This was pretty decent, it is basically as good as any other action flick, I don't really understand the low rating.
Plus Cindy Crawford is so hot in this it is worth watching just to look at her.
6/10
I agree. Sure the plot is ridiculous, but it moves quickly and there are plenty of excellent action scenes.
I fail to understand why this should get 3.7/10 when the abominable Transporter 2 gets 6.1/10.
... because they're both billed as action films... and the "action" in this film is laughable. I struggle to find a decent thing about this film, other than Christopher McDonald.
share[deleted]
I gave it 5/10, it's not that bad, and I remember I really liked it when I was a kid. :D
To light a candle is to cast a shadow...
[deleted]
First, it's "underrated". Second, holy sh!t. This is not a good movie. It killed Baldwin's career, forced Sipes into retirement, and Crawford still bitches about it to this day. The plot makes no sense and every single tech scene is completely unbelievable. The only time to use the word "good" when referring to this film, is to say "It's a good example of bad editing, acting, etc."
"I'm sad. I need pancakes."
--Haley, age 3.
It's a terrible and yet somehow, insanely watchable movie.
shareI agree that it's good.
It's just yet another example of how a movie isn't appreciated at the time of it's release and 15 or more years later it proves to be a timeless classic or - which is practically the same - people still watch it. If it really sucked that much, nobody would watch it, right?
Similar thing happened to Showgirls, Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Blade Runner, Hollow Man, Starship Troopers, Terminator 3, Schumacher's Batman duology, Basic Instinct, practically every Michael Bay film (only exception that got critical acclaim is Pain & Gain), etc. It happens all the time. Latest examples are 47 Ronin, Pacific Rim and The Lone Ranger - perfectly allright but panned by critics.
I understand that critics don't like a film, but what I find even worse, IMHO, is that even actors spit on it and its creators. Like i.e. in Fair Game or, another example, Clooney "even admits himself" that Batman & Robin simply sucked "because you JUST CAN'T have nipples on the Batcostume!"
Right ...
If you're a director of an action, horror, adventure or a comedy flick, hold on tight for some serious "beating" by the critics regardless of the film's real quality or content. Some genres are simply more "apropriate" for the movie to be considered as bad than the rest.
I agree. Pretty good movie and Cindy Crawford certainly helps. I thought that Cindy did a good acting job. Can't understand why some didn't think so.
shareThis was a very good example of having bankable stars, excellent action scenes, a workable plot and a decent budget, but was put together so badly by the producers and director. Action scenes were great, but they tended to be a little over the top or they dragged on a little too long. Baldwin and Crawford scenes together seemed a little forced, but they could have been arranged a lot better. I guess it was the overall flow of the movie that was the major setback. It seemed like they arbitrarily decided to put extra action scenes in, or thought they needed to add a humorous moment at a certain moment.
It's too bad, this could have been a blockbuster movie.