Operation Delta Force 4 is actually way above average in the areas where it most counts for direct-to-video action flicks: Production value, direction (camerawork/editing), and amount of action.
1) It looks good. The Eastern European locations are convincing because, well, it's set in Eastern Europe. The interior sets are well-lit, well-photographed and equally convincing. There are plenty of vehicles used (tanks, buses, trains, helicopters). Uniforms are believable. It seems they skimped a bit on the weaponry though. Why are the Delta members always using AK-47s in this film? Oh well, I guess you can pretend that they're using AKs because it matches the most common weaponry of the region which suits the covert nature of their operations. Yeah, that works for me. Anyway, bottomline is that while you wouldn't mistake it for a big studio picture, the production is miles ahead of most DTV crap.
2) There's one word for Mark Roper's direction here: ENTHUSIASTIC! Most DTV flicks have amateurish or disinterested direction featuring very static shots and compositions that can best be described as utilitarian. However, Roper's work shows some real flair. He tries a variety of angles and dramatic shots, mixes it up with slow-mo, and makes use of a lot of tracking shots. It's not all great, but more often than not it works. And it's all brought together by tight editing that keeps the pace way up. I was really surprised by his work on this film given that his last Operation Delta Force film seemed quite amateurish. He really kicks it up a notch here and gives the film true energy. Again, it still isn't up to the spring-loaded tension and awesome visuals of the best Hollywood action films, but it's way better than most.
3) The action is non-stop! The film is 96 minutes long and close to 60 minutes of it is action! The best is the second big action piece in the film which runs for at least 20 minutes. It goes from a chalet shootout to a ski chase to a city bus attack to a tank battle! Oh, and it's accompanied by an enthusiastic music score that's reminiscent of Hans Zimmer's synthetic score for The Rock.
So what's the downside? Well, the story doesn't make a helluva lot of sense. The villain was clearly intended to be a bit deep and emotionally complex, but they spend so little time building his story up that when his big emotional moments come they don't register much. That's true for the other characters, too. Big emotional scenes come out of nowhere and aren't impactful because they weren't developed enough beforehand. The acting is also uneven. The female lead has two big dramatic scenes. Her acting is laughably bad in one scene and quite convincing in the other. What gives? The same goes for most of the other actors. They're good in some scenes and awful in others. This is a direct-to-video actioner though, so what do you expect? It already delivers big-time where it counts which is rare enough these days. Recommended for hardcore interest fans and those with an interest in military action (though who aren't too big on accuracy). Just remember that it's a DTV movie and I think you'll be impressed.
Side-note: Mark Roper must be a huge fan of "The Rock". It has two actors from that film (John Laughlin, Greg Collins), features a copy-cat score, and has numerous small scenes or shots lifted from The Rock as well (eg, leader pausing to close the eyelids of a fallen soldier). His last Delta Force film was the same way.
