Alicia I love this movie so much

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

Dr. Gore *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* I bought this video for three bucks. There were two hookers on the cover, one of them had a gun, and the tag line was "This beauty will blow you away." Yeah. That's all I needed to know. As an extra bonus, "Angel III" has one of the first appearances of Julie Smith. She plays the star of the porn movie that Angel infiltrates on her quest through the L.A. underworld. There was one glaring difference between the Julie Smith we all know today and the Julie Smith of yesteryear: Her breasts had shrunk dramatically. I almost didn't recognize her. The twins have grown up nice and healthy since this movie.Anyway, even though I could talk about Julie Smith's breasts all day long, "Angel III" is not about Smith or her breasts, it's about Angel. Angel decides to move back to L.A. so she can take out the trash. Her long lost mom gets mixed up with some pimps and pushers. Angel's sister is also lost in the sordid, vice-ridden world of Hollywood/L.A. Angel needs to go undercover as a porn star/hooker to uncover the truth about Maud Adams and her white slavery ring.I enjoyed this flick. It was as sordid and sleazy as it could afford to be. Maud Adams was a sparkling jewel of fine acting compared to some of the other players. There were plenty of gratuitous naked breast shots as well. The only thing a little off about this one was Angel. Angel does not get naked. That seems odd as she is the star of this sleaze fest and she is playing either a hooker or a porn star throughout most of the movie. She also doesn't really blow anybody away. She wasn't the avenging Angel I thought she would be. But even though the Angel action was a little light, I still liked this one. The sleazy exploitation vibe coming off "Angel III" was strong. It's worth a look.

Derek Williams This third installment in the Angel franchise can be enjoyed as a stand-alone film.Molly Stewart who we have seen in two previous films as a teenager in high school and then as a college student in the second film now is an adult woman working as a photographer in New York.She goes back to Los Angeles when she discovers her long lost mother and finds out she has a half sister.It seems that her mother has become involved with international drug dealers who are holding her daughter hostage to force cooperation with them.When Molly's mother proves to be too troublesome she is killed.So Molly Stewart goes into her Angel persona to track down her mother's killers and find the lost half sister she discovered she has.The movie is so over the top that it actually works as a low budget action exploitation film.

brandonsites1981 Angel finds her mother, but she is shortly killed afterward in an explosion, but not before telling Angel that she has a sister. Now Angel goes back to being a streetwalker in order to find her and go head to head w/ Maud Adams.This piece of dreck is horribly made, and poor Maud who was once an extremely famous and respected actress is now stuck making crappy films like this.Rated R; Violence, Nudity, Profanity, Sexual Situations