where she has tracked down her mother while working on a story, involving of course, prostitution. It isn't soon before she's butting heads with a cop (Roundtree, wasted again) while falling in love with guess who? Think back to General Hospital. We meet another cooky character, not seen in the last two Angels, who doubles as a clown and ice cream driver. Again the bold, brazen, and independent Angel, also learns she has a.... yeah, a sister, involved in.... yeah, prostitution. Her mother, an art collector, running a front for drugs is blown up, hence it's Angel on the revenge trail, while trying to rescue her younger hottie sister, who turns blinders to her. She goes undercover as a high class call girl, for a madam, played with convincing evil by Maud Adams (wasted, yes) while also getting into porn, and learning some ugly truths from other girls, soon to be escorted off to the real real slavery. Angel has a great line at the end when Nadine (Adams) gets locked in an ice cream truck, sopping with chocolate. If fans of the Angel series, apart from the nudity and hot broads in some lingerie, this one may run short of your expectations. But good news: There's a fourth.

Wizard-8 If you have been reading my reviews, you will have seen that I have reviewed the original "Angel" movie and its first sequel "Avenging Angel". So what took me so long to get to "Angel III"? Well, I DID see this movie years ago... but on commercial television, and it seemed unfair to review an exploitation movie when it had been extensively edited. But today I found an uncut copy at a thrift store and watched it, so I'll review it now.First, the good stuff. The production values of this movie are not only good, they are the best of the three New World "Angel" movies. It looks like some serious money was spent at times. It's odd that this movie went straight to video when the cheaper-looking first two movies were theatrically released.When it comes to sleaze, the movie delivers more than the first two movies combined. There is a significant amount of nudity, and some of this sleaze is pretty funny to watch (like the porn film shoot.) The performances by the cast are pretty good, giving us likable good guys and hissable bad guys. (But it's clear that Adams and Roundtree only spent a few days being filmed for their surprisingly smaller-than-you'd-expect roles.) Now for the not-so-good stuff: I thought the confrontation scene of Angel with her mother made less than an impact that I think it would in real life. (Maybe the filmmakers were afraid of being too harsh.) The main ways the movie screws up is that the movie is both too long (100 minutes long!) and too slow. There's a lot here that could be eliminated, which would have given the movie an appropriately zippy pace. Also, there is the unexplained thing about Angel being a photographer in this movie - in the previous movie she was studying law... what happened? If you suffered through the disappointing first two "Angel" movies, this movie will give you some relief... though you'll still think it could be better. As for "Angel 4" (made by a different production company), I guess I will review it if I find a copy - I've gone through this series so far, so I might as well stay to the very end.

suchenwi I watched Angel 1 and 2 last night and 3 tonight, so I try to contrast them. First of all, 3 brought a very different style again - much less comedy, and a different kind of drama - not much left to show of LA street life, and the quirky persons out there - just one gay (and less elaborated) sidekick, Sparky.And hey, wasn't Molly's mother called Margaret in 1? At least in the German dub (my cheap 3-pack doesn't have the original soundtrack, sorry). Now, meet Gloria (briefly). And how law school honor student Molly wound up as freelance photographer, wasn't explained either.The strongest continuity to 2 came from the nice 1950s truck, remodeled from pet cemetery hearse to ice cream vendor's. And Molly (Mitzi Kapture, actress #3 in 3 movies, but still somewhat credible, glory be to the hair stylist) having no bullet under the trigger in a most tense situation...And of course, the Message about the dangers of teen abuse (this time reaching out to slavery in Middle East or Calcutta) which was strongest in 1, of course, and appeared as sideline in 2.I'm not sure what to think of this movie. It's not exactly bad (and has good moments, just fewer - take the naked pimp, or the hooked henchman), but somehow I still felt a little disappointed. After 1 and 2, acquiring a feeling for Molly Steward's exquisite adventures, I expected more from 3. Sleaze fans still get their occasional servings of bare breasts (ok with me), but I expected more "real" life scenes, like 1 and 2 delivered.

wazup This was the first time that I saw this movie. I thought it was really good. This was the first time that I saw her acting before Silk Stalkings. So far every time I see her in movies or on tv series she plays a good person mainly roles as cops or security guards or a naval investigator. The only other role that I have seen her play was a lifeguard on Baywatch. I think that she is a really good actress and a great role model for girls of all ages.ý