Donald Bellisario has been busy cranking out dull TV product for decades (the sleep-inducing "NCIS" series, etc.) Here, he tosses out, thankfully!, his only movie project ever. Let's all kiss the ground for that at least, okay!This is hilariously awful! It is packed with tons of bad New York stereotypes. It inexplicably features an Irish dude (Berenger) badly trying to pass for Italian. And, worst of all? The impossibly stick-thin Daphne Zuniga is playing Mexican? Really?!Man, this is bad, BAD, B-A-D! And, the "twists" at the end will leave you shaking your head and desperately trying not to laugh. But, you will laugh, and you will laugh hysterically!(did I mention this movie wasn't good?)(1/2* Out of 10 Stars) - of course, IMDb will not let me do 1/2*!

I'm a fan of Tom Berenger, and I'm not alone since he was a great leading man of the late 80s and 90s. He's younger here, cast as a priest, which stretches credulity a bit, but it's convincingly played and written by someone who clearly had a background in catholicism, which really permeates the entire film. Berenger being Italian doesn't exactly jibe with reality either, but again, its made plausible.The film has some decent action and surprises, with all the hallmarks of an 80s movie that relies on its plot, characters, some back lot sets, and period grit and debased attitude as well as slightly substandard film stock that still looks great. There's something about films that used to have to rely on characters and plots because they couldn't afford to blow tens of millions on effects.Regardless, Berenger as a priest, his friends, his awful sister, and his mob family are all played well. There are some issues with a third party female who plays a convincing damsel in distress that then does a 360. This is a bit much to take, as is Berenger's brutally manipulative and devious reaction, which seems so terribly out of character. However, when you give it some thought, a convincing rationale can come to mind, one of innocence lost, one in regards to family coming first and the mania of that within the mob taking over even a good son. There's a real subtext about the good or bad side to women that is taken a bit far, and makes the director/producer seem like a possible misogynist, but maybe that's how life went for him. Or maybe it's the destiny for Berenger's life as a priest. Regardless, it's better a film to me than a 5 or even 6. Popcorn fare that provides some angles to thoughtfully exploreIt's not ironclad as a film, and it's no landmark, but it's an 80s film that has aged well, and is entertaining, and the only parts that go wrong are mostly towards the end and don't go completely astray, though the twists are a bit heavy-handed.

I recently saw this movie for a second time, and noticed that the ring was on his finger at the very beginning. I'm not Catholic, but doesn't this mean that he's married to the church, as are nuns? Could someone clarify? I think the reason he took off the ring was that he realized he had betrayed the vows he took to the Church.I loved Tom in this movie, but I pretty much love him in everything. It was interesting to see what a cathedral looks like "behind the scenes". I also enjoyed the scenes in Mexico, especially the celebrations. The plot was implausible, but not as offensive as some would have you believe.Hard to believe that Tom did this movie one year before Major League. It obviously shows what range he has as an actor.

This film has a few things going for it and not much else. It does have an icy female villain well played by one Anne Twomey, who is now known only for her small part as the NBC exec who put the kibosh on Jerry's sitcom pilot on Seinfeld. It has the sexiness of Tom Berenger and Daphne Zuniga, but doesn't seem to know what to do with them. And it has brief full-frontal male nudity by an unknown actor at the beginning, worth a look alone since it happens so rarely in American films. That's it. The rest is not good, but it may be fun to watch just to see how convoluted it gets. Plus you keep thinking the main actors are going to bare all, but they never really do. (Zuniga gets some rear shots, but is pretty skillful at arm-placement when facing the camera. If you wanna see more of Berenger, get At Play in the Fields of the Lord instead.) Sorry to keep dwelling on the nudity, but this is not a film you watch for the plot.Roger Ebert named this as the worst film of 1988 six weeks before the year was up. I don't think it's that bad, but it tests your patience. Funny, he ran into Zuniga at Sundance about 13 years later and they exchanged pleasantries. Apparently he was kinder to her in other reviews. She has deserved better, and in fact could be having a Helen Hunt kinda career if she hadn't been cast in films like this. (Being on Melrose Place probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but not in retrospect.)You can decide for yourself if this film is "so bad it's good" or just bad. Perhaps it might have been a great cheap Cinemax "erotic thriller" with a controversial priest angle, but at face value it's lame, with a lousy written tough-guy priest character that rings false all the way through it. If you want to see a story about a morally compromised priest, see Linus Roache in the excellent PRIEST, not this. To sum up, I was curious about this film, and I'm glad I watched it, but I probably would not watch it again. (Did I just qualify that with a 'probably'?)