IMDb > Detonator II: Night Watch (1995) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Detonator II: Night Watch (TV) More at IMDbPro »Night Watch (original title)

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 11 reviews in total 

19 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Worst film ever!

Author: j_sundli from Trondheim, Norway
21 January 2006

Stay clear of this if you value good adaptations of Alistair McLean novels (Where Eagles Dare, The Guns of Navarone, Fear is My Weapon, etc). This must be the worst film made ever. The opening scene is hilarious, even though it clearly isn't supposed to be, the shooting scenes throughout are horrible, the acting appallingly bad, and after an hour you really just want it to end. Pierce Brosnan runs around looking like some American Hillibilly with his British accent shining through every other scene. His smug acting style fits his character, but he just doesn't pull it off. The female lead, Alexandra Paul, makes a performance that surely qualifies for some award given to least impressive acting job ever. Warm presence? Moronic presence I'd say. It really is painful to watch. I had to fast forward the thing in the end in order to avoid hurting myself badly with a stapler. Writer-directer David Jackson probably does his best to make something out of this low-budget production, but in the end the film should be taken to a back alley and put out of its misery.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

B-movie that wants to be Bond

Author: FlagSteward from Kent, United Kingdom
2 June 2007

This is not a great film. It's certainly no Where Eagles Dare and it's not even a Puppet on a Chain. And if you were hoping for a Brosnan film in the style of Goldeneye or The Thomas Crown Affair, forget it. The cast deserve better, but if you ignore the star names and don't set your expectations too high, it's an OK TV action flick.

It wants to be a (low-budget) Bond movie with glamorous locations and a series of action sequences to make you forget a paper-thin plot, but there's no finesse to it, it's all a bit pedestrian. The dialogue creaks, the accents are all over the shop, and the direction uneven. There's several nods to Puppet on a Chain, with a lot of action set on the canals of Amsterdam, and I suspect that Brosnan had already been cast as Bond before filming the casino scene (Nightwatch came out a month before Goldeneye).

The main problem with the film is that it all hangs on the relationship between Brosnan and Paul, which has little chemistry and is badly developed. I've not read the book but it feels like a fairly minor female character has been expanded to accommodate Paul at the height of her Baywatch fame, when just following the original story was at the limits of the scriptwriter's capabilities - and writing decent dialogue was waaay beyond him.

Despite all that it rattles along at a reasonable pace, it's a passable way to spend 90 minutes if you don't expect too much of it.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

The kind of thing you'd find on TV in the early hours of the morning

Author: gregsaxton from United Kingdom
3 June 2007

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I only actually caught the last 20 minutes of this film, at about quarter to one this morning. Apparently it was about a stolen painting, a long-haired GI (Brosnan), some woman, and Murdock from the A-Team.

One of the best scenes in the film was when Brosnan's character tried to throw a bomb through a window. However, the window didn't smash and it bounced right back at him. This could have been unintentional and they kept it in, or it was meant to happen. Either way, it just added to the overall low budget, tacky fee of the movie.

So if you fancy a B-movie warm up to Brosnan's first outing as James Bond, rent it. If you fancy a good movie then stay well clear.

Was the above review useful to you?

Sequel to "Death Train"

Author: Uriah43 from Amarillo, Texas
14 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In this sequel to "Death Train" both "Michael Graham" (Pierce Brosnan) and "Sabrina Carver" (Alexandra Paul) return as two agents working for U.N.A.C.O (the United Nations Anti-Crime Organization) who are assigned to a case that involves the theft of the famous painting "The Night Watch" by Rembrandt. What they don't initially realize is that there is more to the story than this because the person behind these thefts, "Martin Schraeder" (Michael Shannon) has developed a computer chip which can eavesdrop on any phone conversation in the world. Not only that but this device can also kill any person who has their ear to a phone set as well. And since he is an avid art-collector "The Night Watch" was simply payment by a foreign government for the use of his device. Anyway, rather than detail anymore of the movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this wasn't a bad sequel to the previous film "Death Train" (aka "Detonator"). Now, while I like both Pierce Brosnan and Alexandra Paul there didn't seem to be much chemistry between the two and it caused the film to seem a bit synthetic at times. No doubt the fact that this was a "made-for-television" movie had something to do with it. Still, I liked the different locations (Amsterdam and Hong Kong) and I have seen much worse in my time. That said I thought it was an okay sequel and I rate it as average.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Nightwatch : Featuring a talking watch

Author: darren_steven from Hell
27 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm not sure if I need to enable the spoilers for this movies as very few people will ever see this film or even care that I may have spoiled it.

Pierce Brosnan sporting a musketeers mustache and some kind of mullet reprises his role from Death Train, and so does Alexandra Paul who died of cancer in Baywatch. (Death Train is better than this movie) The opening sequence features some kind of South American looking Soldiers chasing Pierce and his commando partner across a beach whilst they rescue some children, for some reason that currently escapes me, or the scriptwriters for that matter. These guys could not hit a cows arse with a banjo. They fire away aimlessly at some very static looking actors. Pierces partner get shot and dies. Pierce rescues the kids. The death of his partner affects Pierce in way many us will never be able to comprehend, but he does his best to at least make us feel his pain through the medium of acting.

Next we learn that something known as 'Nightwatch' has been stolen, It could see stuff in old paintings the human eye was unable to perceive, schoolboy penises and stick women with boobs under the top layer of Renaissance art, the kind of thing Rembrandt always had to cover with paint after his art school mates had tried to ruin his canvass.

So the director of some UN style organisation remembers how good Pierce and Baywatch were on Death Train and decides to get the old gang back together.

Pierce is given a watch with a TV screen in it, he can use this to talk to his boss. There is no earpieces so whenever his boss calls him up everything he says is clearly audible to everyone around Pierce at the time, Pierce just talks into the watch in response. He looks mental whilst doing this.

After this we head to Amsterdam where a man Baywatch 'Just wants to talk to' runs through town and decides to start shooting at Baywatch. He takes out a few civvies before escaping on a boat and crashing said boat into a barrel of oil? and erupts in a fiery explosion. Pierce has row with a big bloke after breaking into his house boat, and then they continue there quest to recover 'Nightwatch' in Hong Kong.

All of this makes no sense.

In the end I'm sure Pierce and Baywatch win.

The action scenes are cheap, the gunmen can't shoot and I'm not really sure what Alistair McClean has done to deserve so many of his books made into bad movies.

This film is bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:


Author: Big Movie Fan from England
27 February 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film was made before Pierce Brosnan made his debut as Bond and it's a great film.

For starters, anything with the beautiful Alexandra Paul in is bound to be great. But there's an interesting storyline and some great action scenes in here.

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD) Alexandra Paul is a tough and resourceful character who certainly doesn't need a man to help her out. She has some great scenes where she chases a man in a boat whilst she is on foot. And when the bad guys snatch her and drag her into their car she even manages to escape them.

Pierce Brosnan also gets some great scenes including a vicious fight with a thug on a small boat.

The villains in this film may not be the most memorable villains ever but there's some good scenes with them in.

I do have one criticism about the film-William Devane gets a rather limited role for an actor of his talents.

I strongly recommend this film. I know Pierce Brosnan will be busy for the next couple of years filming Bond movies but I wouldn't mind seeing him and Alexandra Paul team up again sometime.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Strange sequel

Author: suchenwi ( from Konstanz, Germany
19 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having watched Death Train some days ago, I was really excited that this, its sequel, came as gimmick with a German computer magazine these days, and bought it right after work.

But what a difference, after just 3 years. I'm not saying it is worse than Death Train, or better... Brosnan and Paul still work at (fictitious) UNACO, but their boss has been changed, as well as their hairstyle (drastically). "GNN" is still reporting, but much less excitingly. The credibility is about the same (low)... where before a train carrying a nuclear bomb was shot by any naughty way, now a space rocket is fired from a North Korean ship in Hong Kong harbor.

And still, both movies are somehow good fun. Even though a major conflict between hero & heroine is who gets to sleep in the big hotel bed, the chemistry between the two is still better than "Bond. James Bond." and the Bond girl du jour.

The aspect of art, forgery, and its use in torturing an art lover was an interesting side facet.

Another association that may only mean something to German viewers is that Brosnan here somehow reminds of Horst Schimanski (Tatort krimis) - the beard, the rough behavior.. but ultimately, I liked him with shorter hair, and her with longer, better :)

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Mr. and Mrs. Bond

Author: gridoon2015
27 February 2008

"Night Watch" is the follow-up to "Death Train", made 2 years earlier, but while Pierce Brosnan and Alexandra Paul play the same characters, they act more like spies and less like commandos this time around. It's fun noting all the parallels this movie, and Brosnan's character in particular, has to the James Bond series: he is an experienced secret agent; he regularly travels worldwide; he assumes a fake identity as a cover; he is given a watch equipped with all sorts of gadgets ("it does more than tell the time, eh?"); he visits the casino and cleans up the joint; he even orders a vodka martini; and of course he gets involved in fights and chases. The main difference is that Brosnan doesn't have the perfectly polished appearance of Bond here; he has unkempt hair and a long mustache. Alexandra Paul is (of course) gorgeous and tough and knows how to defend herself in moments of danger. The two stars get an enjoyable chemistry going and if Brosnan hadn't been cast as Bond the very same year, I could see them doing more films together. Like its predecessor, "Night Watch" is a medium-scale action film that knows its limitations, has some exciting action sequences, and provides more than passable entertainment to fans of the genre. (***)

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Worth one (night) watch

Author: Guy from UK
16 May 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

NIGHT WATCH is a campy adaptation of an Alistair MacLean novel which knows that it is tosh and therefore has fun. Plot: two UN special agents (yeah, really) investigating a fake Rembrandt are drawn into a plot involving North Korea, "communication bombs" and terrible special effects. The film begins with the world's worst rescue mission as Pierce Brosnan, sporting 17th century whiskers, is chased by a handful of what look like Mexican pool cleaners before finding refuge in a rubber dinghy. It then descends into broad comedy as he tries to seduce his fellow agent whilst they are posing as a couple by suggesting that they need to put on an authentic performance in case the room is bugged. It concludes with an Amsterdam canal chase in which an apparently unattended barge full of oil just happens to sail in front of them, in order to provide the requisite giant orange explosion. It's all complete rubbish but at least it knows what it is and laughs at itself. A very gentle Sunday afternoon watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

no better or worse than the first Detonator movie

Author: disdressed12 from Canada
30 July 2007

this is the second movie in the Detonator should probably watch the first one before this one,just to get an idea of the agency and the goes by the title Detonator or sometimes Death Train.anyway,this movie is bit a bit different than the first one.this one is a bit more hi tech,with a few's sort of James Bond this one a very expensive painting has been stolen and a fake one put in it's,the team is hired to find the authentic painting and return it.but that's just part of the story.there's a lot more going on.there's a bit more action in this one,but it's still not really fast paced.Pierce Brosnan and Alexandra Paul team up once again,and instead of Patrick Stewart as the boss,this time we have William Devane.i don't have a problem with Devane,i just wish they had also kept Stewart also .as i said,this move has more action,but still seems fairly slow.believability is a bit strained in this one.i don't think they were going for realism.i did,however like the story,although it isn't very original.still,it's entertaining and a decent enough diversion.i don't think it's worse than the first one,but it's not really better either.for me Detonator 2 AKA Night Watch is a 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history