When their home is repossessed, Wilma McClatchie's husband is killed and she and her two nubile young daughters set out to rob anything belonging to the owner of the bank concerned.
First of all, being a Jim Wynorski movie, you have to have low expectations. But even for him, this is rather a dud. Not his worst, but far from his best. Second, you have to wonder why Angie Dickinson would agree to this. Being in the first one was "slumming it", so this is practically an insult. Though surprisingly for a Wynorski film, this may have less nudity than the original.
And then there is the strange overt political message. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the talk about Hoover shanties and the rich against the poor in the first film. This time it is really blunt, not even cleverly worked in. What exactly is the point?
First of all, being a Jim Wynorski movie, you have to have low expectations. But even for him, this is rather a dud. Not his worst, but far from his best. Second, you have to wonder why Angie Dickinson would agree to this. Being in the first one was "slumming it", so this is practically an insult. Though surprisingly for a Wynorski film, this may have less nudity than the original.
And then there is the strange overt political message. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the talk about Hoover shanties and the rich against the poor in the first film. This time it is really blunt, not even cleverly worked in. What exactly is the point?