MovieChat Forums > Red Heat (1988) Discussion > Least accurate bad-guys ever?

Least accurate bad-guys ever?

posted 14 years ago by bowmanblue
7 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this film for the first time in about twenty years and all I could think was what bad shots the bad-buys were.

In Commando, Raw Deal and Total Recall at least when a dozen faceless henchmen were firing machine guns point blank at Arnie, one of them just about managed to graze his elbow or something. Yet in Red Heat I lost count of the times when a baddie got the first shot off, only to completely miss and get pumped full of bullets by a stern-faced Arnie.

I half expected that bad-guy from Shoot-em-up to come in any minute and ask, “Is he really that good, or do we just suck?”

I take it in Chicago drug dealers never kill anyone on account of them not being able to hit anyone?

---------------------------
http://www.thewrongtree.com

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 14 years ago

Don't the clean heads hit himm when they kill Art's partener?

Kelloway: Doyle, get in the car.
Doyle: But I ordered Onion Rings.
Kelloway: Doyle!

[–] page8701 14 years ago

No, sir. The least accurate bad guys ever are in Direct Contact, with Dolph Lundgren. There is one scene where they are chasing him down a straight, narrow, well-lit tunnel--he is on foot, and they are driving--and the guys riding in the passenger side of the vehicles--not even driving, mind you--can't hit him or his girl with automatic weapons. True story.

Priest:Of course He cares. He died for our sins.
Kurgan:That shall be His undoing.

[–] bowmanblue 14 years ago

I now have a burning desire to watch 'Direct Contact' out of sheer curiousity!

---------------------------
http://www.thewrongtree.com

[–] page8701 14 years ago

Yeah, I'd recommend watching Direct Contact. I've heard a lot of people say that it is horrendously bad, but I actually quite enjoyed the movie--it does have a bit of an 80s/early 90s action feel to it, and I'm a huge Lundgren fan, so I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Priest:Of course He cares. He died for our sins.
Kurgan:That shall be His undoing.

[–] bowmanblue 14 years ago

Yes, that'll be on my rental list now.

Although, I have been rewatching the original Star Wars film (ep IV) and, I have to say, those 'elite' cloned Stormtroopers are pretty damn useless shots with their blasters!

---------------------------
http://www.thewrongtree.com

[–] the_la_baker 10 years ago

No, sir. The least accurate bad guys ever are in Direct Contact, with Dolph Lundgren. There is one scene where they are chasing him down a straight, narrow, well-lit tunnel--he is on foot, and they are driving--and the guys riding in the passenger side of the vehicles--not even driving, mind you--can't hit him or his girl with automatic weapons. True story.

I disagree. Equilibrium has the least accurate bad guys. Dozens of supposedly highly trained soldiers(wearing motorcycle helmets, LoL) all shooting at one guy 10 feet away, and they cant hit sh!t.

I bet Sean Bean and Bale wish they could expunge that monstrosity of a film from their resume.

[–] avortac 8 years ago

This topic puzzled me a lot, until I realized 'accurate' in this case means 'accurate aim', and not 'accurately depicted' (the original poster could've made the title a bit clearer).

But isn't it a bit unfair to compare some 2009 movies to an 1988 movie?

Maybe they were the least accurate (in aiming) 'bad guys' until 1988..

Then again, I think it's pretty silly to use the word 'ever' anyway, because you don't know what happens in the future. And the future is vast and practically limitless. Or can you name (or number) the year the future ends?

The word 'ever' encompasses both past and the future, doesn't it? And if it doesn't, then it's not logical, reasonable, accurate or meaningful, rational or sane to use movies made later than 1988 as examples.

Either way, this topic is a bit illogical and thoughtlessly created.