Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

BA_Harrison A late-'80s example of blatant American anti-communist propaganda (the film was produced, not without incident, by disgraced Pro-Reaganite and anti-communist Jack Abramoff), Red Scorpion stars Dolph Lundgren as proud Russian Nikolai Rachenko, an elite Spetsnaz special forces commando sent to kill an African rebel; however, after being punished for the failure of his mission, and having witnessing atrocities ordered by his superiors, Nikolai comes to realise that he has been fighting for the wrong side.As expected, the Russians (and their commie allies, the Cubans) are depicted as sadistic, evil oppressors with no redeeming qualities (cult movie baddie Brion James lends his sneer to the cause), and the African rebels are seen as noble freedom fighters, with Nikolai's change of heart transforming him from cold killing machine to lovable lunk with a mile-wide smile. Black-and-white politics aside, the film delivers the standard '80s gung-ho action, with lots of big guns, a Russian gunship, and a tank ensuring destruction on a grand scale (with some flamethrower action in the uncut version). Of course, Nikolai avoids death at every turn, although he still suffers a reasonable amount of pain over the course of the film, including getting stung by a scorpion and enduring a rather nasty spot of torture, needle-like daggers pushed through his flesh.Movie gore legend Tom Savini, who previously worked with director Joseph Zito on Rosemary's Killer and Friday the 13th Part IV, provides the makeup effects, including an arm severed by a machete.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for Dolph's hair.

lost-in-limbo Joseph Zito is no stranger to noisy gun-ho, explosive action joints with films like semi 80s classics "Missing in Action" and "Invasion USA" under his belt. So you know what he would bring to the table and Zito doesn't disappoint. He goes big on nearly all fronts. An all-out assault on the senses with general mayhem. Now who to play an indestructible Russian Special Force soldier who must go undercover to infiltrate and assassinate an African rebel leader. Look no further than a stolid Dolph Lundgren. He's perfect for the role, as an instrument of war. The plot is typically laid-out; as a soldier goes in terminate a target to only realise he's expandable and left for dead by his superiors. This sees him sympathizing with the guerrillas' cause and leading them against his old comrades. It doesn't offer up much in its one-note story and the script can be a touch preachy, but the tough action is frenetic and well-staged even with some slow (the spiritual journey with the bushman), tired passages. The grimy atmosphere adds to its humid tempo. There are some colourful supporting cast with the live-wire Emmet Walsh, T.P McKenna as the evil Russian General, and sadistic glee from Carmen Argenziano as a Cuban Colonel. Also character actor Brion James shows up for a small part doing the standard bad guy shtick. A film that sticks to formula, but that's its strength and Zito knows it.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Once Mr. Dolph Lundgren began pursuing an acting career, it wasn't until he played He-Man in The Masters of the Universe (1987) that he began approximately putting out a movie per year. Next in that line up was this action film. It's also probably the last time Dolph Lundgren ever played a Russian character. Good thing too because being typecast as a certain character frequently doesn't give the viewer something more to look forward too. Here, he plays a devoted Russian soldier who is trained and highly skilled in the art of killing. But as the story continues, he realizes maybe he's not seeing the whole picture.With a screenplay written by first timer Arne Olsen, it isn't great nor is it terrible. The story does contain some meaningful moments, but most of them are frequently overshadowed by scenes that are predictable enough that regular viewers could see it coming a mile away. There are also some points in the film that would make the viewer question "How does this pertain to the development of the character?". It can be far fetched at times. Like how is learning the way of a hunter open one's eyes to reality? Is it really that powerful of a activity?That's not to say the actors perform badly though. Dolph Lundgren portraying a Russian is accurate. He's a blonde, large, hulking mass of muscle and can speak with the basic accent. Al White plays an African rebel leader who is also legitimate in his role. M. Emmet Walsh plays a an American reporter who accompanies Al White's character. My question is though, how did an American reporter get caught in the middle of this? Lastly, Brion James makes an appearance too, who would play the British character, Requin in Tango & Cash (1989) a year later. It's an alright cast for this movie.However, the way the action is executed reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando (1985). There's lots of explosions and plenty of shootings. Just like Schwarzenegger, Lundgren runs around in war paint firing his machine gun without getting a scratch. But perhaps what helped this movie to excel further than Commando (1985) was the human aspect of it. Al White's character leads a bunch of poor followers who seek freedom from the Russian oppression. And when the audience sees them fall, it's hard to watch. Assisting those particular segments was Jay Chattaway's music to the film. In some places it worked but the rest didn't. It was an average listening experience.At least, the film was directed by a competent person. Joseph Zito, the man behind Chuck Norris' Missing in Action (1984), Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984) and The Prowler (1981) knew what he was doing. Also accompanying him is cinematographer João Fernandes who has also worked with Zito in the past. Fernandes was able to get nice shots of the arid terrain, which at least allows the audience to believe the place Lundgren was set in wasn't forgiving. In the end, it's not great or terrible. It's just average film making.As Dolph Lundgren's last film to play a Russian character, it comes off as a better rip-off of Commando (1985) but doesn't take the story in any direction that hasn't been explored. Just average on the whole.

Boba_Fett1138 Can't say I fell in love with this movie but it has a certain appeal to it. As far as cheesy, overblown, 80's, B-action movie flicks go, this is being a petty enjoyable and good movie for what it is! There were certainly certain aspects about this movie that I appreciated. One was its story. Not that it's being much good or anything cleverly written but it at least takes the movie to plenty of good places and meets some good characters along the way. And how many actions movies set in rural Africa are out there anyway? The movie is great and unique already, just because of that.Another thing I also liked about the movie and its story was that Dolph Lundgren was being both the villain and main hero of the movie. There isn't really being a main villains in this, since Dolph Lundgren is already on the 'wrong' side and along the way switches sides, as he is growing more and more sympathy for his objective and their cause. the transitions his characters go through are pretty good to watch and gives the movie and its story something extra and more depth. It's probably also part of the reason why this movie is often being regarded as the ultimate Dolph Lundgren movie.And this movie also definitely benefits from Lundgren's presence. He's a very charismatic lead, even while he doesn't speak an awful lot. He handles all of the action very well, both the hand to hand combat scenes as the ones in which he has to handle a large gun.The action itself is always something decent enough. Certainly nothing that blew me away but there are still some large setup moments that are great to watch and definitely something the '80's action movie lover should enjoy and appreciate. It's still being a totally silly and overblown action movie of course but if you're able to take it as just that, you'll most likely have a good time watching this movie.6/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/