Rapid Assault (Video 1997) Poster

(1997 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Not very rapid, but there are lots of assaults!
Aaron137529 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is brought to us by Fred Olen Ray who makes bad movies; however, oftentimes those bad movies are fun to watch and this film is no exception. So many things in this film do not jive as I am pretty sure if a sea lab were abandoned, it would be filled with water and a reef, but heck, you get to see the main action guy with a cool name kick some butt while saying shoot the nukes!

The story, heck, does it matter? A terrorist organization is developing a biological weapon. Their plan is to disperse this weapon in the ocean, in an abyss...something tells me the good guys really did not have to do anything as the canister was small, it would be akin to chucking a coke in the ocean, it is going to be so spread out it will be rendered harmless...but that does not stop the good guys from somehow getting aboard an underwater lab which should be extremely easy to defend! The place is huge too, almost like a factory and not a underwater lab at all...

The film stars a bunch of people you will probably think you have seen before and probably have in other movies done by Fred Olen Ray, a man that says, "Give me a factory and I will give you a movie!" Okay, just guessing he says this.

So, it was not a good film at all, but I have seen worse. I mean, it looks like a movie, it is not like one of those movies that looks like it is shot with a camcorder so it has that going for it. It does feature so many absurd moments that it is kind of fun to watch and laugh at. I mean, the female lead in this literally balks at getting undressed to put on a scuba suit even though there is only a little bit of time before nukes hit the place... So yeah, a lot of fun to be had in this bad movie!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
How Does Something Like This Get Made???
HKFAN6 March 2001
I have come to the conclusion that there are GOOD B-Action movies and then there are AWFUL B-Action movies and this one falls into the latter category. A half-way decent premise with a terrorist creating a bio-weapon in an abandoned undersea lab and a Navy SEAL and a government operative being dispatched to confiscate the weapon and eliminate the terrorist. The interiors were obviously shot in the basement of an industrial complex, the acting shoddy (with a very poor script) and awful direction. If you have a choice to pick up this film or another film...opt for the other. You'll be happy you did!
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terrible
soulful0115 May 2022
I watched this as a RiffTrax which made it bearable and enjoyable. This is not one of their movies I'd have enjoyed without the commentary. It's a formula production, and even though it's a B movie, does it really take that much time at the library (this was the 90s) to get a few facts straight? It's not even a good Saturday afternoon movie, although an earlier poster felt differently. While it meets the definition of a movie, I wouldn't call it entertainment. There are better ways to spend your time. Believe me.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
B-movie, B-cast, B-production
Big S-219 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***MINOR SPOILERS*** My copy of this movie came as a free giveaway with a DVD magazine that I buy from time to time, and I figured that as they were actually giving it away it could only be a prize turkey. But I decided to watch it anyway, and perhaps because I sat down expecting 93 minutes of sheer cinematic torture and to be a witness to some diabolical crime against celluloid, my final verdict by the time it was over was that although it will by no means go down as a masterpiece of action movie history, it wasn't QUITE as bad as I'd expected or as my fellow reviewers at IMDB have made it out to be. Full of journeyman actors that you've never heard of, obviously made on a shoestring, and quite clearly inspired by bigger and far superior efforts like `The Rock', `Under Siege' and various Bond movies, the basic plot is nonetheless okay, even though it's not exactly original: A crazed terrorist and his gang take over an undersea base and try to hold the world to ransom with a terrible new biological weapon, and it's up to a couple of square-jawed U.S. special forces bods and the obligatory attractive female hostage-turned-heroine to save the day (clearly the budget for this movie was so tight that the producers couldn't afford an entire Special Forces team, which would have seemed far more plausible). All in all however, the storyline and the eventual outcome are just so predictable that the whole thing generates hardly any excitement or sense of anticipation at all. The only plot twist involves one of the two special forces guys changing sides, and the only really memorable scene is where the head bad-guy has an unfortunate lab assistant thrown into an airlock to serve as an unwilling human guinea-pig for the deadly bio-toxin. Implausibilities abound (entering and exiting a DEEP SEA base in scuba gear for example!!) and the whole thing is also a continuity nightmare involving liberal use of stock footage - the most glaring example of this being when we see Navy F-15 Eagles take off to intercept the terrorists' cruise missile, only for them to miraculously transform into Air Force F-16s as they approach and engage their target. The fat bearded guy who plays the Admiral co-ordinating the commando mission from back at the Pentagon is simply laughable and completely unbelievable in such a role. To summarise, if you sit down to watch this movie with low expectations as I did, then you might find it to be a relatively painless (if uninspiring) way to while away an hour and a half. Perhaps the fact that I didn't actually have to part with any money to see it also made me more well-disposed towards the whole thing. But memorable it ain't, and I'm in no rush to give it a repeat viewing.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Insulting
katana_one5 March 2001
Some movies are bad. Some are awful. This one, however, is just insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.

It's obvious those who produced, directed and wrote this film have absolutely no knowledge of the United States military, or biological weapons. For example: the Los Angeles class submarine in this film is used, several times, for taking on and disembarking a SEAL team while 800 ft below the surface. Yeah. Right.

Then there's the cheesy effects for the deadly biological weapon that looks like neon-glow snot.

I could go on, but it's not worth the time I've already wasted with this review thus far.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"Right now our country needs me a lot more than you do"
hwg1957-102-26570421 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Not the most original of movies. An evil mastermind Lars Rynark holds the USA to ransom by planting a biological weapon in an oceanic trench. Our hero James Decker, a navy S. E. A. L., with another guy called Phillips assault rapidly the disused undersea research facility in search of the virus and Rynark who hides there. Cue lots of running around, shooting and submarine drama. It's not awful but it's not great. There are a few thrills. Decker is played by Tim Abell and he is the best thing in it, being heroic but wryly amusing too which he does very well. The rest of the cast are plain and not fancy, though I did like Ricky Worth as Talia. Apparently it is her only film role which surprised me.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not that bad
courtneyflats11 July 2003
People who watch B action movies and expect a great deal of attention to technical detail should have figured out by now they Shouldn't! I agree with the reviewer who mentioned that it wasn't a bad way to while away and hour and a half and not to expect the Rock (which I hated), Under Siege (Which I liked) and the Bond movies (which I haven't liked since I was 12 although I am glad Brosnan got his shot). I find the the "cheesy" low-budget jobs like this one to be much more fun to watch and I generally root for the heroes like Abell's character a lot more and a lot faster because they are usually more attractive in a variety of ways than the pretty boy Afflecks and gloomy Damons -- because these movies are for entertainment not an education into the mysteries of submarines and planes.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed