Sweepers (1998) Poster

(1998)

User Reviews

Review this title
14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Frustratingly Unbelievable! Dreadful Film..
Facade30 May 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't like this film one bit. I actually think that it was worse than "Deep Blue Sea" in terms of the stupidity portrayed by the characters. Its one if those films where you sit on the edge of your seat shouting "Shoot him, shoot him now, hurry up and shoot him or he will take the gun of you" and "Don't do ____ "

Anyway, the whole thing is one frustratingly unbelievable event after another.

SPOILERS: As if you could spoil this!

Here is my list- I suppose these count as SPOILERS of a kind so be warned!

0) (forgot this one) Just watch them deal with the mine! Look out for gems like "walk where I walk", yeah, so how do we get back then when we haven't marked anything?

1) When attacked by the helicopter, Dolph has a hunting rifle, which easily outranges the assault rifle in the helicopter. Dolph fires one shot, killing the rifleman, but then throws his gun away, and drives off- doesn't he carry ammunition? Doesn't he pay for his guns?

2) Then 2 helicopters attack. Dolph has no rifle, and can't hit anything with about 70 shots from his pistols (he has about 50 magazines for each [all different]), but brings it down with a flare pistol.

3) Why does the girl reverse off a mountain? Why don't they drive back? The Landrover looks perfectly drivable to me.

4) In the bad guys bedroom, Dolph is going to shoot a naughty man with his combat shotgun, but it gets kicked out of his hands easily (what would have happened if he had fired it? He would have dropped it if he was holding it that loosely), so he has to hit and kick and bite and gouge, with me saying "shoot him Dolph, you have a gun stuck in your trousers" about 50 times.

5) The naughty people kidnap the girl and fly her by helicopter to the secret mine, arriving AT THE SAME TIME as Dolph, who has walked it!

6) In the mine, many chances to shout "shoot him" etc, until the implausible ending, when Dolph is able to shoot about 30 people straight off.

7) You won't believe what happens on the train. Is abject incompetence a pre-requisite of being a bad guy? (As well as a huge cargo of exploding oil drums)

8) Dolph's flesh wound seems much better after his little swim.

Note to foreign powers. Don't buy those landmines- they are much too unstable! (and anybody can just turn them off in the 15 second delay time)
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
painfully awful
highwaytohell-110 April 2009
This has to be the worst steaming pile of dog flop I've ever wasted my time watching. Fortunately I regained my sanity about half-way through and changed the channel. Dolph must have paid the MyTV Network to show this. Continuity was completely non-existent. Notice that the kid was completely vaporized by the landmine, yet seconds later Dolph scoops up Johnny, who has only a bloody lip. Would have been nice to see Dolph get blown up at that point too and end the movie immediately. I didn't catch who the lead actress was, but it seemed that her botox injection got a little out of hand. She looked like a bloated carp.

If you can get your hands on the DVD, please, please throw it on the floor and stomp on it so that the rest of humanity doesn't have to suffer.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Standard Lundgren.
davideo-24 June 1999
Dolph Lundgren in a Ken Loach drama about a group of male council flat floor sweepers facing prejudice and taunts off the sexist,narrow minded women employees on the estate.Something sound wrong here? It should do. No,old Dolph once again reprises his everyday,tearandwear action man role,this time as a former landmines specialist turned down-and-out fist fighter,whose services are called on to sort out a major new killer mine,being deactivated ,in his place of spiritual demotivation,along the way bumping into his old doctor buddy,Passenger 57 baddie Bruce Payne. There's some added British metaphors (mention of Princess Diana,local lads playing football)and midway through,Dolph makes a bizarre change from an Indiana Jones alike adventurer into an Arnie-Commando esque train dweller.At one stage,he even has to swim under a small wad of water,just like a Dolph-in. Tee hee hee.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Politically Correct
karrie12226 January 2001
I respect this movie because it deals with the problem of landmines in Africa (Angola. It starts out slow but ends with lots of action and has a couple of surprises in it. Dolph and his costar (Claire Stansfield) look really good. There are a couple of problems with the film. One is that Dolph's voice sounds like he had laryngitis during the filming. The other is that the landmine they are in search of is supposed to be very sophisticated technology but is really kind of pathetic. Whether or not you like Dolph or his acting, this movie is relevant and politically correct.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cheap shot !
DavidDev3 January 2002
Very disappointing movie to say the least. A "cheap shot" if you will.

However, the only good thing about this movie is the collaborative interaction between Hollywood (American)and African (predominantly South African) actors/crew: which is POSSIBLE. As a South African it was also quite funny to see Dolph Lundgren drinking "beer" from a bottle labelled with a well-known South African beer brand. This taking into account the supposed script location to be "Angola".

Judging Claire Stansfield for the first time(not having seen any of her earlier movie efforts)it seems she'd be better off displaying her physical features in a movie genre that requires it. Acting prowess, as far as she is concerned, is non-existent. I'll rate this movie 3/10 for effort and just going through the motions of movie making.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
African outing for Dolph Lundgren delivers the action goods
Leofwine_draca4 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
More straight-to-video nonsense from action man Lundgren, here ripping off everything from COMMANDO to INDIANA JONES. Still, despite being clichéd and ripping off loads of great movies, SWEEPERS is a low-budget, violent action flick that actually manages to be pretty entertaining and, for once, delivers in the action stakes! The first half is pretty slow, with Lundgren losing his son in a sickening sentimental scene and then becoming an alcoholic. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Clare Stansfield who plays the thankfully tough and unglamorous female lead and love interest. After much to-ing and fro-ing in the outback of Angola (a fresh setting which makes a change from the tired bustling streets of America which figure predominantly in these action flicks), Stansfield persuades Lundgren to team up with her to battle some evil terrorist chaps.

The second half is basically one long string of action scenes, with Lundgren battling people in a house, street, in a mine and finally on a speeding train (yep, John Woo's BROKEN ARROW seems to have been a strong inspiration, although this is equally good). The body count is high and the amount of shooting is enough to satisfy any red-blooded male. There are also a requisite number of hand-to-hand combat situations and explosions to enjoy. Lundgren here is pretty good and seems to be enjoying himself; his character goes from being a drunk to an Indiana Jones look alike explorer complete with leather jacket, hat and shotgun! Finally he strips to the waist and becomes Rambo, killing off dozens of bad guys in bursts of violence.

The chief villain is the ever-smarmy Bruce Payne; at first his character seems to be on the side of good, but anybody who's ever seen any of his other movies will inevitably guess that he turns out to be the main bad guy at the end. Stansfield is good, the supporting bad guys deserve to die, and the African extras acquit themselves well with their mainly sympathetic turns. Although a cheap, uninvolving action film, this is still highly entertaining if cheesy stuff, surprisingly good for Lundgren.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
The film transforms into "Indiana Dolph", complete with fedora-like hat and leather bomber jacket, it makes for a nice night for DTV fans.
Comeuppance Reviews19 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
In this Nu-Image production, Dolph plays Christian "Ace" Erickson, an adventurous former U.S. Special Forces soldier who has found his calling in life as a member of the Humanitarian Order of Chivalry, a group that goes to war-ravaged countries beset by land mines and removes the offending mines. While on assignment in Angola, his young son is blown up by a mine. Distraught, Erickson becomes a drunk and abandons his mine-finding ideals. He resorts to punchfighting in the local watering holes for cash.

When a new, American-made super-mine, the "A-6 Butterfly" is unleashed on the populace, it's up to Erickson and Michelle Flynn (Stansfield) to stop the madness and unravel the government conspiracy behind these deadly items, spearheaded by Dr. Cecil Hopper (Payne). Will they succeed? A Dolph Lundgren movie about land mines kills two birds with one stone. Firstly, it allows the viewer plenty of blow-ups with an actual reason behind them, and secondly, it's a fairly original idea, especially for low-budget action movies. Think about it: the issue of mines in these third-world countries is a real, pressing problem. It's a human issue many people care about. So when you add Dolph, who about 2/3 of the way through the film transforms into "Indiana Dolph", complete with fedora-like hat and leather bomber jacket, it makes for a nice night for DTV fans.

Dolph ventured back to Africa after his time there filming Red Scorpion (1988), and the rural locations and indigenous music make for a different sort of backdrop to the action. A lot of the action is fairly implausible, but when Dolph dons his "adventure hat" and is chomping on his cigar, who can argue? Especially since he seems a bit more animated this time around, which is always nice to see. Of course, the antithesis to his "adventure hat" is the "evil hat" of nemesis Yager (Roberts). This isn't to be confused with the G.K. Chesterton-quoting baddie Hopper. In their off time, the Sweepers (you didn't think this was a movie where Dolph plays an undercover school janitor, did you?) (because that would be awesome) play what can only be described as "mine games", competitive events where they try not to step on mines. I wonder if this is accurate to how actual humanitarians behave? But then again it probably gets boring when you're out in the country and your mine-hunting is done for the day, especially for a man of action like Erickson.

So despite some of its sillier plot flaws, thanks to its important message and its difference in the world of DTV action, don't be afraid to go on a "Mine Walk" with Ace and the gang.

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Overall a disappointment
Wizard-824 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I am a Dolph Lundgren fan, so I am somewhat forgiving if I watch a movie of his that has some shortcomings. With "Sweepers", I tried very hard to like it, but I felt that at the end it just didn't work. It gets off to a decent start - the African locations have some flavor, the plot (involving mines) is somewhat original, and there are a couple of acceptable action sequences in this first part as well. Unfortunately, after about the first twenty minutes or so, Lundgren's character becomes a sorry drunk and the movie bogs down showing this drunkard slogging around, and the movie never really recovers from this. The rest of the movie mostly lumbers along, never really picking up steam even when there is some action. If you manage to sit all the way through the movie, you will be rewarded with an awesome visual of an exploding train on a bridge, but I don't think this reward is worth all the boredom you'll go through before seeing it. Not the worst action movie ever made, nor the worst Lundgren movie ever made, but it's still a disappointment.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worse than terrible
Shawn Watson2 July 2000
This is not a typical Dolph movie nor is it a typical obscure film. I mean it's obscure, but not in a cool new find way. Perhaps it's due to bad writing and directing but it just seems so different in terms of dialogue and plot development. For most of the movie Dolph sits around and drinks but after about an hour he finally gets down to some action.

He also sounds different. His voice is gravelly. Like he's smoked 100 cigars a day for a decade. But I guess this is him just getting into character, too bad it's not interesting but it's nice to see the effort. There should plenty for Dolph to get his teeth into here and lots of opportunity for a hot-potato of a movie. Land mines are a delicate issue but at some point in the movie it all collapses into standard action-man territory.

The beginning is badly directed, some shootouts seems really false and the trailer is, by far, the WORST I have ever seen. The DVD has plain old stereo sound with a pan and scanned fullscreen picture. Avoid it.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
horrible generic movie, but kinda watchable
moviefiend-12 March 2005
my dad came home one day with a DVD double feature, he'd paid a £1 for it and it feature two Dolph films, Bridge of Dragons and Sweepers. Needless to say i was happy, i love b-style action movies and my dad had just picked up two potential winners.

Bridge of Dragons for the record was pretty good, not a classic but a fun action movie.

Sweepers however was a huge letdown, it starts brightly enough the whole opening scenes on the minefield are pretty cool and after the 'Roadhouse' style bar-fight scenes i thought i was in for a good time...then it all goes wrong. It's hard to pin-point what's wrong with this film, it's a basic story easy enough to follow and there's come decent action, it's just so stale and normal it makes me sick.

i find it hard to understand why people make films like this, what were they trying to achieve? generic pap overall, but still it was watchable...if your a Dolph fan, check it, if not avoid.

3/10
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Good Grief! I've seen Berkeleyites with less naievite'
koohii20 August 2003
This movie's grasp of Angolan politics is about as informed as it's knowledge of landmines. In other words, it makes the Lethal Weapon movies look like sophisticated dramas. Even your average Berkeley protester, full of ideal but without a clue as to what is really going on, would be able to display a better grasp of the political situation than this movie. Fight coreography and direction is laughablly bad. Fanfilms on theForce.net tend to be better. Suddenly, 1/2 way through, Dolph becomes an Indianna Jones clone. During a rescue scene, when time is of the essence, he takes time to change clothes. The whole mine sequence reads like Steven Speilburg's rejects. The village scenes scream bogus as well. All these villagers have food and clothing, and running water and plumbing. And they're dumb enough to be playing football in the minefield just when "Our Hero" needs motivation. Overall, the film may have been made to advance a political agenda, but it failed. This is the lamest Dolph movie I've scene since... ever. The only one that comes close to being worse was the film where they actually stole footage from another Dolph movie! Using the Cranky scale (1-4 bombs, Dynamite, Nuke), This one is a dynamite!
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Not nearly as good as "Missionary Man"....
innocuous27 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was going to give this three stars, but I had to subtract one star for the unbelievably annoying and funny-looking kid who played Dolph's son.

******SPOILER ALERT********

So, the kid not only tags along by hiding in the back of the vehicle while his father (Dolph) literally goes into a war zone to sweep for mines, but he runs across a well-marked minefield trying to get away from some soldiers...with predictable results. The worst part is that he has this incredibly goofy grin on his face while he's running across the minefield. To be politically mega incorrect, he runs across the minefield like a girl and with the facial expression of someone who's mentally challenged. It's laugh-out-loud funny, even when the kid gets shredded by a mine. If I were Dolph, I'd have counted myself better off without him.

******END SPOILER*********

I also got a big laugh out of the super-sophisticated high-tech mines. They can supposedly detect when someone approaches them, but they don't actually detonate at that point. Instead, they obligingly wait 15 seconds, as well as going through all sorts of folding and unfolding motions. Better yet, they conveniently have flashing red and green LEDs on them (pretty low-profile, right?) AND an ON/OFF switch located right on the top. Pretty hard to miss them, especially in the dark.

Other than the kid and the mines, everything else is meant to be serious (I think.) Most of the plot is completely absurd, as are all the action scenes. (I also want to know how a missions doctor can find time to do anything else at all when he's in the field managing a hospital.) The final two stars are based on: one star simply because you can't give zero stars; three more stars for having a script, a beginning, and an end, and for not using crappy CGI; deduct one star for poor editing (quite, quite bad); and deduct one more star for the kid, as described above.

Check out "Missionary Man" if you want to see a B-movie with less social message but more of Dolph kicking butt.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
For most countries, truce means peace, but for Angola, truce means terror!
lastliberal21 July 2007
This film was a real snooze-fest interrupted by brief flashes of action. In fact, most of the action took place at the beginning and the end. You could skip the whole middle.

Dolph Lundgren sure didn't show the action hero we saw in The Punisher or Universal Soldier as a demolitions expert in taking apart land mines.

Claire Stansfield was equally flat as the woman who recruited him to help rid Angola of a new type of mine.

Someone even compared Lungren to Commando Arnold. What a joke!

I imagine that there is a market for movies like this in foreign countries.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Never ever attempt to give a Dolph Lundgren character some depth.
Boba_Fett11388 July 2010
As far as these sort of genre movies, this really isn't a bad one. I sure for one enjoyed watching it. Of course its all lame and cheap but hey I am a guy! I don't mind seeing things get blown up and I definitely have seen worse and less entertaining movies of this sort.

It basically is a very ridicules movie. The story...well that didn't even made sense did it? It's a quite weak and just plain silly story but at least it provides the movie with plenty of action to enjoy. The action is simply the saving grace of this movie. The story is just never really interesting and far from anything new and they also made the mistake with it to try and give the Dolph Lundgren character some depth. I could had worked, if there had been a better actor involved.

But this is a Dolph Lundgren-flick with action in it, so you just know in advance you shouldn't pay any attention to the story. The movie serves its purpose to bring some entertaining action to the screen, though it all remains quite ridicules all. It's insane to see Dolph Lundgren shooting without ever taking cover, while bullets fly around him and stuff starts to blow up and kills all of his enemies with the first shot he fires.

A watchable enough genre piece that serves its purpose well, without ever becoming a real great or original one.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews