When I remember watching “The Delta Force” back in the 1980s. I thought it was quite a good action flick especially how the first half echoed the hijacking of TWA Flight 847.
The movie was also memorable for me because it was also the great Lee Marvin’s last film.
Marvin leads a team of special forces into a hijacked American airliner to rescue the hostages. Norris is his second in command.
The movie begins quite good where we get to know the hostages a little kind of like one of the “Airport” movies. Then the plane is hijacked led by Robert Forster who plays the lead terrorist. I had to pinch myself when I realized who was playing the terrorist.
“Delta Force” isn’t a good movie in really any sense of the word. It suffers from split personality disorder. The first half of the film for the most part is quite good but the second half is just plain stupid. The silly rock anthem that is played through the whole film to rah-rah mentality of all the characters to killing lots of bad guys without by just pointing the gun their direction while of course no Delta Force guy gets hit. What is this a GI JOE cartoon?
There is a thread on imdb.com pertaining to all the ridiculousness of “Delta Force”. Another action film from the same era, “Navy Seals” gets a bad rap as well but compared to “Delta Force” that flick utterly golden. I really think this movie should be a drinking game, every time a Delta Force member does anything that makes no logical sense, you drink. You’ll be hammered before they free the hostages.
I think the movie is worse now because there was so much potential at the beginning of the film.
If the momentum, realism and certain peril would have held up this could have been quite good.
But I think what happened was they didn’t know how to keep the action movie contained on the aircraft and so they came up with the idea that there would be two objectives.
I say skip this film and watch 1996′s “Executive Decision” instead. Now there is a film that kept the action on the plane. Heck even 1992′s “Passenger 57″ was better than this flick.
(1 out of 5)
So Says the Soothsayer
MISSING IN ACTION (1984)
There is a reason why “Missing in Action” is one of Chuck’s best films, if not the best. It is a solid action film, has a story, allows for Chuck to use his martial arts but as well fire many weapons. The film also allows Chuck to act. I really enjoyed the scene where the Vietnamese tribunal forces Chuck to face his accusers. The great Asian actor James Hong is the leader of the delegation and the scene is rather tense because you have no idea what Chuck’s gonna do. The man is a walking time bomb and that’s so cool for the film’s opening. I also really enjoyed the performance from Chuck’s leading lady Lenore Kasdorf, who stands up to Chuck. There is some great chemistry between Chuck and Lenore it is too bad there wasn’t more of her in the series.
BRADDOCK: MISSING IN ACTION 3 (1988)
Back in 1985, the threat of the mighty superpowers throwing down and blowing us all to kingdom come was on everyone’s minds. The threat of nuclear war, building a bomb shelter, how to survive a nuclear winter and how would mankind recover after World War 3.
This brings us to Chuck’s opus to the threat of a Red invasion. “Invasion USA” finds a Russian spy, Rostov (Richard Lynch), being the spearhead for an all out invasion. His mission is to turn America against herself. By using random acts of terrorism to bring America to her knees. Blowing up churches, shooting peace demonstrators and killing Christmas shoppers. When they commit the acts of violence they are dressed as military men or police officers.
Norris plays Matt Hunter, a former CIA agent, who has a personal connection to Rostov and well Hunter has been a thorn in Rostov’s side for many years so during the invasion Rostov tries to kill Hunter. This obviously awakens the sleeping giant and Hunter goes after Rostov and stop the invasion.
Ever since the passing of Bruce Lee in 1973, Hollywood had been on a kung fu craze.
Chuck had been encouraged to get into acting by his friend Steve McQueen who he trained in martial arts.
The film’s last 30 minutes are why this movie is so remembered by fans. The first almost 90 minutes are so unforgettable it is almost laughable. That surprised me because I remembered this film as jewel in the Norris library. But the story is convoluted and nothing really happens. There is a love story sub-plot that it seems the writer gave up on.
Also other than plot devices what were Lee Van Cleef and Art Hindle really doing in this film? What were Lee Van Cleef’s motives? I mean its like he was there one second and gone the next.
But what DeBont forgot was who the heck are these people we are supposed to be terrified with. Lili Taylor is the juiciest morsel in the bunch and her performance is wonderful if you can get caught up in it. As for the rest of the cast they are, should we say, daft to the point of boring.
Starting Monday September 26, this blog will celebrate Chuck Norris.
Critically acclaimed writer-director-actor Mike Binder brings us deep inside the world of a family on the bridge of failure. Binder is probably best known for creating and starring in the HBO comedy series “The Mind of a Married Man” which poked fun at how much a man’s world changes when he finally gets married.
Down the street from Terry lives retired baseball star Denny Davies (Kevin Costner), whose not quite sure what to have for breakfast Budweiser or Coors. Davies makes his living by hosting a radio talk show where he talks about everything except baseball much to the dismay of his producer Shep (Mike Binder).
What is poignant about “The Upside of Anger” is that is probably one of the best dramas about family since “Ordinary People”. It has honesty, frustration, screaming, compassion and all the other ingredients that make families interesting. It’s an amazing look at one family’s evolution.
The opposite of Allen’s character is Costner’s drunk of a neighbor. He is like some old sheepdog that your kid brings home and still insists on eating out of the garbage. Costner is great in this rather laid back role which is the antithesis of Allen’s ice queen.
I also really like Mike Binder as the sleaze-bag Shep. Why they gave this guy the name of a dog, I am not sure. Binder is perfect as this “morally-challenged” guy who perfectly accents Costner’s sleazy side.
For me it was that I was never sure for a moment if I could watch every single frame of the film. The thing that drove me to watch the whole film was the performance by Katharine Isabelle because she is a magnet for celluloid. This young woman oozes raw talent and acts way beyond her young vibrant age.
I enjoyed how the writers brought in Paige’s teacher to clarify her writing and how the teacher would ask Paige about the events in the writing and how they related to her real-life. Paige would just exclaim, “It’s all made-up” when as an audience member you know that the writing does in fact accent some of her struggles. For me the most memorable scenes were the ones between Paige and her teacher.
Cuthbert was so convincing in “Lucky Girl” that the actors around her were pale in comparison. I have to praise Isabelle for doing the over-shadowing in “Turning Paige” but when something is that raw and real it makes you look at what is around the performance.
Has there ever been a dreamy sports film about soccer? I can’t seem to remember one unless you count “Bend It like Beckham” but that was about girls in an unprofessional league.
Foy phones in a favor with the prestigious soccer club Newcastle United in England and promises Munez that if he can get to England he will get a shot at making the team.
The plagues of the film come with how many sports film clichés can you pile into a film. It isn’t the fault of the director or the writer it’s just with the genre. Sports films are like romantic comedies we have seen the same thing a million times but that doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy the journey.
