I'm not sure why "Delta Force 2" gets such a bad rap. Is it just because it's a sequel? Or is it because it was the film that came out just at the point when Chuck was transitioning from feature films to Direct-To-Video and Television?
In fact, is it really a "bad" film at all? Well, yes and nodepending on what your expectations are. For instance, is DF2 a bad film when compared with Norris' other films? Definitely not! This film is the pinnacle of the latter day Norris persona. He's the superconfident, superbearded superman of action, tough and gruff but also noble and likable. He a man of few words who shoots a lot of big guns, narrowly escapes a lot of very big, very orange explosions, and doles out justice to the bad guys with no second thoughts. (as a sidenote, this is very different from the early days Norris personaa basically peaceable karateman pushed into action, often the pursued instead of the pursuer; sometimes he was mustachioed, sometimes his face was (gasp) naked.). The story is clichéd and the characters are clichés personified, but I don't think that was an accident. Cliché can be very effective in movies if used properly (see "Rocky"). DF2 pushes all the buttonspushes them in all the right spots and pushes them hard. It doesn't try to be ironic, self-referential, a parody, or a "reimagining" of anything. Like a John Wayne western, it just is what it freaking is.
Is DF2 a good film in the B-Action film genre as a whole? If by that we mean the Bronson/VanDamme/Segal level genre, then the answer is another resounding "yes!" DF2 is an excellent example of the kind of simple action flick that no one makes for theatrical release anymore.
Is DF2 a good action film if your tastes run exclusively to higher budgeted, more elaborate action flicks like "Die Hard," the James Bond series, "Lethal Weapon," Tarrantino flicks and the like instead of lower budgeted action melodramas? Nah, no way in hell. In comparison to the $100 million action epics, the acting in DF2 is stiff, the action too basic, and the story style outdated by decades. Compared to the big studio tentpole Summer blockbusters, all Norris films are like home movies. To me personally, however, the line between these big budgeted action flicks and Chuck's is becoming thinner and thinner as time goes by (what at first seems like innovation soon becomes just another cliché as it is imitated by everyone everywhere, a la "The Matrix").
SoDelta Force 2. Good movie? The answer's either "hell yes!" "good lord, no!" depending on who you are.
Personally, I dig it.
In fact, is it really a "bad" film at all? Well, yes and nodepending on what your expectations are. For instance, is DF2 a bad film when compared with Norris' other films? Definitely not! This film is the pinnacle of the latter day Norris persona. He's the superconfident, superbearded superman of action, tough and gruff but also noble and likable. He a man of few words who shoots a lot of big guns, narrowly escapes a lot of very big, very orange explosions, and doles out justice to the bad guys with no second thoughts. (as a sidenote, this is very different from the early days Norris personaa basically peaceable karateman pushed into action, often the pursued instead of the pursuer; sometimes he was mustachioed, sometimes his face was (gasp) naked.). The story is clichéd and the characters are clichés personified, but I don't think that was an accident. Cliché can be very effective in movies if used properly (see "Rocky"). DF2 pushes all the buttonspushes them in all the right spots and pushes them hard. It doesn't try to be ironic, self-referential, a parody, or a "reimagining" of anything. Like a John Wayne western, it just is what it freaking is.
Is DF2 a good film in the B-Action film genre as a whole? If by that we mean the Bronson/VanDamme/Segal level genre, then the answer is another resounding "yes!" DF2 is an excellent example of the kind of simple action flick that no one makes for theatrical release anymore.
Is DF2 a good action film if your tastes run exclusively to higher budgeted, more elaborate action flicks like "Die Hard," the James Bond series, "Lethal Weapon," Tarrantino flicks and the like instead of lower budgeted action melodramas? Nah, no way in hell. In comparison to the $100 million action epics, the acting in DF2 is stiff, the action too basic, and the story style outdated by decades. Compared to the big studio tentpole Summer blockbusters, all Norris films are like home movies. To me personally, however, the line between these big budgeted action flicks and Chuck's is becoming thinner and thinner as time goes by (what at first seems like innovation soon becomes just another cliché as it is imitated by everyone everywhere, a la "The Matrix").
SoDelta Force 2. Good movie? The answer's either "hell yes!" "good lord, no!" depending on who you are.
Personally, I dig it.