Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Maziun The stupidity of this movie is something that could rival only Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich movies . - The car chases are done in fast forward so it would look fast - In the action scenes the stunt double don't wear the same cloths as the actor - Guns change from one model into another during the shootouts. - You can outran helicopter just by dumping your cell phone - You can outran Humvee type of vehicle while dragging a woman and shooting behind you - Your guns never need reloading - Villains kill many innocent people for no reason - When building is going to collapse you should stay in itAnd many more …Some scenes are taken from earlier Nu Image-movies like "U.S. Seals 1 " "U.S. Seals 3", "Out for a kill" and "Derailed". The direction is laughable , editing sloppy , production values cheap , acting wooden , dialogue bad , the plot makes no sense whatsoever. Despite all "Direct contact" is kinda painless movie when you want to give your brain a rest . The movie makers manages to keep the pace high and fills 80 minutes with as much senseless action as possible. I've heard they spent 6 millions on making this movie which is amusing . The movie is full of pyrotechnics. Some of the action scenes involving tanks and helicopters are spectacular for a B-class movie. The scenery is chewed up by bullets and explosions. The special effects are funny. I guess it's cheaper to blow up some cars and buildings these days than it is to hire credible screenwriters and good actors. I guess I was in the mood for some brainless entertainment , because I couldn't help but enjoy it a little bit for all it's awfulness. I give it 1/10.

MaximusXXX I do not kid when it comes to proclaiming films as heinously poor.One look at my ratings will tell you as such.What makes Direct Contact such a poor quality feature is the shoddy editing, overuse of stock footage, failed dialogue in both content and delivery and a plot riddled with unexplained and largely unnecessary nuances.The film will under most circumstance draw laughter that was surely not intended. I say this having shown the film to well over two dozen people who I felt had a wide range of tastes.This is literally an ideal reference for bad filming.The fact this feature apparently cost six million is astounding, that's 6 million in case you missed it. Naturally I am inclined to assume the majority of the budget went to Mr. Lundgren and severely overpaid crew. While some of the action sequences that were originally filmed were far from the worst I have witnessed in some other low quality action films, this did not raise the stock to a modest degree.Many may give this film a 1 but I gave it a 3 based on the following defaults:1. The video quality was satisfactory, albeit made for television. 2. Some of the original action sequences were somewhat spectacular. 3. Although the story was sub-par, it was not itself painfully horrendous.In my opinion, any feature length film with even the slightest effort that has a quantifiable beginning and end merits a 1, and in most cases a 2 due to adequate completion. By default due to some of the more expensive action sequences, I have it a 3.Rest assured however I will never recommend anyone see this film for positive entertainment unless it is for reference of failure or based off the pleasures to ridicule.

lost-in-limbo Dolph Lundgren hits us with another by-the-numbers straight to DVD action fare set in Europe where he plays an American ex-marine turned arms smuggler who's spending time in a Russian prison, that's until he's given his freedom in exchange for the rescue of an American heiress who's being held hostage by some Russian criminals and rogue soldiers. But what he is to believe is not quite the case and it triggers a domino effect of violence and destruction. The action clichés come fast and furious, but these formulaic staples offer up plenty of carnage; metallic and flesh. It's speedy, swift and frenetic. Onslaught after onslaught. Chase after chase. The blood simply flows, numerous splatter on show in the many glorious shootouts, explosions and thank god no CGI is used either way. Director Danny Lerner does a competent job. Predictable, but workable even though it might get repetitious and a touch clumsy in the jaunty fight choreography. The locations add to the spectacle too. Lundgren is on cruise control, but still looks good kicking ass. One man, well equipped and going it alone. Michael Paré and Gina May also shows up."Do not shoot the girl!"

davidfurlotte This is the same type of movie and made in the same way as "The Marksman." Take a pretty good action actor, throw in a lot of military toys that have been sitting idle in a prop shop somewhere, add some strippers so we get to see naked female flesh, and then of course, because there is a female actor in the movie make sure that she and the main actor have sex. Now that we have all that stuff in a line, let's see if we can write a script around it to use it, oh, and make sure there's lots and lots of blood and lots and lots of explosions for no reason.I know U.S. Special Forces are pretty good; Delta, Green Berets, SEALS, Rangers, Recon, all those guys are great and I have a ton of respect for them but if any of them watch this movie, I suspect they've probably put out a "hit" on Dolph Lundgren and the makers of this movie for trying to turn what they do into some kind of cartoon.I almost turned it off when Dolph decided that he was going to rescue our 'damsel in distress' by taking out an ENTIRE military base by himself. Even as he was doing that I was logging in here to see something about this movie and I really wish I had done so before I began watching this. Oh, and by the way, you might notice that he doesn't even break a SWEAT after he gets beaten in prison, really? REALLY? I thought we were through with the whole 'guns that never need reloading' back in the '80s and '70s with the Rambo movies and the like but nope, someone seems to think we're going to just buy into that again.If you're looking to watch a movie that has some kind of plot, a little credibility and even some decent acting, you would do better to watch something like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" because this film is much more of a Cartoon than any animated movie ever made. Seriously, if your best friend suggests you watch this DVD, just shoot him and save both of you from making a bad decision.