Given the actors, the era, and the previous reviews, I would have expected this to be even worse than the average Chuck Norris movie from the same period. I was pleasantly surprised to be entertained by a movie that's obviously a step above the average Chuck Norris movie from the era. Although it can't hold a candle to , for example, Predator or Platoon, from the same period, the acting is actually pretty decent, the script is definitely not too bad, and the characters come across as real human beings. For a bunch of B-actors, a low budget movie, and obviously a lack of some decent camera equipment, I think they've made the best with what they could do.
two major minuses: One: the music is kinda campy & cheesy and continuously detracts from the visible effort the actors put into to it. It might have been in vogue when Madonna made 'Vogue' but it's sooooo dated now. Think a drunk Vangelis on a Monday morning and you're halfway.
Two: The movie obviously suffers from not having proper camera equipment and not being able to make 'expensive' shots. Nowadays you can make a better movie with a cheap 200 $ drone camera..but of course they didnt have that back then. Although they DID have helicopters in the movie, they just never bothered to use them for any good looking shots. Cinematography: 3 out of 10.
But I think the acting is a LOT better then I had expected, and it's a shame this movie is relegated to obscurity because of it's flaws.
two major minuses: One: the music is kinda campy & cheesy and continuously detracts from the visible effort the actors put into to it. It might have been in vogue when Madonna made 'Vogue' but it's sooooo dated now. Think a drunk Vangelis on a Monday morning and you're halfway.
Two: The movie obviously suffers from not having proper camera equipment and not being able to make 'expensive' shots. Nowadays you can make a better movie with a cheap 200 $ drone camera..but of course they didnt have that back then. Although they DID have helicopters in the movie, they just never bothered to use them for any good looking shots. Cinematography: 3 out of 10.
But I think the acting is a LOT better then I had expected, and it's a shame this movie is relegated to obscurity because of it's flaws.