ÉVALUATION IMDb
4,3/10
419
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueSharon Bell is back, this time she must stop a terrorist plot to smuggle Nazi nerve gas.Sharon Bell is back, this time she must stop a terrorist plot to smuggle Nazi nerve gas.Sharon Bell is back, this time she must stop a terrorist plot to smuggle Nazi nerve gas.
Tommy Chang
- Kidnapper
- (as Thomas Chang)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesReleased theatrically in Japan.
- GaffesWhen Eric Dane goes to shoot Steven Ivory in the leg, he first pulls the trigger but the gun doesn't fire. On the second attempt, it works.
- Citations
Jack Terry: [taking to Eric via a walkie talkie] Dengler?
Eric Dane: Yeah?
Jack Terry: Clearly you have a problem with your identity. Let me give you a tip. In the roulette of life, I'm Vegas.
Eric Dane: You're Vegas? Well, I'm the Jackpot! Jackpot!
- ConnexionsFollows Otage en péril (1995)
Commentaire en vedette
This is the perfect example of why you can't have too much of a good thing. When I randomly came across the first film in the series, No Contest about a year ago, it was more than just a pleasant surprise. It was awesome. I loved it. Essentially just a low-budget Die Hard ripoff, it ended up being one of the better ones in a sea of Die Hard ripoffs. In fact, it's damn near an identical clone! What was even more surprising, aside from it's impressive casting, was that it was directed by Paul Lynch, who's only real big credit was directing the very first Prom Night. He again returns in the director's chair, and again re-teams with star Shannon Tweed.
In this sequel, oddly re-titled Face The Evil here in the U.S., they bring along the always reliable baddie Lance Henrikeson, and Bruce Payne, who shockingly turns a good guy performance this time around. While not as impressive as the cast of the first film, they do solid work with what they have to work with.
Aesthetically, director Paul Lynch seems to kind of go-through-the- motions here. While a competent looking film, it's a far cry from his slick streamlined approach where he was channeling John McTiernan. Here he takes a much looser and more freestyle approach, meaning you won't find any of the impressive widescreen shots and slick camera-work that made the first one so good.
I have to admit. I had high hopes for this one. I mean, how could I not? The first one was just so fun and well made when I wasn't really expecting much to begin with. And knowing the same star and director were returning only got my excitement even hotter. But while the story, about a mad man who wants to release a chemical agent that kills instantly, was okay, the many sub-par fight scenes, action sequences, and less than stellar camera-work leave you let down.
While knowing full well that Shannon Tweed cannot possibly do most of the fighting and stunts in both of these films, it was easier to take seeing her stunt double the first time around simply because the first one was a much better and enjoyable film all around. Here though, it comes off as annoying when 90% of the time you see a stunt double with a bad blonde wig doing everything, even the simplest punches, kicks, or tumbles.
I think what this film does best is remind you how good the first film was, and if anything, get's you to go back and revisit that randomly surprising film.
www.robotGEEKSCultCinema.blogspot.com
In this sequel, oddly re-titled Face The Evil here in the U.S., they bring along the always reliable baddie Lance Henrikeson, and Bruce Payne, who shockingly turns a good guy performance this time around. While not as impressive as the cast of the first film, they do solid work with what they have to work with.
Aesthetically, director Paul Lynch seems to kind of go-through-the- motions here. While a competent looking film, it's a far cry from his slick streamlined approach where he was channeling John McTiernan. Here he takes a much looser and more freestyle approach, meaning you won't find any of the impressive widescreen shots and slick camera-work that made the first one so good.
I have to admit. I had high hopes for this one. I mean, how could I not? The first one was just so fun and well made when I wasn't really expecting much to begin with. And knowing the same star and director were returning only got my excitement even hotter. But while the story, about a mad man who wants to release a chemical agent that kills instantly, was okay, the many sub-par fight scenes, action sequences, and less than stellar camera-work leave you let down.
While knowing full well that Shannon Tweed cannot possibly do most of the fighting and stunts in both of these films, it was easier to take seeing her stunt double the first time around simply because the first one was a much better and enjoyable film all around. Here though, it comes off as annoying when 90% of the time you see a stunt double with a bad blonde wig doing everything, even the simplest punches, kicks, or tumbles.
I think what this film does best is remind you how good the first film was, and if anything, get's you to go back and revisit that randomly surprising film.
www.robotGEEKSCultCinema.blogspot.com
- jasonisageek
- 25 sept. 2016
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Otages en péril II: Sans issue (1996) officially released in India in English?
Répondre