Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Rob’s Car Movie Review: Double Nickels (1977)

Published

on

Rob’s Car Movie Review: Double Nickels (1977)

From the 1980s through to today, the majority of car movies tend to be comfortably budgeted and widely released productions from major studios or distribution entities. Films like The Cannonball Run, Need for Speed, John Wick, and Ford v. Ferrari relied on big-money stars and massive advertising campaigns to spread awareness of the movie and bring in those box office dollars.

In the 1970s, however, the opposite was more commonly true.

Low-budget films produced through the efforts of independent companies were churned out by the dozen, often aimed at the drive-in movie crowd. They usually relied on an easy-to-digest high concept, rarely featured an actor you had ever heard of, and were less than stellar in terms of storytelling and technical proficiency. Falling into this category were such pictures as Bobby Jo and the Outlaw, Moonshine County Express, King of the Mountain, and Van Nuys Blvd.

While I have watched a number of these types of movies in the past, one that I had never heard of before recently came to my attention, and I thought for this month’s episode of Rob’s Car Movie Review, I’d give it a review.

Advertisement

So, without further delay, I present to you Double Nickels (1977)!

The theatrical, one-sheet movie poster for Double Nickels. (Image courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

Double Nickels was produced and distributed in the United States by Smokey Productions. Having worked on H.B. Halicki’s prior low-budget movies, the original 1974 version of Gone in 60 Seconds and he Junkman, a relative unknown, Jack Vacek, took it upon himself to try his hand at being an auteur filmmaker. He wrote, directed, produced, edited, acted, and performed stunts in the picture.

Performing alongside of Vacek was an ensemble of totally unknown actors, including Trice Schubert, Edward Abrahms, Heidi Schubert, George Cole, Tex Taylor, and Mick Brennan.

Shot in my current place of residence, Malibu, California, and other locations in the Los Angeles area on a micro-budget of $150,000, Double Nickels tells the story of a pair of California Highway Patrolmen, Smokey (Vacek) and Ed (Abrahms), who monitor a strip of the US1 Pacific Coast Highway.

Advertisement

Jack Vacek as the main protagonist, California Highway Patrolman, Smokey. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

A chance encounter with a speeder, George (Cole) who purports to be in the auto repossession business, leads Smokey and Ed to moonlight for George, ostensibly taking back sports and luxury cars that the owners have failed to make payments on.

The two lawmen prove highly adept at boosting cars, successfully outwitting the owners, and on a couple of occasions, the police, whom they must stay clear of, since moonlighting is against Highway Patrol policy.

All is going well as the two rake in the extra dollars to supplement their Highway Patrol paychecks, until Smokey and Ed discover that the cars they have been reclaiming were not, in fact, being financed by any financial institution. They confront George with this information, who promises to question the man who has been bankrolling his repossession business.

Edward Abrahms as Highway Patrolman, Ed. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

Advertisement

George delivers a car personally to his backer, Lewis Sloan (Taylor), and queries the man about the nature of his business. Sloan, in a not-so-veiled threat, tells George to mind his own business, prompting George to tell Smokey and Ed that he believes they have all unwittingly gotten themselves mixed up in an auto theft ring.

Realizing their jobs and their very freedom is in Jeopardy, Smokey, Ed, and George go to Sloan’s home and take back one of the cars they had previously boosted. Subsequently, a high-speed pursuit develops between our protagonists and Sloan, setting up a climactic final act that will decide who prevails.

Double Nickels is perhaps the quintessential 1970s B-movie, as it contains all the aforementioned technical deficiencies of the species and much more.

George the repo man, portrayed by George Cole. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

For starters, to my eye, the film was likely shot on Super-16mm and blown up to 35mm for distribution to reduce film stock costs. As a result, the movie is left with a squarish aspect-ratio and huge globs of grain in the image. The version I watched was probably transferred from a very old print that had color-shifted over the years, as the color palate leans heavily towards magenta. I actually didn’t mind this so much, as it lends the film a seedy, 1970s look that films like Boogie Nights strived to recreate decades later.

Advertisement

The other technical aspects, such as the live sound recordings and editing, are also quite poor. Sometimes, you simply cannot hear the dialogue or follow the action. Sloppy jump cuts and abrupt scene exits are scattered throughout.

As was the case in the previously mentioned 1974 incarnation of Gone in 60 Seconds, the acting is pretty much abysmal, with the often laughable and ludicrous written words from the screenplay not doing the thespians any favors.

Tex Taylor as auto theft kingpin, Lewis Sloan. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

Likewise, the story itself is nothing to write home about, either. The idea that a pair of cops could not see what they were getting themselves into with the repossession scheme is fairly ridiculous and fails to suspend disbelief. The tone of the story also shifts incongruously from drama to over-the-top slapstick comedy at times.

Having just trashed the film, you might find it incredible that I managed to enjoy it to a degree.

Advertisement

The movie’s running time is a mere 88 minutes, so it doesn’t represent a major ask for your time. On a personal level, it was fun for me to see how Malibu’s scenery and landmarks had changed over the decades before I moved here.

The movie aptly captures the halcyon lifestyle of 1970s Southern California. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

The movie also acts as a snapshot of 1970s Southern California in the laconic, beach-and-sun-and-chicks-in-bikinis lifestyle that it presents. Hillarious and kitschy are the hairstyles, mustaches, and wide-lapeled, open shirts and bell-bottomed jeans throughout. Gen-Xers like me just love that stuff as it reminds us of our childhoods.

What’s more, the movie delivers in spades in terms of the automotive action.

While we are not presented with multitudes of raucous, high-end muscle cars from the era, likely because the film’s miniscule budget didn’t permit procuring them, we are treated to a few icons of the period.

Advertisement

Smokey drives this awesome 1968 Chevy Chevelle SS in the film’s climactic chase sequence. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

The two best cars are the ones that are used in the 17-minute car chase that ends the movie: a 1968 Chevy Chevelle SS and a ‘73 Chevrolet Corvette C3.

The Chevelle, driven by Smokey, is unusual in that it is painted in code MM Burnished Saddle Metallic, a rare medium brown color, with white over-the-top stripes. It features aftermarket mag wheels, a black interior, and, as we see multiple times, is equipped with a manual transmission, which Smokey aggressively rows.

The C3 is driven by Sloan, who consistently chomps on a cigar while sawing at the steering wheel, with his henchman in the passenger seat occasionally leaning out of the window to fire off rounds at Smokey’s car with his .45.

Lewis Sloan uses this Bright Orange ’73 Corvette to pursue Smokey. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

Advertisement

The ‘Vette looks fantastic in code 86 Bright Orange with a black interior, and is an automatic transmission car. Sadly, we never get a look under the hood of either car, but do hear their V8s roar throughout the spectacular pursuit.

Another car that features prominently in the film is Smokey’s dilapidated 1957 Chevrolet Task-Force 3100 series pick-up.

Smokey’s 1957 Chevrolet Task-Force 3100 series pick-up is used in a chase sequence in the Los Angeles River. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

Seemingly ancient and covered in peeling paint and primer, the truck features a manual transmission and is involved in multiple chase sequences, including one in the Los Angeles River.

Other vehicles in the movie include multiple Cadillacs, a wild dune buggy, 1970s-style custom vans, super-cool 1974 Dodge Monaco and ’72 Plymouth Satellite police cars, George’s gorgeous 1977 Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL, a 1966 Lincoln Continental with suicide doors, and Smokey’s 1975 Norton Commando 750 for motorcycle fans.

Advertisement

Though far from being a hot car, I’d be remiss in not mentioning the 1971 Ford Pinto that Ed escapes from the cops in by driving it down several flights of stairs. Quite a stunt!

Even the movie’s police cars, like this 1972 Plymouth Satellite are cool. (Photo courtesy of Smokey Productions.)

If you go into Double Nickels forewarned that it is no Citizen Kane and that it possesses some of the worst technical and storytelling facets of 1970s low-budget filmmaking, it’s not impossible to enjoy the movie.

I tend to liken it to something you might watch if it was the only thing on TV at 3 am or if you were sick in bed. For all its bad acting and implausible plot machinations, it does nostalgically capture a Southern California that once existed and has some enviable cars and superb pursuits in it.

As such, I give Jack Vacek’s magnum opus five out of ten pistons.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Supergirl’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Supergirl’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – At what is meant to be a poignant moment in the DC Comics adaptation “Supergirl” (Warner Bros.), the title character, played by Milly Alcock, is told by her mother (Emily Beecham) that she doesn’t have to be nice but she must be good. The recipient of this advice takes it to heart in a way that lends the whole film an unpleasant tone.

We’re not talking Deadpool depths of obscene snark here. Yet scrappy Supergirl, aka Kara Zor-El, in contrast to her affable cousin — and fellow Kryptonian — Superman (David Corenswet), does not come across as especially likeable.

Nor is she a figure to be imitated since, before she embarks on the quest to which most of the running time is devoted, early scenes show her waking up with a succession of staggering hangovers. She gets blotto, we later learn, in an effort to blot out her troubled past. The only positive ingredient in her current life is the bond she shares with her beloved dog, Krypto.

So when evil alien Krem of the Yellow Hills (Matthias Schoenaerts) wounds Krypto with a poisoned dart, leaving him with only hours to live, Supergirl is desperate to help the pup survive. Learning that Krem carries the antidote with him wherever he goes, she sets off on an interplanetary hunt for the villain, racing against time.

Supergirl has already crossed paths with another of Krem’s victims, Ruthye (Eve Ridley). Having watched as Krem slaughtered her entire family, Ruthye is out for revenge and wants to join forces with Supergirl.

Advertisement

Since Ruthye, though courageous, is undersized and completely untrained for combat, Supergirl initially tries to ditch her. But Ruthye is not to be so easily rebuffed.

The unlikely duo eventually acquire an informal ally in the person of cigar-chomping, motorcycle-riding freelance warrior Lobo (Jason Momoa). Lobo has reasons of his own for hating the band of brigands Krem leads.

As scripted by Ana Nogueira, director Craig Gillespie’s scifi adventure includes more than one exchange in which Supergirl warns Ruthye about the morally corrupting effects of exacting vengeance. Yet this thoroughly respectable ethical message is completely undermined as the action reaches its climax.

“Supergirl” may not be a dose of Kryptonite. But it’s no energy-infusing sunbath either.

The film contains much harsh but bloodless violence, a scene of urination, a passing reference to nonscriptural religious ideas, a couple of mild oaths, several uses each of crude and crass language and an obscene gesture. The OSV News classification is A-III – adults. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 — parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

Advertisement

Read More Movie & Television Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

Published

on

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

In K M Chaitanya’s Aa Dinagalu (2007), actor Atul Kulkarni, playing gangster Agni Sreedhar, says man is the biggest weapon in the underworld. “The rest are just properties,” he adds. The yesteryear Kannada crime drama, based on the real incidents from a big chapter of the Bengaluru underworld, stood out for its understated storytelling.

In Balaramana Dinagalu, which has the skeleton of a sequel to Aa Dinagalu, weapons are seen in the first scene. As the film progresses, we encounter an arsenal of knives, razors, machetes, and guns — each an extension of the gangsters’ identities and an indispensable tool in their quest to remain feared and lethal. Chaitanya attempts to make the movie a mix of reality and entertaining tropes.

Balaramana Dinagalu (Kannada)

Director: K M Chaitanya

Cast: Vinod Prabhakar, Priya Anand, Atul Kulkarni, Ashish Vidyarthi, Ramesh Indira

Runtime: 151 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Balarama, an ordinary young man from a remote village in Karnataka, becomes a dreaded gangster who rules Bengaluru

The director has roped in the same cast, who played the dreaded gangster trio of Kotwal Ramachandra (essayed by Sharath Lohitashwa), Jayaraj (Ashish Vidyarthi), and Agni Sreedhar (Atul) in Aa Dinagalu. That’s what makes one instantly curious about Balaramana Dinagalu. The only difference in the latest movie from the previous one is the fictionalised names of the real dons. Jayaraj becomes Jayaram, Sreedhar is Shashidhar, and Muthappa Rai is called Monnappa Rai (played by Ramesh Indira).

Even if these characters are the big draw in the movie, the plot revolves around the journey of Balarama, a character with a small yet significant presence in Aa Dinagalu. Vinod Prabhakar’s portrayal of the titular role is the film’s biggest takeaway. He makes us feel for the character, and is quite impressive in the final portions of the movie, where Balarama struggles to break free from the underworld’s trap.

Balaramana Dinagalu is impressive when it reflects the psychology of a gangster. Jayaram is shown helping the needy while Balarama urges young boys to focus on education. It’s as if these men who commit heinous acts, have a heart as well. Shashidhar is often called “intellectual gangster”, as the film reflects how the underworld fears well-read men in the field. Politicians and policemen, the supposedly the protectors of people being part of the crime nexus, strengthen the movie’s world-building.

The film falters in its inability to rise above the plot’s predictability. Balarama’s journey is no different from the often-seen life of an innocent man from a small town who becomes a gangster owing to uncontrollable circumstances. I wish the film had delved a bit more into Balaram’s personality. Why does he not resist becoming a gangster? What dreams did he have when he moved to Bengaluru from a small town?

Advertisement

“My hands speak louder than my words,” says Balarama. This signals that he is someone who settles conflicts with fists rather than conversations. Despite this detail, Balaram’s entry into the underworld feels too sudden. The predictability strips the sheen away from the well-shot action sequences, as the result of every fight is known beforehand.

Chaitanya is careful not to glorify the act of violence. He wants to portray the negative effects of violence on the children in a family, as the movie ends with a hard-hitting frame. It’s impressive that the actor-director duo has delivered a non-hero-worshipping gangster saga.

That said, the movie could have benefited from a couple of gripping episodes. While it’s important not to romanticise the life of a gangster, there is no harm in delivering moments of peak tension, the biggest plus of the genre. 

The assassination of Jayaram, the impact of Kotwal’s elimination on the underworld, or the Sakleshpura incident involving Monnappa Rai, had the potential to offer edge-of-the-seat, high-stakes portions, but they are rushed. The love story is simple, but it lacks emotional intensity between the lead couple. Santhosh Narayanan’s dance numbers are forgettable (despite it being his forte) while his montage melodies are beautiful.

Balaramana Dinagalu adopts a restrained, almost clinical approach to the gangster genre. While that keeps it from glorifying violence, it also leaves the narrative feeling a touch too neat and emotionally muted.

Advertisement

Balaramana Dinagalu is currently running in theatres

Published – June 28, 2026 07:58 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Published

on

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Perhaps there’s a certain irony in a story about a fireworks factory mostly keeping away from explosive drama. Yoshitoshi Shinomiya‘s lowkey feature directorial debut A New Dawn is at the very least visually captivating, comprised of lush and rather hypnotic production design. The story is small scale focusing on a trio of friends who try to save a fireworks factory in their hometown, but the imagery feels expansive and lush. A New Dawn begins with a beautiful and vaguely familiar display of this beauty: the flowing, painterly imagery of its opening sequence recalls Shinomiya’s work on the flashback sequence in Makoto Shinkai‘s your name., immediately showing that the film’s visuals might transcend its small town drama.

A background artist himself on films by Makoto Shinkai as well as the similarly resplendent Pompo: The Cinéphile, it makes sense that this history would be felt in the background works of A New Dawn. They’re dense with detail, rich with almost luminous color and illustrative texture. Shinomiya, who also wrote and storyboarded the film, veers away from the photorealism associated with someone like Shinkai through some impressionist touches – like the splotches of green paint which represent treelines – which sometimes turns into outright abstraction like when a character begins to run through the space. Sometimes there are swaying, morphing textures in the background as splotches of paint subtly shift around. On a more intimate level, the cluttered and characterful interior spaces tell a story too. This is a long-winded way of saying A New Dawn looks really, really good.

It’s not just in the tableaux of its countryside habitats and ramshackle living spaces carved out of abandoned warehouses, but there’s a sense of invention permeating through A New Dawn‘s various experiments with visual languages of animation. The most prominent is an incredibly charming stop motion animated sequence using a cardboard diorama and real human hands invading the shot in a creative reflection of a drunken character’s perspective. Even though it broadly still looks “anime” through its character design, there are also smaller details which work to set A New Dawn apart from its contemporaries, touches like its occasional lineless artwork or the way rain is defined through smudged black brushstrokes.

It’s in the screenwriting where A New Dawn begins to feel more run of the mill. Its story about the constant chasing of the majesty of a fabled firework “Shuhari” feels both familiar in its premise but also a little bit alienating in its structure. The importance of the firework itself never feels clear – the moment its mystery is unravelled hardly feels like a revelation as a result, something amplified by how the writing often obfuscates what anyone is talking about. The whole story feels a little distancing, and despite the allure of the background art and design of the spaces the characters inhabit, the people themselves feel constantly at arms length.

It almost pulls things back with its climax – the detonation of the “Shuhari” goes a long way in justifying the circular conversations about its nature and origins – a painted streak of light launches into the sky before turning into something otherworldly, suddenly tripling down on the film’s captivating exaggerations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending