|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||16 reviews in total|
Women Can Be Rangers, 17 November 2012
Author: Stanjaudit from United States
This movie may not be realistic to some reviewers but some folks are
just to critical and can't enjoy the professional actions of actors.
These people do take pride in their profession contrary to what some
folk may think. In today's environment we do have women going into
direct combat, albeit in support positions as they drive support trucks
in convoy. However, those trucks come under attack by small arms fire
or IEDs ( Improvised Explosive Devise). These IEDs kill or wound
independently regardless of sex, age or rank.
So lay of the actors in this movie. They are doing there best to give you some entertainment. My son was a ranger and it was difficult training just as any of our secure fighting forces whether it be seals, delta force, or marine re-con. So just enjoy a movie and lay off the actors, the directors, technicians and others it takes to make a movie.
Where to start, where to start..., 29 April 2012
Author: joel0903 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Did they not even stop to check to make sure they were using the
correct rifles? the M-16 A-2 mod was adopted in the mid 1980s based on
a requirement by the Marine Corps and did away with the fully automatic
setting. It was replaced with 3 round burst. The hand guards were also
modified (both are round) in later models. Also, at the end, the Yong
San sign is spelled wrong (it says US Eight Army when it should say US
It's a somewhat entertaining B movie, all in all. About what I expected, though the quality of the writing doesn't do the actors and actresses abilities justice. Ah, also, the instructor at the end was one of her training squad. I don't recall her rank, but obviously you don't get selected to be an instructor at Ranger school less than a month after you graduate from said school.
Plot as good as 'Expendables' 2010-ish...., 15 April 2012
Author: GG Raz from United States
2012 Comments--Good for 1997 Tech No reviews in a while, so here is
OK the plot is relevant to current events- imagine that!! Art imitates life. I could speed up a few spots, but c.g.I. was just coming out, I think.The movie started & ended well and that matters. Lead acting was pretty good. So raw. & not high-tech, & a snooze or two, but better than many mindless tales still being produced. If you like to see females in action and you like nuclear topics, you could enjoy it --why not?
CIA meets Army rangers -- Females had balls!! just saying. Probably not for under 40-ish crowd with action-addiction.
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
What Firebirds Was To Top Gun,, 6 February 2005
Author: wayfarer4 from United States
Okay, yes, this wasn't exactly a high power movie. My impression is
that this was originally considered as an answer to G.I. Jane, but with
the star power in a strange side story that really had little to do
with the main character, other than adding a love interest and some
The fight scenes are fairly contrived, true. The degree of realism is less than believable. And if you can distract an Army Ranger from his assigned guard duty with a cable hack of "Dirty Dancing", then our military is in serious danger. And, if the military (at the supposed time of the movie) hasn't trained any female Rangers, then where did we get the female drill sergeant that runs them through the training? On the other hand, this is a movie with Michael Biehn and Adrian Paul that didn't get any coverage in movie trailers, and is likely only to be shown on the late late night movie when the regularly scheduled Brian Bosworth movie doesn't show up. If you're a fan of either of these actors, and are only looking for a movie with the two of them, then this isn't so terrible. I got my copy from a used book store, and have to agree that it was the cover that got my attention. Both Biehn and Paul have the best scenes and dialogs out of the cast. (If nothing else, Paul's pick-up line involving "Mr. Happy" is one of his better moments.) It does play shamelessly with bits from other movies, including what appears to be a co-ed shower that almost smacks of the "Starship Troopers" scene.
I would have to say that this isn't the worst movie I've seen. See this movie with an open mind and a willing suspension of disbelief. Or, find yourself a good movie editing system, and remove all other sections of the movie that don't involve Biehn and Paul. It will probably make about the same amount of sense.
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
What Happened?, 29 March 1999
Author: Kaymarie from Forest Hill, MD, USA
I wanted so much to like a movie staring
my two favorite actors--Adrian Paul and
Michael Biehn. I'm not your crazed fan
type. . .but somehow these two men have
stuck in my imagination. Both have (for
the most part) appeared in works with good
scripts and intelligent characters.
Why this turkey? The story line-- women saving a male black ops team in Korea-- was painful. The film looked as if it had been shot with an old 8mm on a budget of $1.95.
I hope my favorite guys had a good time or got paid a lot of money. It was painful to watch.
3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Total Waste of Time, 22 August 1999
Author: Dabig_W from Lombaed, Illinois
This product of the Phillipines was made by people who have absolutely no understanding of US Army Ranger training and operations. It explains why it is the worst piece of drivel a few noteworthy actors and actresses have put into their acting careers. I think the few 10 votes here must have been from the makers of this film.
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Yes Virginia, there is a movie this bad...., 12 November 2007
Author: kaylaw3 from United States
I won't say this is the *worst* movie I've ever seen but it comes
The heroine - discharged from her military assignment with the CIA - is given a chance to join a co-ed group of Army Rangers trainees by her female Brigadier General commander. Her group goes through such brutal training as having to poop their pants and stand in a pond. Her SERE training consists of having her shirt torn open, getting slapped and being shocked on her clothed thigh with a cattle prod immediately before she is congratulated on her ability to withstand this brief encounter and welcomed as a new Ranger.
For some reason there is an attempt at inserting a love interest in this movie. I really don't know why. Maybe there were plans for nudity which were later abandoned. Probably because there was no interest in seeing any of the actresses nude.
Other than the repeated scenes of the guys playing around with the tampon machine in the co-ed shower - where everyone is always fully clothed - the highlights consist of women in totally unbelievable combat scenes rescuing male soldiers. Wait... I remember some crying... And something about one of the male soldiers betraying his comrades...
Feel lucky if you miss this movie.
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A disappointment, 21 April 2006
Author: wnterstar from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is supposed to be an intense movie, but it just misses. Instead it
is a physically dark mess. I am an Adrian Paul fan, but I gotta say, he
just missed here also. He was too over the top as an intense soldier.
Instead of intense, he was laughable.
This is a thin plot, combined with a poor script, lack-luster performances, and boring cinematography. The only saving graces with this movie is that the score is decent (not memorable, though) and some fairly good special effects.
This movie is a complete waste of time and only deserves a five out of ten. Watch three kings instead!
2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Few redeeming qualities hurt by horrible production quality., 1 March 2003
Author: sgtdeal-1 from Somersworth, NH
I caught this movie on television on a Saturday afternoon and the thing that caught my eye was the "artistic license" taken on military details. While I know that movies require a certain suspension of disbelief, I was aghast by the aggregious inaccuracies in this movie. The movie depicts a squad of female Army Rangers on a covert mission inside of North Korea. While there is no such thing as female Rangers in the US Army, I would be able to overlook that little detail if it were not for the fact that they looked absolutely silly in a hodge-podge of military acoutrements that they were forced to wear. The costume person on this one should be ashamed of themselves. How much time, effort, or money does it take to research the basics of military uniform? From the Ranger tabs sewn onto their black berets, to their camoflauge t-shirts. I honestly thought this movie was a comedy at first. I was shocked to see Michael Biehn and R. Lee Ermey in this. You would think that both would have insisted on a certain degree of accuracy.
3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Neither can dead scripts..., 14 September 2001
Author: vfrickey from Earth
The presence of action and adventure film veterans Michael Biehn (Navy
Seals), Adrian Paul (the "Highlander" TV series) and R. Lee Ermey (Full
Metal Jacket) couldn't resuscitate this flick... the dialogue and plot
rarely rise above sophomoric quality.
A major exception to that observation is an excellent gritty monologue delivered by R. Lee Ermey as a Cold War relic of a CIA bureaucrat pining for the good old days early in the film. More illustration of the conflict between Ermey's old-school spook and the (aw, crap!) lady general in charge would have helped the film considerably.
The cinematography is right down there with Saturday morning "hop n'chop" martial arts films - disappointing, considering the crew was equipped to do better. I frankly was angry that this movie didn't have more polish and visual impact than it does.
Also, the technical adviser was either absent or not being listened to by the director and writers. The military details - vignettes of Ranger training and the way in which Biehn and Paul's sniper/spook characters operate ring palpably false - they lack the authenticity which even the average modern TV techno-thriller series has - even the later, more disappointing seasons of "24" inspire more willing suspension of belief than "Dead Men Don't Dance."
Finally, the plot peters out toward the end - it's not compelling, it's not plausible and you don't strongly care about the characters toward the end, you're just grateful for the end credits so you can get on with your life. The bad guys are predictably bad, the plot twists, while not quite telegraphed, are not terribly surprising either. If a plot twists out in the demilitarized zone somewhere and no one's paying attention, does it make any difference?
The title of this film should be "Night of the Living Dead Plot." You'll never get the hour and a half of your life spent watching this turkey back; paint your house if there's nothing on the tube besides this... watching your walls dry will easily be more entertaining.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Plot summary||Ratings||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|