|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 3, 2018 13:54:20 GMT
Stryker (1983)
Roger Corman produced italian low-budget film which obivously tries to "rip-off" the success of The Road Warrior (1981).
I have always had a thing for these post-apocalyptic cheesy b-movies, titles like 2019: After the Fall of New York (1983) and Bronx Warriors (1982) are fun filled and very entertaining b-movies which I can watch again and again, however there surely was not that many of those gems, instead it seemed like Roger Corman and his studio really went "all the way" and producer tons of trashy films with similar look and feel to it, sadly they often were just bad and not in a good or enjoyable way.
Stryker is one of them.
It has the cool and ridiculous "classic" trashy post-apocalyptic atmosphere, look and more to it, but lacks the most important ingredients to make it work.
The story is thin as hell, and there is not one memorable character in this mess at all, not even a likeable or enteraining figure to cheer for.
The main lead played terribly bad by Steve Sandor has to be one of the dullest heroes I have seen for a long time. The guy have absolute no personality at all, and the lines are so badly delivered it feels like forever every time he is about to say something.
The worst part of it, is that it is boring as hell. Not even a fine pair of tits and then some beautiful amazon warriors could make me change my mind, this was a letdown and one I am glad I did not pay too much for as it really was 83 minutes of total waste.
I like my post-apocalyptic 80s film with lots of cheese, but there has to be some kind of a working plot and a pace that keeps me interested, but this film felt like 3-4 hours, and I knew early on it was gonna be a very bad film, I hate that but I kept trying to find something positive about it.
I guess the closest I can come is that it contains very cool landscape and use of locations, a pretty catchy synth-score and some decent kills but all in all this is one of the weakest post-apocalyptic 80s films I have seen in years.
3/10
|
|
|
|
Post by King Conan on Feb 5, 2018 14:40:19 GMT
Hard Boiled. Still one of the best action movie ever made.
10/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 7, 2018 10:26:49 GMT
The Hitman (1991)
Finally got around to see it, much thanks to some of Lostinlimbo's writings of it which made me very interested in watching it.
Anyway, starting up with the "negatives", not exactly the films fault, but I have rarely seen or heard such a poorly made DVD release since, well, Demons 2 (1987) as my copy of The Hitman (a 2004 or 2005 version) comes with such a terrible sound quality (and of course with absolute no subtitles) it really does no justice to the film at all, which is a shame. However, I might re-buy it along with Hellbound and Forced Vengeance as part of a 3 in 1 movie deal, and where I think it is also featured subtitles/close-captioned options, so hopefully that release might have far better sound quality to it than this extremely poor 2005 release.
Well, that was the bad stuff.
Now onto the good stuff. Chuck Norris plays a tough cop (again) and during a late night investigation he suddenly is set up and badly wounded by his sleazy partner Ronny Delany (Michael Parks). Now left for dead, he somehow miraculously survives and becomes involved in a highly top-secret undercover plan to go after some of the more heavy criminal kingpins in america, playing both sides in a dangerous game, still he earns the respect and fear that is much needed to take on such a nasty and riskful job by becoming the very topman to the powerful mob boss Marco Luggani (Al Waxman).
I really enjoyed watching Norris play both sides, and he sure was vicious at times as the down right brutal and cold hearted Crogan, and some the plot reminded me a little of when Sonny Crockett (Don Johnson) in one of the later seasons of Miami Vice lost his memories and switched sides and become a ruthless hitman to the mafia in a dramatic two hour episode, which was to be one of the last great episodes of the show.
The action is pretty damn neatly done, some surprisingly brutal and nasty scenes thrown in too, but also making way for a little good natured buddy "sidekick" relationship where Chuck decides to help out a neighboor kid who is bullied and teaches him to fight back. Sure, it was a bit "lighthearted" compared to the more hard edged style/atmosphere in the film, but I thought it worked rather well, not too emotional or anything but it showed that Norris character was not all "derived" of emotions cause of him doing most of the dirty work for the mob.
While the sound of my DVD was a nightmare, it did not ruin the film at all, I enjoyed it and while it still is not all there among my favorite of his, I think it might benefit of a re-watch later on, hopefully in a much better DVD quality version as it deserves better treatment.
I only wished Michael "I'm so horny I could fuck mud!" Parks would have gotten a bit more time on screen as I sure enjoyed his scenes with Chuck, but I do love the explosive "farewell" scene.
Also, beside Parks (in Death Wish 5) I noticed some rather "familiar" face from Death Wish 4: The Crackdown where the first guy who gets brutally gunned down by Crogan, is the same sleazebag who utters the hilarious line: "Tits out to here, flopping all over." during a party scene where Paul Kersey attempts to break in the bad guys mansion playing off that he is a waiter.
All in all, I liked The Hitman, tought it was good entertainment on a late night. Maybe not great but it might do better a second time around, and so I think the best I can go from first seeing it is a:
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Feb 10, 2018 11:42:55 GMT
Glad to see you got something out of "Hitman". I can't remember how the sound quality is on the 3-pack, but I don't think there were any issues with it. Well, the first time I saw it was on a video rental and the next time was the three pack. So in a way it was an improvement. The thing I really took away from it was just how cold-blooded the violence can be, especially when Norris was delivering it. It felt more like something you'd see Charlie Bronson handing out.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Feb 10, 2018 11:49:58 GMT
Mission of Justice (1992)
★★★ /★★★★★
Jeff Wincott opens proceedings walking straight through a smashed window after being called to domestic disturbance and using police force by the way of martial arts (accompanied by sound effects) on an abusive criminal that went face first through glass. And that's just the start of it. "Mission of Justice" relishes in its screeching guitar riffs in the background of bruising stunt-work and impetuous fight scenes, as Wincott impressively hands out beat downs. Fast beat downs! To even his arrogant police captain!
However doing emotional isn't his strongest forte, just look at the facial expressions and dialogue delivery (especially when heated, or showing concern), but causing psychical damage is a specialty (as it seems like he can't help but get into altercations). The initiative branding gauntlet, a workshop encounter with power tools and Matthias Hues do give Wincott a run for his money. Thankfully the investigative undercover plot and devious political facade never become overly complicated, or gets in the way. Instead building up a steady momentum and enough gripping, if at times high-stake scenarios (boom mike sometimes included) seeing a stone-faced, fashionably attired Brigitte Nielsen and her lethal ponytail heavies feeling the wrath of a man wanting payback for a friend's death by infiltrating her private army of "peacemakers". Routine all round - from its story development to character shades, but this action schlock entertains.
I didn't realise this was (in name only though) part of the Martial Law franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 10, 2018 12:28:35 GMT
Glad to see you got something out of "Hitman". I can't remember how the sound quality is on the 3-pack, but I don't think there were any issues with it. Well, the first time I saw it was on a video rental and the next time was the three pack. So in a way it was an improvement. The thing I really took away from it was just how cold-blooded the violence can be, especially when Norris was delivering it. It felt more like something you'd see Charlie Bronson handing out. I was a bit surprised to see that Hitman have been only released (or so it seems) two times, one single disc version dated back to 2004-2005 by Cannon Videos and the one included in the 3 movie pack deal. Hopefully it might find its way to either a new DVD/Blu-ray combo release by (maybe Shout! Factory) or some other studio who seems to put their heart and credibility into their products by giving a good upgrade, that and maybe some new and neat bonus features. But I guess the chances for that is, well, not to big at the moment but if films such as Gate II (1990) and The Ambulance (1990) can get out on upgraded Blu-ray releases, then I guess there is still a small hope yet. Yes, the violence was a pleasant surprise, specially when delivered so raw and hard hitting by Norris. It was a real pleasure watching him beat the shit out of the baddies, but also the asshole neighbor, or the father of the kid who beat up on Chuck's little compadre. Love it when he steps up on his door, the knocks him out by punching a whole through the door.  As you mentioned, it did have that late 80s/early 90s sleaze/violent tone which was not too unfamiliar with what Bronson and Cannon put out at the time. I wonder how bad ass a film would have been if the the two of them had starred together in a Cannon picture, as they seemed to be the main action icons of Cannon during most of the 80s and early 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 10, 2018 12:39:40 GMT
Mission of Justice (1992)★★★ /★★★★★ I didn't realise this was (in name only though) part of the Martial Law franchise. I picked up a 4 movie deal package a few years ago where this film along with Martial Law, Martial Law 2: Undercover and Savate was included. They had that enjoyable early 90s martial arts/action atmosphere, almost like the arcade games of that time and I thought for such a reasonable price, I had to pick it up. Not seen them in a few years but I might do a little re-watch anytime soon. When it comes to the Wincott brothers, I often seem to get them mixed up with Thomas Ian Griffith, especially Michael who seemed to sport a very similar hairstyle/fashion trend to that of Thomas back in the early 90s and since they mostly got the bad guy part, I guess it is not that strange after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Feb 10, 2018 20:57:19 GMT
The Stone Killer (1973) This is a pretty good Charles Bronson actioner about a no-nonsense Dirty Harry-type cop on the trail of a plot to recruit Vietnam veterans to assassinate Mafia chiefs, to settle an old score. An interesting idea for a story, although you do have to pay close attention because it does get complex. Lots of exciting action sequences and great shootouts, and director Michael Winner often loves to show people taking long falls after they are shot. This includes someone falling down a stairwell, and another plunging to his death after shot out of a building window, even showing the body hitting the pavement (obviously a dummy, but the way they show it looks convincing enough).
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Feb 11, 2018 0:09:05 GMT
Mission of Justice (1992)★★★ /★★★★★ I didn't realise this was (in name only though) part of the Martial Law franchise. I picked up a 4 movie deal package a few years ago where this film along with Martial Law, Martial Law 2: Undercover and Savate was included. They had that enjoyable early 90s martial arts/action atmosphere, almost like the arcade games of that time and I thought for such a reasonable price, I had to pick it up. Not seen them in a few years but I might do a little re-watch anytime soon. When it comes to the Wincott brothers, I often seem to get them mixed up with Thomas Ian Griffith, especially Michael who seemed to sport a very similar hairstyle/fashion trend to that of Thomas back in the early 90s and since they mostly got the bad guy part, I guess it is not that strange after all. I've never seen the second film; "Undercover", but it looks like they got better with each entry. I do remember the first being okay at best. Ha, you're right. Their appearances are quite similar, as I did confuse Griffith for Michael Wincott in "Excessive Force". |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Feb 11, 2018 0:21:32 GMT
The Stone Killer (1973)This is a pretty good Charles Bronson actioner about a no-nonsense Dirty Harry-type cop on the trail of a plot to recruit Vietnam veterans to assassinate Mafia chiefs, to settle an old score. An interesting idea for a story, although you do have to pay close attention because it does get complex. Lots of exciting action sequences and great shootouts, and director Michael Winner often loves to show people taking long falls after they are shot. This includes someone falling down a stairwell, and another plunging to his death after shot out of a building window, even showing the body hitting the pavement (obviously a dummy, but the way they show it looks convincing enough). Nice inclusion! The connect-the-dots plot might be overdone, but the raw combination of no-Bull Winner and a tight-lipped Charlie always packed a punch, and this film had it in spades and a lot bright red paint too. I really liked the scenes with Paul Kolso, especially the motorbike chase. Good under-the-radar Bronson. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 11, 2018 2:18:55 GMT
Eraser (1996)
Arnold Schwarzenegger protects Vanessa Williams from corrupt government agents, terrorists, and in one scene, runaway alligators. Unoriginal premise aside, there are some good action scenes. Some of the casting works like James Caan and Vanessa Williams but Robert Pastorelli is miscast as the comic relief.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 11, 2018 9:31:34 GMT
Saw Eraser last night too, gave it the same rating I have done the 3 or 4 times from earlier views, which is a disappointing 6/10, not horrible rating but compared to the most of the his 90s work (trying to ignore Junior) Eraser is clearly the weakest and least enjoyable of the bunch (from 1990-1994), or so I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 11, 2018 10:06:29 GMT
I've never seen the second film; "Undercover", but it looks like they got better with each entry. I do remember the first being okay at best. Ha, you're right. Their appearances are quite similar, as I did confuse Griffith for Michael Wincott in "Excessive Force". I used to own a VHS copy (I think) of Excessive Force. Not all bad, but I mostly remembers it for the brunette babe who filled in all the right places wearing a nice pair of black tight pants and also that James Earl Jones is playing some kind of a mentor or father figure to Griffith's character and that he lives above some seedy nightclub or something like that. Will probably re-buy it on DVD or Blu-ray, as I should give it another go. |
|
|
|
Post by Riddick on Feb 11, 2018 14:31:49 GMT
Desperado
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 24, 2018 14:30:02 GMT
The Equalizer (2014)
Another action-thriller about some ageing mysterious bad ass who all of a sudden must come out of his "shell" of a life to kick some serious ass when the bullies arrive, and they do that a lot.
Denzel Washington in the main lead does nothing really new in the "vigilante" part, that have not been done or seen before.
I hoped for the "best" but it became clear early on that the film was not gonna be a "game changer" or even that great, but as entertainment go, it was pretty much ok.
However the film did one thing which I thought was promising, or at least for a while. It came with a nasty and cruel villain/henchman who sadly went from what could have been a great and memorable bad guy into yet another cliche filled joke and I lost interest when I noticed that things went pretty much downhill and fast, with over 40 minutes left. This film had a lot of dead time on its hands, it could easily been cut down to around 85-90 minutes and not went on for almost 2 hours and 10 minutes.
Denzel does ok in the lead but all the attempts on trying to make him the biggest bad ass in the universe got tiredsome and very early so.
Was there not one damn thing he was the best at in this film?
The hero is just too dominating and smart and strong and, the list just goes on.
It could work in a action comedy or one that does not take it self so serious, but here it do exactly that, it take it self serious and it end up very close to a parody and not a funny one. Some of the lines thrown out in the film was so cheap and dull it seemed like they were just "borrowed" from several other films in the last minute of time.
"OH YOU FUCKER, YOU MOTHERFUCKER OH FUCK! FUCKEEEEER!" and it is repated over and over by the paperthin bad guys who is of course always destroyed and ridiculed by our anti hero.
It tries to hard to be serious, bad ass and cool and mostly fails big time. It is pretty much the standard DTV made in Romania Steven Seagal stuff, without the unintentional comedy and having the main lead who is in his 50s-60s getting romantically involved with a east european teenage girl (or closely).
But the bad guys (minus the henchman) seems like they just came out of a Seagal film. The same silly lines, the same bullshit clothes, hairstyles but since Washington is well Washington and Seagal is Seagal, critics thought of it as a "masterpiece", which it of course is not.
Visually it do come with some very nice locations and shotings no question about it, but often the editing kind of ruins that with some of the pace.
Bill Pullman shows up in a small and forgettable part, and mostly the others actors in this film have little to work with.
The typical young and beautiful girl in trouble with some nasty russians, Denzel comes in saves the day with little problems at all.
It was mostly an entertaining film, but could have been much better. I expected an cool and brutal showdown between our hero and the russian henchman Nikolai but it just ended up as complete letdown as Denzel pretty much "nails" him, literally speaking with a nailgun. But maybe it was for the best, as of course if a fist fight would happen, Denzel would probably dominate completely and again it would feel like Seagal light, only that Washington maybe had to break a little sweat and bleed a little here and there to make it seem more "gritty".
I will probably not bother with the sequel, as I am tired of these kind of action films. Give me something unpredictable, and not the usual overused formula over and over.
Here it had the opportunity with finally a cool and evil villain, but wasted it completely in the third act as it was all about Denzel being the coolest, baddest motherfucker around and I almost hoped he would get the shit kicked out of him in the end, but that was never gonna happen.
Still, for the price of absolute nothing, I guess it was not that bad and I end up with a far too generous rating.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Feb 25, 2018 10:48:02 GMT
Doctor Strange (2016)
The life of a successful, smug and high on his own larger than life ego surgeon is about to be blown to pieces when he crashes his car and have his whole life getting taken away from him within just a few seconds of time. But his desperate quest for finding an way, any way which could help him regain his former "powers" sets him on course to the far away place where he is met by some rather specially talented people whom will help guide him to overcome his problems and also be part of something bigger.
I was never a big fan of these Marvel superhero movies (minus one or two of the first X-Men films and the first Blade film) and never read any of the comics and probably never will. However, I guess there is not hard to take notice of the last 15-16 (or more) years of superhero domination, specially from Marvel but beside the films of their that I have mentioned earlier, and which I quite like very much, titles like Iron Man (trilogy), The Avengers, Thor and so on, they just seems to leave me feeling "empty" at the end of it. Lots of spectacular monster budget CGI effects, almost drowning you all the time, but the characters and story are just not doing it for me, I can barely remember any memorable scenes or lines from any of them.
And Doctor Strange along with Thor (not the latest but the one before that) are two of these monster CGI filled super-hero films I have seen the last two months, which is not a whole lot but it kind of tells how much I really care or are interested in this films.
However I thought some of the actors in both of them did a very good job, but they were just most of the time put in the background against the constant overuse of CGI and special effects.
Doctor Strange is for me yet another very forgettable superhero movie which will probably be one of many of its own and also just another drop in the ocean of the Marvel enterprise but it did come with some enjoyable/entertaining moments and the pace was thankfully very good so it did not bore me out of my mind but I guess I am one of those few who will just not understand what the reviewers/critics all seem to rave about whenever one of these films hit the scene.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Mar 3, 2018 13:23:50 GMT
Death Race 2050 (2017)
Well, I had this on my watchlist for some time and the only thing which got me into it was seeing the crazy movie trailer, that and it seemed to go for the same tone of comedy and silly characters as in the original.
Turns out it is really more of a updated remake of the 1975 cult-classic, which it at times did rather well.
Lots of weird and crazy characters showing up, and while the 2008 "remake" kind of went for a more serious story, this film is very, very over-the-top.
That is both a good and also a not so good thing.
At times, it tries just too damn hard of "outdo" the original, specially the 2017 (or 2050) millennial version of Machine Gun Joe (Sly Stallone) who now is a complete wuss who is not that funny, just a lame joke that goes a bit too far and I wished he would have been taken out sooner.
The 2050 version of Frankenstein is not a very memorable one. He grunts a lot and the chemistry between him and the sexy Annie (Marci Miller) is not much to write about either, but the film moves in such a fast paced tempo, it never really bothers me that much.
Most of the other contenders in this film are also rather "poor" rip-offs of the original ones, but again I did not expect too much out of it.
Malcolm McDowell plays the part as the films main villain, and I guess is a little "take" on Donald Trump.
I do not think it was as bad as some of the reviews tries to make it, in fact I liked this much more than the 2008 and its DTV sequel or sequels.
Not one I will keep, only see once and that's it but it did get a few good laughs out of me, some scenes were just so damn stupid it actually ended up working rather well.
I wished they had tried to stay away of copying to much of the original story and instead went for something new, but all in all it was a little postive "surprise", at least of my not so big expectations to begin with.
We also get a nice portion of terrible special effects, lots of T&As and some nice digs at todays society and its leaders and followers.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Mar 4, 2018 11:23:34 GMT
Casino Royale (2006)
I remember buying the "ultimate" DVD Bond collection back in winter of 2011 and started immediately up with my favorite James Bond (Roger Moore) and then later on took a little "time-out".
I have seen most of them many, many times over, as the norwegian TV-stations pretty much seem to send them in re-runs several times a year and have probably been doing so for as long as I can remember. However the new ones with Daniel Craig I just do not have the same enthusiasm or interest in any longer. They do not have that good old "magic" about them anymore but then again the last Bond film I really looked forward to see at the cinemas came out when I was 11 or 12 years old and that I think was the one after Goldeneye (1995).
I did catch most of Quantum of Solace (2008) back in winter of 2012, but ended up falling asleep (not kidding) but to my "defense" I was very tired and had already seen 4 films earlier and it was in the middle of the night.
Anyway, the same "mistake" almost happened last night, as well.
Casino Royale I remember got raving reviews and people saying Daniel Craig made Sean Connery and Roger Moore look like comedy hour and saying how "realistic" the new Bond was and, it seemed to be one huge "wank" fest of a whole new porportions. The film was taking not only the Bond franchise but also the action genre to a whole new level.
Still, I was not getting onboard the "hype" train that easy.
I had been "burned" a year earlier when a lot of the same critics did the same "out with the old in with the new" routine with Batman Begins (2005) and suddenly everybody was attacking Michael Keaton, Tim Burton and their two Batman films, as "cartoonish" and almost as "bad" as the Joel Scumacher ones.
It was open season on those pictures and now with a new and darker, more serious Bond film out, it felt like was all the same with my old favorite Bond films and actors in Moore and Connery.
It seemed like every review or writings from those who had seen the film was that half of it containted taking a huge dump on the older Bond films, and then saying how Craig was the best one, and the best one there ever will be, and those daring to say otherwise would be ridiculed instantly.
I can understand that the Bond franchise needed a big change, especially since the later ones with Pierce Brosnan was now getting to a painful point where Bond had became more and more "irrelevant" and where guys like Tom Cruise and Matt Damon pretty much had succeeded in making their own action-thriller vehicles which not only surpassed the late 90s/early 00s Bond movies, but they made them look very dull.
Something new was surely needed, sadly it meant that Brosnan got ditched, he had one great Bond picture and a enjoyable one later on but the last one from 2002 was just poor and no longer felt like they tried anymore. A shame, as I think he did a solid job as 007 but he franchise went from great in to mediocrity within a short time and he had deserved far better films, or so I think.
Casino Royale has lots of fantastic action scenes and stunts in it, no question about it.
The locations are beautiful (most of the time) and Mads Mikkelsen is a creepy fella, specially with that Ernest Blofeld (Donald Pleasance) wounded eyeball and the scars around it. Of course, it also helped by bringing in the lovely Eva Green in there as well.
However, Daniel Craig might be "everybody" elses favorite Bond, but he ain't never gonna be mine.
The guy has absolute zero personality (yeah I know, he is a killer and a rather sadistic one too) but the charm, the wit and the humor is all lost.
It is 99 percent of the time just one facial expression, which is a smug, douchy and very punchable look and the few times he seems to bother to try breaking "character" is when he or somebody else is involved in some nasty or brutal ways, which means either killing someone or during torture.
Still, it did not hurt the film too much, as I ended up enjoying most of it but the lenght of it could have easily been cut down with 15-20 minutes or so, they became a bit too "long" at the final part.
All in all, I have now seen all of the Craig films and I think Skyfall (2012) is the one I enjoyed the most, not fantastic but still the best Bond film I have seen since Goldeneye and I was hoping it would be another positive turnout with Spectre (2015) and the return of Blofeld. Sadly, it was to be the worst Bond movie I have seen and right now, I could not care less of what happens with this franchise. Still, Casino Royale was a very good movie, but not one that I will likely ever re-visit again.
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Mar 4, 2018 11:51:47 GMT
 With a DVD artwork/movie poster like this and a trailer like that, also including a cast of Barry Bostwick and Henry Silva I went in probably expecting "too much" and, well I was sadly right. With a "impressive" score of 3,5/10 on IMDb it was never really any big chance of it to be any otherwise, still I have had some of my best movie experiences watching films with ratings in that same territory, but one can't win every time. Megaforce (1982) I hoped for a cool or at least enjoyable post-apocalyptic/sci-fi adventure b-movie and got one which was a b-movie alright, with a huge B! However, it was not a very cool or enjoyable one, instead I saw it after Casino Royale and it was probably a mistake as I think I fell asleep three times during its length. Not completely blacked out for hours but a few minutes here and there. But not enough to "lose" track of the "plot". There is of course no way in hell I am gonna re-watch it, that's for sure. Ok, it is not that bad but boring is probably a more fitting word. And if I see it again, I will probably waste 90 minutes and then "update" my rating by giving it one lesser than last night, as I think I was probably too generous the first time. The good things is that film had a very good picture quality on my DVD copy, which I think is a british 2013 release. Sadly, the sound was terrible at times. I could hardly hear what they were saying and since I was tired as hell, and fought to stay awake it did not help make things any better. Very annoying, because the shop where I got it online said it included subtitles, but they "somehow" got lost on its way. What I do remember of the plot is that there are lots of desert and "high-tech" visual scenes happening, out in the middle of nowhere. Barry Bostwick sports a Mark Knopler similar headband and is actually not doing a bad job as the leading hero, but the plot/story is too uneven and I can barely rememeber most of it. We have the gorgeous Persis Khambatta who I think was not too unfamiliar with doing these kind of 80s b-movies/post-apocalyptic titles at the time, but have not very much to work with on this one. She is fine as hell, but is mostly "wasted". Then we have favorite bad guy Henry Silva who, big surprise is once again the baddie. But also he "drowns" out in this uneven mess. Somehow things just did not work out that well for Michael Beck, who had a big hit in the lead of The Warriors back in 1979, however a series of disastrous movie roles following would kill of any chances he had at the time of becoming a serious male lead, and here he is just some annoying "sidekick" with not much to offer beside a few lame jokes here and there. The cool stuff in it was that we got some decent looking action scenes, lots and lots of explosions but it did take its time before that started happening, in fact I think almost an hour of tiredsome stuff went on, and then we "finally" got something to break things open with. Sadly, by then I had already fell asleep twice and only were interested in the film to end so I could go to sleep. I will not be watching it or keeping it, this was another letdown and again, only judging by the fantastic poster/artwork and the trailer, I should have learned by now that it usually means bad business. I am however maybe a bit too "kind" with my rating, and since I have no plans of visiting ever again, I ended up with: 4/10 |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Mar 6, 2018 12:30:12 GMT
Oh, that’s a bummer, to see you dislike “Megafore” that much. Probably should’ve expected it, but hey, the things we do for action, or horror films. Always willing to take a chance.
|
|
