Dead End City (1988)

I would only recommend “Dead End City” to two groups of people. The first being those who have run the gamut on the thugs taking over subgenre. The others being those who have devoured the tastier Robert Z’Dar projects. Both are utilized here, but not to their full potential. There are delicious nuggets of both, but a lot of vanilla content in between.

The film starts out very promising. Gangs have overtaken the town with the police force not being able to strike back. Their solution is to simply give up their property to the gangs and ship the victims off to a refugee camp. Jack Murphy (Greg Cummins) doesn’t want to give up his factory due to it being a family heirloom. Begrudgingly, his coworkers (including a blind man who constantly forgets he’s blind) stick with him to defend the factory.

The gang that wants to overthrow Jack is The Ratts, led by Maximum (Robert Z’Dar). Despite him being the leader, it’s clear he’s not running the whole show. I won’t spoil who is, but it’s pretty obvious. This limits Z’Dar’s screen time, which is a huge deficit. Despite him seemingly phoning in his performance, he still brings the Z’Dar charisma that is entertaining to watch. Nobody will mistake Z’Dar for a splendid actor, but he has tremendous screen presence!

More time is devoted to Jack and his crew, which gets beefier with the arrival of Opal Brand (Christine Lund), a television reporter who brings along her crew. They’re plan is to get a quick, biased story on Jack and his coworkers, framing them to be another gang. When a real gang demolishes their car (it looks like a wrecking ball hit it), they’re stranded in the abandoned factory, as well. There’s also a hyperactive gentlemen who drops by to hide out, but he’s disposable (enough that I don’t even care to look him up).

The first action sequence, which takes place before Opal’s arrival, is extremely entertaining. Jack and company have a shootout with The Ratts that’s a little different from the norm. Our heroes stay locked up in the factory, poking holes in the walls to shoot out of. The walls themselves can be easily shot through, which poses a problem for Jack and the rest, but it obscures them from the Ratts’ view.

Once this scene ends, the film goes downhill. It never reaches the depths of drudgery, but it becomes very rudimentary. Jack and Opal fall in love, despite having no chemistry; we get to learn about the rest of Jack’s crew, who aren’t that interesting (outside of the aforementioned blind man); we learn who’s really behind the operation (which is about as surprising as a hooker having venereal diseases); Z’Dar gets limited screen time to plot with his cronies. We still get the occasional action sequence, all of which are good. They just go from diverse to average.

One compliment I must give director Peter Yuval is in the scene where Jack, having learned who’s behind the operation, goes back to the factory. When he enters, all of the dead bodies from earlier are still strewn about the building. He tiptoes over them to get to his destination. This is a small blip on the radar, but one that I really enjoyed. It was a nice, tiny touch that Yuval made that showed he was trying to be creative.

“Dead End City” isn’t a bad film. It’s definitely entertaining in spots. However, it plays by the book too heavily after the first act and has some serious dry spots. Using Robert Z’Dar a bit more would have helped, as he was his charismatic self as Maximum. He may have seemed a bit less energetic, but still fun. If you haven’t explored most of his catalogue, I suggest starting with “Trained to Kill”, “Maniac Cop” and “Tango & Cash”. If you haven’t seen many gang films, I suggest starting with “Vigilante” and “The Warriors”. If you have seen those, then seeing “Dead End City” is at least worthwhile. Just not something you need to rush out and find.

MVT: Despite not being featured as heavily as I’d hoped, I’ll still choose Robert Z’Dar. He may be phoning it in, but he’s still a lot of fun as Maximum and gives Jack a good foil.

Make or Break: I almost want to say the first action sequence made the film for me, but the arrival of Opal Brand (which is a terrible name, by the way) broke the film for me. She didn’t add anything outside of a bland love interest and led the way in dragging the film down with lame character exposition.

Final Score: 5.5/10

Exterminator 2 (1984)

Let's start this review off with the obvious question: "Hey, Todd, why not review The Exterminator before reviewing Mark Buntzman's Exterminator 2?" Well, for starters, I couldn't find a copy of the first film, and after viewing its sequel, I'm in no rush to procure one. The only obvious advantages of the earlier movie are that it was directed by James (McBain) Glickenhaus and features Christopher George and Steve James. Upon further contemplation, maybe I should track down a copy. Moving on...

Vigilantism has been a recurring motif in cinema for years. It all started with the archetype of "The Good Cop WhoDoesn't Play by the Rules" which eventually became a stereotype. As crime escalated in the United States, the citizens lost faith in their sworn protectors, especially in the post-Vietnam era when faith in authority was at an all-time low. It was time for a new cinematic hero (or in this case, antihero). Enter the "Vigilante" archetype, a common citizen who is pushed over the edge into violent retaliation by savage criminals and the ineffectuality of police bureaucracy. In the simplest terms, he (or she, witness Neil Jordan's fine The Brave One) is "Dirty" Harry Callahan with a screw loose, no badge, and tons of ordnance. The appeal lies in the vicarious righting of every wrong ever done the viewer.

Unfortunately, Exterminator 2, while hitting all the bullet points of the Vigilante film, somehow manages to mishandle just about everything, thematically and formally. The late Robert Ginty reprises his role of John Eastland, a Vietnam vet (we're clued into this visually by his wearing a very new-looking Army jacket almost ten years after the war's end) who hangs out at the most brightly-lit-ever club, watches Caroline (Deborah Geffner) gyrate onstage there, and occasionally incinerates evildoers with a flamethrower. Gang leader, X (Mario Van Peebles), meanwhile, wants control of all crime in the city, because, as he puts it, he "is the streets." Naturally, Eastland will be forced to confront X but only after everything has been taken from him. I'm tempted, but I won't spoil the ending.

The movie is rife with overkill, and this is one of its most entertaining aspects. The most obvious example is the basic premise. Out of any weapon you could use to fight crime, why would you choose a flamethrower? It's heavy, cumbersome, and can't melt any bullets fired at you. The answer is simplicity itself: It looks cool onscreen. Plus, it does much more grievous bodily harm than most guns. I'd hate to see the Exterminator use it in Central Park during a drought, though. Of course, X and his thugs are just as bad. The best instance that springs to mind is when the gang drags an armored car guard down into the subway (in procession with torches and everything, mind), spray paint a giant "X" on his torso, and then not only electrocute him on the subway's third rail, but also have him run over by said conveyance. The mafia goons who show up are just as ridiculous. Now, I'm not up on gangster fashion, but I'm fairly sure porkpie hats went out with the 60s (unless you're into ska music).

The 1980s inform every frame of this film, for better or worse. The very first shot is of a pre-Giuliani Times Square, and your anticipation swells. Sadly, the film never crawls fully down into the gutter, where it belongs, to wallow in the slop like it could have. Instead, we get sequences loaded with (hell, downright focused on) breakdancing and rollerskating (sometimes in the same scene). Buntzman even tries to justify this egregious padding by making a street performance into a plot point, but it's pretty flimsy. Geffner's aspiring dancer (aren't they all?) character is a blatant riff on Flashdance, and while she does seem to have some talent, the gaudy choreography (normally a plus) only serves to embarrass. Since movies like The Road Warrior and Escape From New York were popular at the time, the filmmakers also tried to sandwich in the post-apocalyptic angle via X's subterranean gang. Torches are the only lighting they know, aboveground or under. They paint their faces in tribal, "punk" fashion. Van Peeble's character dresses in modified football pads over a mesh shirt. This sort of incongruity can be pretty funny, just not really helpful to the film.

The biggest problem I had with the film, though, was its depiction of the title character. For the first two-thirds, when the Exterminator does show up, it's usually for only a few seconds. He immolates a few hoodlums and disappears. The eponymous character is peripheral in his own story, almost like "Godot" but without the existential angst (and the Exterminator does make an appearance now and then). Add to that, the fact that no one ever addresses that Eastland is a vigilante, even Eastland. In fact, Ginty never plays Eastland as anything other than an exuberant schlub. His performance is totally at cross-purposes with the feel and point of this genre. It's frustrating to the point of distraction.

The technical aspects call attention to themselves, as well. On multiple occasions, the characters eyelines are noticeably off. It's so flagrant in fact, it yanks you right out of the movie. The dialogue is horrid, but quite risible. Alas, Van Peebles is the biggest offender in this regard. He strains for an air of cool menace, but he sounds like a litany of non sequiturs overheard at a Jim Jones picnic. And, even though it's the best scene in the film, the final showdown is edited like a Scooby Doo chase montage. I was waiting for Don Knotts and Tim Conway to pop in for a guest spot. Now, I'm willing to forgive a lot in the name of entertainment, but if the filmmakers can't even be bothered to adhere to cinematic basics, it diminishes my enthusiasm.

Exterminator 2 is just one wasted opportunity after another. There's no character development at all. It's as if they felt it was all covered in The Exterminator, so there's no need. There's a nice set-up for a pimped-out garbage truck, but the execution is like the difference between comic book ads for X-ray specs and an actual pair of X-ray specs. The mafia angle is dropped as soon as it has served its purpose. There's no police investigation into any of the goings-on. And worst of all, there's not the slightest hint of tension for the climactic showdown. Everything just kind of happens. And these are not all things that would have cost tons of money to address. Either the filmmakers' ineptness or their lack of respect for the audience ultimately unravels what could have been a decent, little Vigilante movie. Whether it's a spot on the ass of its predecessor, I'll leave for others to debate.

MVT: The A-Team-esque, tricked-out garbage truck. It's a nice buildup to a good idea that fails in execution.

Make or Break: The "Break" is when Eastland, the Executioner, decides to team-up with his pal, Be Gee (Frankie Faison), to go after the punks. Eastland's supposed to be a vigilante, a solo act by all accounts. It totally defies logic for him to go this route after what he's done already. And it's totally unsatisfying.

Score: 5.5/10