The Dallas Connection (1994)

Recently I had Mitch from the Video Vacuum on the podcast to discuss this film, and all the films of Andy Sidaris; also to discuss the career of Julie Strain, who unfortunately left us recently. I ended up watching not only this one, but all of the LETHAL Ladies films Sidaris did, because they're all on Tubi. I'll be covering them in subsequent reviews, but I figured I'd start with this one since we did the pod on it. Also, you can see what Mitch thought of this in his Sirens of Skinamax post on Julie Strain over on his site.

Dallas Connection has Julie Strain as the head of an assassination ring that's been assassinating scientists in an attempt to get a hold of the sophisticated state-of-the-art military satellite they're in charge of. To handle a gang this bad, the big guns need to be called in, and that's I/WAR, the best of the best, who include Bruce Penhall, Mark Barriere, and Samantha Phillips. Their task is to protect the final scientist in the group, Sidaris mainstay Rodrigo Obregon. Can this team get to the bottom of things, take out Strain's evil team, and save the world? Fortunately you'll find out the answer in only 90 minutes.

 

This was a really fun time. It's low-budget 90s DTV action the way it's meant to be. I think the level of nudity might make it bad for a group bad movie night depending on who joins you; but if you're someone looking for a 90-minute time killer on Tubi, you can do a lot worse than this. There's a great cast that completely buys in on what's happening, which I think always helps. Also, while this was directed by Andy's son Christian, his son maintains the feel of an Andy Sidaris film so much so that you wouldn't know Andy didn't direct it if you didn't look. I can't believe we're almost 1100 movies into our journey here at the DTVC and this is the first Sidaris film I've done, but better late than never, and now we have some catching up to do.

Right now Cynthia Rothrock is the only woman in the DTVC Hall of Fame, and I was trying to think of who else might belong, but no one was really coming to mind. Pam Grier sounded good, but she hasn't really done any DTV work; Mimi Lessos was another name that came to mind, and she's already in Comeuppance Reviews' Hall of Heroes (the only other woman in their Hall after Rothrock), but I wasn't sure if she had a CV big enough; the same might be said of Karen Shepherd, again, really great, but is the CV there? The whole time, the answer was staring me in the face: Julie Strain. I don't know if another star embodies the DTV ethos as much as she does, and the fact that I've barely touched her filmography on here is more a reflection on me than it is on her. I think for people getting into her work, this is a good place to start, as she plays the femme fatale role here in a way that only she can: equal parts sinister and sexy, but with both equal parts turned up to 11. Here's to you Julie Strain, you were one of the all-time greats, and we'll really miss you.

 

Anyone who's been rockin' with the DTVC for a long time may remember me using the term "Bruce Penhall Julie Strain level" to describe how low-budget a movie is. I think I got that idea from the fact that these films were often on at 3am on TBS, and there was something about them in comparison to the slightly higher-budget films that were on before them that made these feel much lower in quality. Since that time in the early-to-mid-2000s, something major has changed for me: I created the DTVC and I've seen many films since that many levels below this. The same way I wish I could go back and change the review of a Frank Zagarino film where I called him "a lesbian fitness instructor," or my initial Mean Guns review where I said a "person who does car commercials could have done a better job than this," using "Bruce Penhall Julie Strain level" to describe how low-budget a movie is showing how little I knew at the time about what I was doing. These movies really aren't any more low-budget than the PM stuff we love, or the Philippine 'Namsploitation we cover a lot of. We learn and we grow I guess.

The thing about Bruce Penhall that's most interesting as I look back on these movies, is his was often the name on the tin that got me to watch. I remembered him on the later seasons of CHiPs, so if I saw him listed on the cast or in the description, I'd give it a look out of curiousity. If a name like Bruce Penhall's, just because he worked on CHiPs, is enough to get me to watch something, imagine what having Bruce Willis on the cover of a Fake Shemp-fest does to get people to stream or rent it? The thing is though, this is no Penhall bait-and-switch, he's in it a lot, and he's going for it as an actor. One scene in particular, where he's hooking up with Julie K. Smith, he may have gone for it too much, because word on the street is his wife wasn't too fond of it.

 

Finally, I don't know why it took so long, but we're finally tagging Gerald Okamura. He's in this one as a member of Julie Strain's gang of baddies, and he does exactly what we expect Gerald Okamura to do: just be Gerald Okamura. He's like the reliever on a baseball team who comes into the game and throws fastballs and gets outs. I think we sometimes forget, or take it for granted, that low-budget DTV films have guys like him in them who can come in with little fanfare and do their part, but they're often part of the difference between whether a film works, like this one, or it doesn't. If you're curious, Okamura clocks in with 9 tags to start with. Somehow I thought he'd have more, but 9 is still a good number.

And with that, let's wrap things up. This, like all the rest of Sidaris's LETHAL Ladies movies are available on Tubi. You can do like I did, and just watch them all, but it's not necessary to have seen the ones before this one to get what's happening here. This is a just fun, 90s, low-budget DTV movie, and sometimes that's all you need. Also, the podcast I did with Mitch is still up in our archives, and is worth checking out. 

For more info: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112782/

And if you haven't yet, check out my novel, Chad in Accounting, in paperback or on Kindle!

Zombeavers (2014)

This is a film that Jamie and I looked at on the pre-hiatus iteration of the podcast, back in July of 2015, and I had always intended to give it a proper review on the site as well, but... the hiatus happened, so the review didn't. Then I planned to do it last October along with a couple other horror movies for Halloween, but that's when life was threatening to derail the site and podcast again, and I was barely managing a once every other week pace, and those posts were for our DTVC Hall of Fame inductees. Anyway, I didn't want to wait for October again to review it, so I figured now was as good a time as any.

Zombeavers follows three college students who take a trip to one of their family cabins out in the woods for a weekend getaway. At the same time, the local beaver population has been contaminated by a chemical, turning them into--you guessed it--zombeavers. When the ladies' beaus make a surprise visit to crash their weekend away, it's not all fun and fornicatin', as these zombeavers have other plans for these kids. The question is, will any of them get out alive?

 

This movie was a fun time. I think what I enjoyed the most was that they played it straight. Had it been full of pratfalls and people doing goofy things, with characters who are in on the joke, it wouldn't have worked; but instead there was serious danger to be had at the hands of these frightening beavers. It's like they took all the standard horror movie devices, and then replaced the masked, relentless, ax-wielding killer or whatever with zombeavers, and said "there you go." The other thing this film has going for it is the 77-minute runtime--which is always a plus for me. All that being said, the filmmakers did commit one unforgivable offense, which I'll discuss later, and while it's not enough for me to dismiss this film entirely, it is unfortunately enough for me to say that this is a lot of fun, but not as fun as it could have been. Still, it's overall a solid horror comedy.

When I first started this site back in 2007, the idea was to spotlight all genres of DTV, including horror, but as the site developed, it was the action films more than any that got the most traction, and over time that continued to where I'm almost doing all action now. When I looked at the fact that this has 165 critic reviews on IMDb, despite only grossing 50 grand at the box office worldwide, I think I see why. Without me knowing it beforehand back then, the horror blogging community is a much more crowded ecosystem than the action movie one--especially when we're talking about DTV. If I review an action movie that only has 10-15 reviews--or in some cases, it's just 2 or 3--it's easier for someone who's curious about the movie to stumble upon my review from there. With 165, how many people will make it as far as the D's? Also, if you look at the actors, directors, and studios in the Hall of Fame, the bulk of them specialized in action, and Hall of Famers tend to steer my reviews. I guess all of this is a long way of saying I hope to get more horror on the site in the future.

 

You probably recognize Bill Burr there, but do you recognize the other guy? That's Mr. "Your Body is a Wonderland" himself, John Mayer. Unfortunately he doesn't give us any of that sweet 2000s era Mom Rock that he was known for. He's also the only Mom Rocker in the film, as I guess James Blunt, Daniel Powter, and Gavin DeGraw were all busy; but like Daniel Powter, Burr and Mayer "had a bad day" when they were delivering chemicals, as they hit a deer, which caused one keg of chemicals to hop off their truck and float down river, where it burst open, spraying chemicals all over the beavers and turning them into zombies. And like James Blunt, you can see from Mayer's face that they were... "flying high" (that's right, I went radio edit on you there). That could be a horror movie in and of itself, like a group of Mom Rockers are in a cabin in the woods, working on a collaboration album, when a late-fortysomething mom and her teen daughter, who are obsessive fans of theirs, track them to the cabin and go all Misery on them. Hit me up Hollywood, and I'll have a treatment for you by Monday.

Just because I'm saying this film was playing it straight, doesn't mean it wasn't double entendre city, especially considering our villains are beavers. But again, even if there were moments like that, the characters themselves were playing it straight, which I think is important. I've seen a lot of horror comedy that feels like it needs to tell us at every turn how smart it is; or is so afraid we're not going to get the joke that they can't not show us how in on it they are. This film trusted that we as the audience would get it. We have elements in the film, like sexual intrigue between the characters, that are elements we should be taking seriously, at the same time that these characters are fighting for their lives against zombeavers. If they weren't playing it straight, the characters would be exaggerated caricatures of themselves, waiting for their goofy deaths to happen, and for me that wouldn't have worked as well as it did with this approach.

Now, I'm saying all these good things, but there was an extreme area where I felt the film missed the mark: killing off the dog. I know, right? Major mistake. One of the male characters throws the dog into the water as bait to get the zombeavers to go in the other direction so he and his friends can escape, and the zombeavers devour the poor little guy. Even though that character gets his comeuppance later, killing a great guy like that fella above is unforgivable offense. If anything, he should be the lone survivor, and let all the humans die. And killing the human who killed the dog isn't enough to make up for it. When you consider that John Wick is based off a man going on a killing spree to avenge the death of his dog, and that film grossed tens of millions of dollars worldwide--while this only grossed 50 grand--you can see how a filmmaker can't just casually kill off a dog in a film and expect it to work. A filmmaker should understand the seriousness of it when they consider writing it into their film, and unless it's leading to the main character going on a 90-minute killing spree, it's probably best to not kill off the dog.

Animal lover me aside, I did enjoy this film overall. The fact that you can catch it on Tubi (as of this writing), and the fact that it's only 77 minutes, are two pluses that make this well worth it. Also, if you want to listen to the old podcast episode, that one is in our archives, episode 47.

For more info: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2784512

And if you haven't yet, check out my novel, Chad in Accounting, in paperback or on Kindle!

Finding Purpose: The Road to Redemption (2019)

Back in September, our friend, producer Joe Williamson, reached out to see if I could watch and review this film for him. I said yes, but then I ran into the issues that led to a short hiatus for the DTVC on both the site and the pod, and when I got things back on the rails, it wasn't even me watching new movies, I was just reviewing from the backlog of things I'd already seen. Now it's April and I'm finally getting around to making this happen.

Finding Purpose: The Road to Redemption is written, directed, and stars John Reign as a former vet who fought in the Balkans and who's now caring for his developmentally delayed brother (Tom Stoops) along with his wife Skye (Dawna Lee Heising). After John gets a terminal cancer diagnosis, and one of his friends from the war passes and leaves him with some money and a motorcycle with a side car, John decides to go on a road trip to give back to some of the families of the men who served with him, plus patch things up with his estranged daughter, who doesn't know he's her dad. Will he get the redemption he seeks before he dies?

 

This was an earnest attempt at an honest, feelgood movie, and with that in mind, I want to use my review to give it the proper respect it deserves. I liked the idea of this story, and I liked how he used a lot of non-actors to give it a more down-to-earth feel. By the same token, I think Reign betrayed the feeling he was going for in a few areas. First, poor Dawna Lee Heising's character is put through the ringer. She swims in a pond and gets leeches on her. Then she's in a boat on that same pond with John, and he absentmindedly tips the boat so she falls in. After that she gets sprayed by a skunk, and then for good measure, a snake crawls up her pajama pant leg. All because she's supporting her husband and going on this trip with him. There's also a scene where they go to a wing joint that looks like a pretty rough place, and she says multiple times "I don't feel comfortable with this," and he insists on them going in anyway. I'm not sure how that's supposed to endear ourselves to John, both as the character, because this is how he treats his wife; but then as a filmmaker, as this his how he treats the character of the wife. In addition to that, the element of the estranged daughter seemed to come out of nowhere, and maybe I missed the mentions earlier in the film, but I feel like it's something that could have been sprinkled in throughout the film so it didn't feel so grafted on. I saw people online who killed this movie, and I saw people giving it a 10 our of 10, but I think the reality, as in most cases, was somewhere in between.

I could tell this was a passion project for John Reign, and it felt like everyone involved got what he wanted and were as invested in what he was trying to do. I think film making like that is what this site was meant to celebrate, but by the same token, I think it's important to give as honest a take on the film as the honest attempt that was made to make it. One of the things about the passion project is it can veer into the vanity project quickly, which is something we've seen a lot of on this site, and might be why seeing that it was Dawna Lee Heising's wife character that was put through the ringer instead of John's character was such a red flag. We normally see this kind of vanity thing in an action film. Maybe a Seagal or Van Damme gets to beat everyone up and get the girl; instead here, John Reign gets to observe unscathed while his wife gets leeches on her from swimming in a pond. Had these things happened to John instead, it would have made his character more endearing. On the other hand, do we want to see someone who's dying of cancer getting sprayed by a skunk? So maybe no one gets sprayed by the skunk or bitten by leeches then?

The one place that I thought really worked was how John illustrated the bond his character had with the people he served with. It transcended the standard "thank you for your service" approach we see in a lot of movies about war veterans, and gave us something really unique. I also liked the way he demonstrated how that bond was felt by the generations that followed them, as he interacted with the kids of the people he served with; but then also the generations before when he visits the mother of one of the men who died in his unit. He tries to explain how her son died a hero, to which she responds that if her son had been a coward, she'd still have her son. I don't know that I needed more of that kind of scene, because I think one of those scenes was powerful enough on its own; I think it was more that when that scene comes after Dawna Lee Heising gets sprayed by a skunk, it's maybe hard for me to switch gears.

One thing I didn't know about this film until I looked it up on IMDb when I started writing this post, is that this is a sequel. The first film was just Finding Purpose, and it followed John as he dealt with PTSD after his time in the Balkans and he loses his developmentally delayed brother to the state. I don't know if seeing the first one would have changed how I felt about this film, just because I think the issues I had with it were still the issues whether I learned more of the backstory first, but also I think what I liked still would have been what I liked too. The one area that I may have gotten a better sense of was his relationship with the social worker who checked in on him and his brother early in this movie. I don't know if the estranged daughter was brought up in that one too, making it perhaps feel less of a tacked on thing here.

 

Finally, this is more of a general concern I have with screeners. Don't get me wrong, I always feel appreciative when someone comes to me to screen a film for our site, as it's been a part of this DTVC experience that I never saw coming when I started everything, and the ability to help get the word out on an indie production is something I love being able to do; but these large watermarks in the screeners reminding us that the film is not to distributed illegally are getting excessive. I get it, when you've poured not only your heart and soul into a project, but so have all the people helping you along the way, you want to protect your creation as much as you can; by the same token, these things can be obtrusive to the overall watching experience. Does it have to be a static watermark? Could it be a periodic crawl that rolls along the bottom of the screen? Something that doesn't interfere with my ability to watch and enjoy the film.

And with that, let's wrap this up. This can be rented for a dollar on Prime right now. I don't think that's a high price to pay for supporting an indie filmmaker. One word of caution though: IMDb lists this as a 90-minute runtime, but when I watched the screener I was given the link to, it clocked in at 100 minutes.

For more info: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10332260

And if you haven't yet, check out my novel, Chad in Accounting, in paperback or on Kindle!

 

The Patriot (1998)

I actually had this for next week's review, but with today being Seagal's birthday, I figured I'd bump it up in the rotation. This film represents something of a milestone for Seagal, as it's his first ever DTV film, so we could say that this is the start of his DTVC Hall of Fame career. In addition to this review, Richard Hawes of the DTV Digest and I discussed this on a podcast last year, episode 73, so if you haven't yet you can go check that out in our archives--and also you can check out Richard with Mike and Stephen on the DTV Digest podcast on iTunes.

The Patriot has Seagal as an immunologist living a relaxing life on his ranch, raising his daughter, and running a clinic in Montana. That's when a White Supremacist separatist group gets their hands on a deadly virus created by the US government to use as a biological weapon, and the separatist group unleashes it on the town. Now it's a race against time as Seagal needs to use everything he knows to try to defeat this deadly outbreak--at the same time using everything he knows to kick the asses of any militia members who try to get in his way.

 

This wasn't so bad. It doesn't have as much fighting, and I think that was on purpose to keep the runtime shorter--which is a reasoning I can get behind, though it does feel like the opening to get us to a place where things actually happen is a bit long. It also has the feel of a 90s big screen film, even if it's not a huge budget, and that may explain why I thought for so long that this was a big screen film. It's more of a quirk that it's DTV, than it is the DTV kinds of flicks we've grown accustomed to with him, and I think that novelty plays well. In addition to all that, the scenery in Montana is fantastic. 

For Seagal, 1998 was a time when the wave was cresting, and this film is an example of him trying to either keep it from cresting a little longer, or at the very least find another wave to ride. In 2001, he has both Ticker with Albert Pyun, and Exit Wounds, the latter of which ends up being his last theatrical gasp, with one more attempt in 2002 with Half Past Dead to keep up the momentum from Exit Wounds, only to see it not do so hot and Seagal's DTV career start in earnest, giving us another 30+ films (many of which have been reviewed on here). The end of the 90s wasn't just the cresting of the wave for Seagal, as we see the same thing happening for Van Damme, the only difference being that Seagal hit on one of his last gasps with Exit Wounds, and Van Damme never had another success like that.

 

The question then is, where does Seagal go from here. He's turning 69 today as I write this, which means he's 4 years away from 73, the age Bronson was when he did Death Wish V. We're seeing action stars work longer careers now, and with Fake Shemps and split-second editing, it's possible that Seagal could go longer than 73. The thing is though, he doesn't have anything in the hopper beyond an announced Above the Law sequel, and after he had 6 films come out in 2016, he's been down to 1 or 2 a year until 2020, which was the first year since 1999 that he didn't have anything released. It'll be interesting to see if this is ultimately where he leaves us; or if he does get that Above the Law sequel off the ground, what that ends up looking like. By my count, we have six more of his DTV films to review, so if he doesn't put anything else out, he'll be just shy of the 40 Club--though I guess we could bend the rules and do some of his big screen films to get him there.

Among the costars he had in this, including mainstay character actor LQ Jones as his ranch manager; Camilla Belle, who later went on to star in the remake of When a Stranger Calls; and his own daughter, Ayako Fujitani; for me the best supporting performance was the fantastic Montana scenery. One of the problems with DTV films, is they're either shot in places that are meant to look like others, so we can't focus on the scenery, especially if it'll give away the true location; or they're shot in smaller urban environments in order to save costs. Bringing all that equipment out to an area like that is difficult and puts a huge burden on the crew, so I get why fewer films are shot in places like this--plus I'm not sure Montana needs the money that states like Louisiana and Michigan do, so it may cost more for permits to shoot there. I have never personally been to Montana before, but a movie like this is a great advertisement for it, so hopefully someday I'll be able to make the trip out there.

 

Finally, while he didn't star in this movie, I thought I'd mention the passing of DMX this past week. He and Seagal are forever linked with Exit Wounds, so much so that in 2019 there was an attempt to trade off that success with Beyond the Law. He was an absolute icon of the late 90s/early 2000s, in part because of roles like the one he had in Exit Wounds, but much more so because of his massive success as one of the greatest rappers of his era. I don't remember a party I went to at that time where I didn't hear one of his songs at least once over the course of the night. To say he will be missed would be an understatement. Here's to you DMX, you were one of the greatest.

And with that, let's wrap this up. Right now you can stream this on Tubi if you're in the States. I can't think of a better way to go. In and out in 90 minutes, and you get to see Seagal's first official DTV flick. Also, if you haven't yet, you can go in to our pod archives to check out the episode Richard Hawes of DTV Digest and I did on this film; and definitely subscribe to the DTV Digest on iTunes as well.

For more info: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120786

And if you haven't yet, check out my novel, Chad in Accounting, in paperback or on Kindle!

 

Operation Rogue (2014)

In the spirit of getting more Dacascos on the site, I saw this on Tubi and thought I'd give it a shot. The idea is to eventually get all of Dacascos's stuff up on here, so to find a free one on Tubi it's like low-hanging fruit. Often we've found this can also lead to bad results, so I guess the question is what we'll get with this one. In addition to us, our good friends Ty and Brett at Comeuppance have covered this too, so you can go there to see what they thought as well.

Operation Rogue takes place in the Philippines, where--wait for it--a local terrorist group is causing problems, so we need Americans to come in and fight them. Treat Williams is leading the American forces there, with Mark Dacascos as his number one guy. When Treat's daughter--who also happens to be Dacascos's girlfriend--is kidnapped, it goes from imperialist intervention to being personal. After a couple failed escape attempts on her part to pad the film, Dacascos and his men swoop in and save her--only to find him captured, leading to more padding. The question now is, how much torture does he endure before he turns the tables and takes these guys out?

 

This didn't work for me, and I know it probably should have, and maybe I'm being tough on it, especially considering how cynical my description was above. The thing is, the whole "Brown Menace" theme, whether it's in the Philippines, Vietnam, Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East, seems so tired and dated. Throw in the padding that itself was full of however many lazy devices--like the failed escape attempts, with the daughter's weaker friend getting his head chopped off after they get caught one time because he was too weak to wield a gun properly, that way we feel like he kind of deserved it, but also the baddies get to kill someone so they seem baddie enough. When the whole movie has a lot of fun elements, it can overcome those tired standards, but this didn't have enough good Dacascos action; plus the construct of him getting captured at the end also dragged the film out more. This could have been a fun Philippine actioner--and I think a lot of people could find fun in it, but unfortunately it didn't work for me.

Our man Mark Dacascos has a couple good fight scenes, the problem is, in a 90-minute film, he either needs more, or there need to be more people with him to have scenes too. I saw one of Scott Adkins's interview shows recently, the one where he talked to Michael Jai White, and they discussed how, if a movie doesn't work, they get the blame for it. I've never really seen it that way. Mark Dacascos in a movie like this makes it better than it would have been for me if he wasn't in it; and when he's in a movie that's great, it's usually great because of him. The other thing is, I think this movie did work for some people, so it would be even more inappropriate to blame him for a movie that I just didn't care for. I don't know, maybe Adkins and White were right, that people do blame them when the movie doesn't turn out well, and if that's the case, unless we know it's the star's fault, I don't agree with that. I do understand that they want their movies to have great things said about them no matter what, so I do get that no matter how much I say I like Dacascos, if I say I don't care for his movie, he still might take it personally.

 

The other name in this (other than Roger Corman) is Treat Williams. I looked, and while this is his fourth tag on the site, we haven't seen him since September 2007 when we did Gale Force. I know, I know, that's no way to treat Treat. Here he doesn't do much beyond tell Dacascos to bring his daughter back alive, no matter what it takes. I don't know what more I wanted to see from Treat at this stage, but I think what we got here adds to the overall unremarkability of everything. If this had been made in the late 80s/early 90s, Treat's character would have been played by Mike Monty, and it would have been tons of fun. Instead it's just Treat playing a one-note and making a paycheck. It's not Treat's fault, he can only work with what he's given.

And maybe therein lies the rub. If the goal is to pump out something paint-by-numbers on the cheap and on the quick, if it comes out relentlessly unremarkable, what are we supposed to make of it? Do we just accept it and say "it's not bad for what it is"? To a large extent, this film represents a lot of what was wrong with the 2010s. Pump out something unremarkable, splash a couple names on the cover, and call it good. There was no PM of the 2010s out there fighting the good fight; but I think the name Roger Corman still meant something, and I feel like seeing his name on the tin meant we'd get something more in line with the fun of the 90s and less in line with the cynicism of the 2010s. I guess it could be worse, it could've been a Bruce Willis Fake Shemp vehicle.

 

The main problem with a film this unremarkable is it's hard to fill the paragraphs I need to for a review. If it's horrible, I can complain more; if it's awesome, I can continue to extol its virtues; but here we have neither. I guess we could go with the old "Matt, what would you have done better?" There was this tangential chemical bomb plot that I think may have been something better to underpin the film. Just remove the rescuing the daughter thing, and instead maybe have it where she stows away on the transport Dacascos is taking to retrieve the bomb, so the two of them are working together, and the bomb is the thing they need to get. It can get a little jungle-sloggy there, so I think you need a lot of explosions and fight scenes. Also, to remove the "Brown Menace" angle, make Treat the baddie. This way you get more out of Treat, as we know baddies have more places an actor can go with them. He could be more of a scene-chewing baddie than the guy they had in this, and instead the guy they had as the baddie could be Dacascos's superior and father to the daughter character. I think we're getting somewhere now.

Rather than flesh out my entire rework, why don't we wrap this up. Unfortunately it appears that this has been dumped from Tubi, which is no good, because I think paying to rent it isn't the way to go. I think even for the people who enjoyed it, I don't know that it's enjoyable enough to pay for a rental, considering there are so many great ones out there free to stream or included in streaming packages.

For more info: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3560658

And if you haven't yet, check out my novel, Chad in Accounting, in paperback or on Kindle!