The problem with Icarus was that it has all been done at far superior level before. Just consider the premise. A muscular former KGB agent Yevgeny/Icarus appears on the surface to be a boring commercial salesman, but is in fact a Russian assassin who is very good at shooting up hotel rooms and killing dozens of bad guys. People try to kill him. Also his daughter is is taken hostage twice. Sounds familiar? Aside from the Russian mobster bit, Icarus is really a remake of "True Lies." This would not be a problem, except that Icarus is no where near as good as "True Lies". Dolph Lundgren, with his physique, his tough guy persona, his action hero antics and his tendency to surround himself with women who are most likely to be found in sketchy after hours clubs, was obviously meant to be an imitation of Arnold Schwartzenegger. But the problem is that however much Lundgren wants to embody the uber-muscular tough guy Arnold Schwartzenegger, at the end of the day he is only a badly done parody of him. And since Lundgren is meant to be the heart and soul of the film, his performance drags the whole film down.
But that's not the only problem. The plot is simply preposterous. For most of the movie, one wonders why so many people are trying to kill Icarus; but the answer turns out to be so immature and pathetic (keep in mind around 40 people were killed because of this one reason) that we wished we never knew. Perhaps, this plot would have been passable if Icarus was a funny film the same way True Lies was. In True Lies, we were not so much concerned with the terrorist plot as we were with the interesting dynamic between Arnold and Jamie Lee Curtis. But alas, no. "Icarus" has aspirations for being a serious film, as evidenced by the fact that Icarus is portrayed as a depressed and worn out killer who is really tired of his job. It is pretty hard to make a joke out of that. At any rate, the only thing this depiction achieves is to make the audience feel worn out and depressed -- and very sorry that they devoted well over an hour of their lives (1+ hours that they are never going to get back) to watching this disaster of a film.
There are a couple saving graces though. One of the good things about the film is that sometimes the unexpected happens. Sadly, this saving grace also works against the film because it turns out that there was no logic behind these twists and turns. The other saving grace are the two sexy women. Lindsay Maxwell (April) as a blonde bimbo who uses her sexuality to get a new car. Then there is the much sexier Joey (Stefanie von Pfetten) who is the best actor in this picture because she is the only one who makes a valiant attempt - which succeeds half way - in bringing some life to this terrible script, in spite of the fact that she too has been given terrible lines. Whatever one may say about von Pfetten (that her choice of films to audition for is poor or that she looks like she is doomed to play soap opera roles), the fact remains that she at least appears to believe in her role and what she is saying. Based on that criteria, no one else came close, including Lundgren.
In passing, I am glad to see some of my critics coming out of the woodwork to present reviews of their own. But I am baffled as to why they think this film deserves anything approaching 8/10 or more. One reviewer from Germany criticized me for not holding my "hopes and expectations in check" and comparing this film to "true lies." But looking over his review, I can hardly imagine why "Icarus" deserves 8/10 even by his criteria. He writes, "The story is really easy to tell." I agree and that's the problem with this movie: it is too basic and mind numbing. He cites the "mediocre script," "the plot holes" and "the cringe-worthy dialogue." Right again! The script is a joke. So why does Icarus get 8/10? Well apparently our German friend thinks the action scenes save the day. But there is nothing special about these action scenes. They have all have been ripped off from a dozen other films, some of whom have done a much better job. I also disagree this argument that we should not expect so much from small budget films. Steven Spielberg's "Duel" was a small budget film and it did brilliantly as an action film because it had a great script and great performances.
But that's not the only problem. The plot is simply preposterous. For most of the movie, one wonders why so many people are trying to kill Icarus; but the answer turns out to be so immature and pathetic (keep in mind around 40 people were killed because of this one reason) that we wished we never knew. Perhaps, this plot would have been passable if Icarus was a funny film the same way True Lies was. In True Lies, we were not so much concerned with the terrorist plot as we were with the interesting dynamic between Arnold and Jamie Lee Curtis. But alas, no. "Icarus" has aspirations for being a serious film, as evidenced by the fact that Icarus is portrayed as a depressed and worn out killer who is really tired of his job. It is pretty hard to make a joke out of that. At any rate, the only thing this depiction achieves is to make the audience feel worn out and depressed -- and very sorry that they devoted well over an hour of their lives (1+ hours that they are never going to get back) to watching this disaster of a film.
There are a couple saving graces though. One of the good things about the film is that sometimes the unexpected happens. Sadly, this saving grace also works against the film because it turns out that there was no logic behind these twists and turns. The other saving grace are the two sexy women. Lindsay Maxwell (April) as a blonde bimbo who uses her sexuality to get a new car. Then there is the much sexier Joey (Stefanie von Pfetten) who is the best actor in this picture because she is the only one who makes a valiant attempt - which succeeds half way - in bringing some life to this terrible script, in spite of the fact that she too has been given terrible lines. Whatever one may say about von Pfetten (that her choice of films to audition for is poor or that she looks like she is doomed to play soap opera roles), the fact remains that she at least appears to believe in her role and what she is saying. Based on that criteria, no one else came close, including Lundgren.
In passing, I am glad to see some of my critics coming out of the woodwork to present reviews of their own. But I am baffled as to why they think this film deserves anything approaching 8/10 or more. One reviewer from Germany criticized me for not holding my "hopes and expectations in check" and comparing this film to "true lies." But looking over his review, I can hardly imagine why "Icarus" deserves 8/10 even by his criteria. He writes, "The story is really easy to tell." I agree and that's the problem with this movie: it is too basic and mind numbing. He cites the "mediocre script," "the plot holes" and "the cringe-worthy dialogue." Right again! The script is a joke. So why does Icarus get 8/10? Well apparently our German friend thinks the action scenes save the day. But there is nothing special about these action scenes. They have all have been ripped off from a dozen other films, some of whom have done a much better job. I also disagree this argument that we should not expect so much from small budget films. Steven Spielberg's "Duel" was a small budget film and it did brilliantly as an action film because it had a great script and great performances.