Detention

A trivial plot, a bad interpretation.. One of the worst Dolph movie.

I mean the school premises and its different rooms like chemistry class, assembly room, long passageways... And selection of actors was better than in most low-budget action movies - apart from Dolph Lundgren, there were some other outstanding personalities (Alex Karzis, Kata Dobo).

In spite of constant gunshots-bursts that almost never hit, and neurotic activities, the scenes began to develop and make sense as the movie went on. And the good ones had their tragic as well. Thus, as a whole, Detention-movie was not totally blunt and predictable, although several actions lacked logic and looked ridiculous (not Lundgren-related, however). But if you have 1,5 hours to kill and not fond of flaking out in front of screen, then this movie is just OK. Not a profound experience, but a kind of violent entertainment.

A bunch of Canadian exploitation legends were put together to make this movie - writers Paul Lynch (PROM NIGHT, BULLIES) and John Sheppard (BULLIES, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE), as well as the legendary director Sidney J. Furie (IRON EAGLE IV), who lost any directorial ability he may once have had a number of years earlier! Not that Lynch and Sheppard have had exactly stellar careers.

The movie appears to be a rip-off of the 1987 movie TERROR SQUAD, which was goofy fun. You think that with more at their disposal, this movie would be better than that one. Think again. Despite the considerable budget ($10 million), movie looks extremely cheap, with the production values of Canadian TV dramas that are typically made for about a tenth of that value! That might have been forgivable had the movie been exciting, but it isn't. None of the action scenes is particularly good. In fact, a number of them have stupid touches. (Why, when Lundgren holds a shield, doesn't the shooter just shoot him in the legs? Why, when one of the protagonists knocks a bad guy down, do they immediately run away instead of using the chance to beat on them more?)

In fact, the whole movie is full of stupid things. Why would a lockdown on the school lock down the fire exits as well? If the school is locked down, how did they get to the roof? Most importantly, why on earth did the bad guys think using a high school was their best choice? In fact, the more I think about the movie, the more dumb things come to my mind. I could go on and on, but I won't. Lundgren understandably doesn't seem that enthralled by it all, but you have to give him credit for at least putting some effort in his performance. At one point, his character reads a Clive Cussler novel. Do that instead of watching this movie - you'll be a lot more entertained, I assure you!

DETENTION

You know it is never a good sign when you can honestly say the best actor in the movie is Dolph Lundgren.

This film is bad... the story is nothing new. The acting was terrible. and there were so many things in this film that were so pathetic is was unbelievable. I mean, the bad guys looked like they belonged in Layztown. They could not shoot a non moving target, let alone students running away from them.

There was one scene where it felt like the A-Team. The students were hiding out in the Gym at their school, but in the gym just so happened to be an archery set all ready for them.

I still don't fully understand why the bad guys were in the school in the first place.

Honestly, this is a really bad B movie... funny in places, but not for the right reasons.

I will give this film 4 out of 10.

Dolph is lucky Stallone even called him for the Expendables after this film.

For more of my reviews, please like my Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl

To most, Dolph Lundgren isn't the best of movie performance material. It also doesn't help when a fairly well known actor goes into hiding by making hit or miss films because of outside problems. What's odd though, is that Dolph Lundgren hasn't had any publicity issues. And if he has, it's been well covered up because there have been no reports about it. You would think that after making popular films like Showdown in Little Tokyo (1991) and Universal Soldier (1992), he would have continued to make big hit screen movies like his other muscle counterparts. Instead Lundgren went into an almost two decade absence on the big screen.

So, because this movie was released in 2003, this is half way through his absence. At this point he was making Direct-to-Video films and Detention (2003) is one of these. Problem is, it didn't do anything for me. Even worse is that the title only exists because of the setting that its in. The story is about a group of criminals who break into a school to get a vanload of cocaine out of the country. And the only man that will get in their way is a gym/history teacher who's holding a detention after school. His name is Sam Decker (Dolph Lundgren).

This already doesn't sound very promising. Here's what works, which isn't all too much. If you (the viewer) want to see Dolph Lundgren play a role that is in his genre but dressed like he's going to work at a cubical, this is it. It's very interesting to see Lundgren be a character without armor and big weapons. Another notable part of this movie is the supporting cast. Even though they aren't memorable characters, they do carry some charm because of how various individuals act in different situations.

One actor who I found to be putting a lot of effort to make his character stand out was Alex Karzis as the main villain. A lot of the time Karzis would make strange gestures, faces or remarks that made me look at the screen and say (while chuckling) - "What was the point of that?" But hey, it kept my attention. The only other piece that worked in this movie was the music by Amin Bhatia. But even that I don't favor all too much because there was no theme, even if the music sounded average. It did lose me now and then so ehhh.

Now to the bad. In all honesty, there was a very thin story. The premise is just a setup for Dolph Lundgren to go jumping through windows and shooting handguns. There is a little bit of a flash back that involves post traumatic stress but is only to be given away one more time for a brief moment to reveal a connection. What's even weirder is that even when this movie doesn't have much of a story to go by, it manages to drag itself at various intervals. Which brings me to the last point, the action was very sporadic. It really wasn't present all too much. It felt very diluted, which I think is rare for a Dolph Lundgren movie.

I'm also going to guess that the direction to this movie wasn't great since it was headed by Sidney J. Furie, the director of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987). It's hard to say. I was on the fence for this one. It doesn't please me like most of Lundgren's movies but it doesn't disappoint that badly either. I hope I don't run into anymore Lundgren movies like this.

It offers a few interesting concepts but its concentration is lacking. Its cast also tries to show some charm but its script and minimal action provide little to work with.