This film was a solid linear action film and if it had arnie in his 90's hey day would have been just like commando!
with a bit of universal soldier thrown in for good measure!
i am not biased about directors, and can see a ok action film for what it is, even if it is made by boll!
"Everybody knows you never go full retard" - Kirk Lazarus
Right on bro... totally agree with your thinking. :)
shareI was draing comparisons to Commando when watching, but, even if its direction, atmosphere, and the rest were equal, even better, it was missing... Arnold. Stiglitz was good, even funny at times, but... doesn't have that iconic presence that Shwarzenegger has.
shareCommando is far superior to Far Cry.
1. It was the 80s, it fit the time period.
2. It had Ah'nold, a well known and awesome action performer
3. It was satirical and over the top on purpose, not just to be gay like Far Cry.
4. It had creative violence
5. It had a hilarious villain
6. It had wonderful catch phrases
7. No crappy German accents
8. It was not a flop
Which accent did Arnold have? :D
shareI actually can't believe somebody's compared this film to Commando!
Ask any action movie buff - Commando is one of the films that DEFINES the action genre. A charismatic hero, an over-the-top villain, non-stop action, classic one-liners, big budget set pieces and a great cast (even the minor characters, like Cooke and Sully, are memorable). Most of all, it's great because it knows exactly what it's trying to be, it isn't afraid to mock itself, and it makes NO EFFORT to be anything more than what it is.
This film on the other hand is cheap, has a terrible script, is full of characters that aren't even remotely interesting or engaging, suffers from terrible effects and just reeks of trying way too hard to be cool and failing miserably. It even manages to be boring, which is the cardinal sin for an action movie.
And before you claim I'm just a hater, I have nothing against Uwe Boll - except that he wasted my time with this AWFUL MOVIE.
[deleted]