It surprises me that Chuck Norris somewhat have managed to have some revival to popularity, mostly because he is absolutely hopelessly hard. How could this be, the man whose main audience is 13 years old kids with pimples (no offence?)?
So I sat down and watched this piece of crap movie.
Let’s start with he bright side. Somewhere in the process the original script must have been quite good, and however wrote it must be totally angry for the way its been fucked up. However you can see its brilliance shine through at certain places. But then for the rest its been cut into unrecognizable pieces and the story (surprise) does not even stitch together.
The camera angel are always bad, always wrong always spot on. Chuck is old and out of shape, it doesn’t have to be anything wrong with that since there are several oldies around and a lot can be done with a little of movie magic. But there is no magic. The whole thing is just plain awfully silly.
This woke up the curiosity in me. The reason why people make bad movies are always a mystery. Of course since I have tried it myself I know it is not easy - but still. So I sat down and watched an old classic: "Missing In Action". This is supposed to be one of the better Chuck Norris films.
To my surprise, except for a much younger Chuck the movie was just as bad in every way. Can it be that it is the same team behind? I would not have guessed. So to sum it up, while other B rated action heroes during years of B movie making sometimes actually have managed to touch the A movie heaven, Chuck's highlight is still to be beaten by Bruce Lee.