A waste of time... cheesy wannabe cop movie where the marketing deceives the viewer. I love exploitation films, but were the makers of this film were actually serious when they made this?
The only reason to watch this movie is to make fun of it.
yeah the plot had more holes than the titanic but i loved the technical production of it, it was more visually appealing than a lot of high budget hollywood movies, im not sure of their budget but since its straight to dvd im guessing not too much.
what im saying is, what they had, they did a lot with it, production value wise.
aaaaaand there you go you just ruined the movie by completely over-thinking the hell out of it. Nowadays, we often like looking back at 80's "man films" such as Rambo, Cobra or Commando and acknowledging them for what they were; fun, macho, over the top movies. But I get a feeling you guys would have completely ruined them, too.
If you're only watching a movie to make fun of it, or perhaps feel intelectually superior to it, then that's proof you are taking yourself far too seriously and removing the fun from what is ultimately just a cheesy action film where the good guy tries to beat the bad guy.
Yes I over-think movies. Because the movie industry throws a bunch of BS at a screen and call it a movie. Movies these days bear absolutely no resemblance to anything even remotely possible in the real world. Every action, comedy, romance comedy, all of them...they're all just a concoction of the most idiotic nonsense that somebody just so happens to think up and it's pathetic. If you suspend all disbelief then yes you can enjoy this crap load of a film...however, if your brain even for a split second tries to think or deduce anything logical then you will ruin it. And that's what you get, an industry making films for people who are mentally lazy and choose not to think...every Jason Statham movie, every Jean-Claude, every Segal movie are all the same...if you enjoy it, then make your own post applauding it...
I thought it was okay. Not gonna win any oscars but entertaining in the type of way old Van Damme and Seagal flicks were. The difference seems to be that when people like something they don't feel the need to write about it, but when people don't like something they feel the need to go online and slag it off. Any posts of enjoyment of action movies are usually marred by various attempts from self-appointed critics making similar points to the ones you made, which is the reason for my initial post, and has me wondering why they are not all over the Commando imdb board laughing at it about why Schwarzenegger didn't need to reload his gun during the entire movie, or how Stallone was able to defeat an entire Vietnamese/Russian army by himself in Rambo II. Movies are make believe, try to make every single point in them realistic and you end up with very realistic situations (i.e. romantic comedies, horror) sometimes you just need a fun action flick and if you don't, don't have one.
I agree with you that people who enjoy movies do not often start posts about why they enjoyed it. And I also agree that movies have to have an element of fiction. However the problem with this particular movie we are discussing lies beyond all that. And that's where the problems arise.