User reviews

Prequel to Missing in Action covers Braddock's years as a POW and his eventual escape. This one was filmed back-to-back with the other movie and was intended to be released first. But they realized the first movie was better, so they moved it from part 2 to 1. Which is funny as today there are many fans who claim part 2 is the better movie. I'm not one of them but they're out there. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent war movie and I like it. It's not action-heavy, though it never drags and the action does pick up towards the end. It's more of a drama for the first hour or so. Chuck is his usual stoic self. Soon-Tek Oh is a suitably despicable villain. Steven Williams plays the POW who betrays the others. Christopher Cary has a brief but enjoyable role as an Australian photographer who tries to help the POWs. The continuity doesn't line up with the previous movie (or the third), but I doubt most viewers will care. If you like Chuck Norris' Cannon movies, you will probably like this one.

The picture focuses Colonel Braddock (Chuck Norris) aboard a helicopter which is down . He is imprisoned , along with various Vietnam soldiers (Steven Williams , John Wesley..), by a hideous and sadist POW camp chief warden (Soon-Teck-Oh) and underlings (professor Tanaka..) . The tough Braddock continuously attempts to free the prisoners held captives and they receive numerous tortures and sufferings in charge of the concentration camp wardens and their evil ruler .

The screenplay of the movie is plain and simple . It's a predictable routine and formula actioner film . It's all obvious , unconvincing and overblown . However if you appealed the first part , you'll probably love this picture . It deals upon horrible conditions of prisoners and grueling efforts of the meager band of captives to survive , confronting starvation , mistreats , rampage and continuous violence by hitting , punches , lashes , knocks and incredible tortures . Storyline is a bit ridiculous , embarrassing and shallow , it concerns on prisoners trying to escape and subsequent revenge executed by Braddock as a headstrong and reckless Colonel . In the wake of : ¨Uncommon valor¨ (directed by Ted Kocheff) and ¨Rambo II¨ (by George Pan Cosmatos) and Norris imitating to Silvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger as one army man , shooting and killing numerous enemies

The film results to be the second installment from a trilogy , concerning the first ¨Missing in action¨ (made by Joseph Zito) on Braddock accused of war crimes by a Vietnam general and he then escapes to free inmates ; this second part (directed by Lance Hool , the first one 's producer) about tortures and Braddock suffering in a prisoner camp , and the third part (directed by Aaron Norris , Chuck's brother , who in 'Missing in action 1' was the stunt coordinator) upon looking for his wife after downfall Saigon . Filmed back to back with Missing in action (1984) , this picture was supposed to be released first . However , when ¨Cannon¨ realized the second film was the better of the two , they released it first and re-titled this movie as a prequel . The three films contain ominous and villain enemies played by oriental actors (James Hong , Soon Teck Oh , Aki Aelong) with offensive racial stereotypes . Nice support cast formed by Steven Williams (TV L.A. Heat) and Professor Tanaka (a wrestler who possessed incredible strength) who was arguably the successor to Harald Sakata (Golfinger) as the archetypal Asian henchman . Appropriate musical score by Jay Chattaway and adequate as well as atmospheric cinematography by cameraman Joao Fernandez , filmed on location in Philippines . The motion picture was middlingly directed by Lance Hool , also producer . Rating : Average but entertaining . The motion picture will appeal to Chuck Norris fans .

This feels like real movie. Not like cheap Rambo rip-off like first one. To be honest this have some First Blood feeling in it but it is not such rip-off as first one. Now we have real characters. Chuck Norris feels like acting and story makes sense. You sense danger unlike first one.

This happens before first movie and things happening in this movie are mentioned in first one. You are not spoiled if you have seen first one. Unless you count spoiling problem all prequels have. If I have understood correctly this was shot before first one or at same time. It makes little sense that this was released later than first one since this happens before and is much better movie.

I prefer prison camp part at beginning over action part at the end. This would have been better with less action but this is action movie and Chuck Norris movie so action has to be there.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

1985 was a top year for Chuck Norris,with Invasion USA and this immensely enjoyable actioner coming out.Following on from the disappointing,slow moving original,this charts his highly involving experiences in a Vietnamise POW camp,and his eventual escape.A lot of depth is invested into the characters,which fully envelops at the end when Norris faces off against Soon Tech Oh.Given that the films were created by Chuck as a tribute to his brother Wieland who was killed in Vietnam,it's not really so surprising in hindsight to notice the extra invested energy and emotion he displays in these films.And all the better for it.****

Prequel to Chuck Norris' quite successful first film in the "Missing in Action" franchise. The prequel tells the story of how Norris' Colonel Braddock was captured and held prisoner by the NVA during the Vietnam War. The film is a fairly standard POW war film story, complete with an evil camp commandant, cruel torture, and daring escapes. Norris has always been limited in his acting ability, but this film wisely did not ask much of our hero in that department. Unfortunately the film also did not ask Chuck show off his martial arts skills much either, with the exception being a final confrontation with venerable character actor Soon-Tek Oh as the evil Colonel Yin. Chuck takes some beat downs from Professor Toru Tanaka and has some nasty torture scenes, particularly one involving rats, throughout the film as the NVA try to get him to confess to war crimes, but why have a karate champ in your film if you're not going to let him fight? The film's production company realized this was a weak film and had already filmed a sequel back-to-back with this one. Producers made the wise choice to release what was originally filmed as a sequel ("Missing in Action" where Chuck goes back to Vietnam to rescue POWs) as the first of the franchise and then released this weaker film later as a prequel. In the plus column for this film, it does feature music by Max Max composer Brian May. Also, as clichéd of a POW story as it is, it's a pretty sturdy one that's hard to resist for fans of this war film sub-genre.

Cannon productions backs another American colonel James Braddock film to the surprising hit that was the 1984 Chuck Norris starring post-Vietnam action-flick "Missing In Action". This sequel 'The Beginning' is a prequel to the original and from the trivia on this site it explains that it was actually made before Joseph Zito's film which was shot back to back with number two. I guessed they liked Zito's effort more, and you can see why. But this spirited entry is not a complete lost.

This very low-cost, raw looking sequel (prequel) seems to primarily parade around its many fragmented set-pieces of brutally unpleasant torture and demoralizing spirit-breaking with little in a way of story to back it all up. Due to this it could lull and get fairly repetitive making it feel longer than it is, but it gets you emotionally invested and few and far between are some effective moments like a rat in a bag sequence. After a slowly lean get-up amongst the stinking hot jungle setting and POW camp (which for most part is completely dreary), it finally breaks the shackles in the last half-hour or so with blistering action (even if some of it is poorly conceived) complete with explosions and Norris suitably paying back some of his own medicine in what is a fittingly tough and cheering confrontation (due to what has gone before it) with the sadistically malevolent Colonel Yin performed with smarting glee by Soon Tek-oh. Norris looking quite weathered and bruised goes about things in a steely and scrappy manner until the rage he kept inside finally breaks out after the constant torment to get him to confess to the unheralded crimes. The acting is inconsistent, but the cast features the likes of Steven Williams (probably best known for his part as X in the 'X-Files' series), John Wesley and Professor Toru Tanaka. Lance Hool's direction is fundamentally gritty, but authentic in style. Adding to the drama is Brian May's bombastic score with a somber touch at times within its cues.

Although I've seen this feature quite a few times, it's not as entertaining as the first film, but Cannon's cheap-jack b-grade fodder still packs grit and brute force.

In 1972 Vietnam, Colonel James Braddock (Chuck Norris) tags along on a mission and his helicopter gets hit. The men are captured Missing in Action. Ten years later, they are in a prison camp run by the ruthless Colonel Yin (Soon-Tek Oh) who demands Braddock's confession. Braddock is still holding out and only Nester has caved in to Colonel Yin.

Even by the standards of cheesy 80's action movie, this is pretty bad. The action is poorly done but there are some explosions. The dialog is really bad. It is worthy of the worst of B-movies. The acting is pretty bad and Chuck Norris accounts for much of that. The movie is a simple prison movie without much of a compelling story.

In 1972 Colonel Braddock (Chuck Norris) and his men are shot down in Vietnam wherein they are held captive in a secret POW camp in the jungle, headed by the rivalrous Colonel Yin (Soon-Tek Oh). How will they make it out alive?

" Missing in Action 2: The Beginning " (1985) was shot back-to-back with "Missing in Action," released just 3.5 months earlier. This one was supposed to be the first to debut, but producers decided to make it the prequel (because they felt the other was superior).

It's very similar to "Rambo: First Blood Part II," which came out 2.5 months later, except that it only had a budget of $2.5 million compared to $44 million for "Rambo II." While "First Blood" (1982) is a masterpiece, I'm not a big fan of "Rambo II" because it's sooo comic booky. This one is hampered by the same tone, just with a fraction of the budget. The opening introduction of Colonel Braddock with the blaring 'heroic' score is particularly eye-rolling.

Thankfully, it gets better as the jungle camp and characters are established with grueling torture sequences that are anything but pleasant, yet not as hard to watch as the ones in "The Deer Hunter" (1978). The most memorable scene is the well-done rat-bag sequence. Like "Rambo II" the situation eventually morphs into a one-man-army scenario, albeit more compelling with a superior showdown.

It's like "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957) just without the artistry and with way more action. Another comparison would be the future "Rescue Dawn" (2006) except more comic booky. So, while this flick is hindered by a 'B' tone and 'heroic' approach and isn't even close to the same league as "Apocalypse Now" (1979) or "Platoon" (1986), it has a certain charm if you can roll with it after the dubious opening, particularly since you get to know the characters and care about their situation, not to mention the effective action sequences in the second half.

For those interested in when the events of the story take place, the prologue occurs in 1972 then jumps to 1973-74. To explain, after the 1972 prologue the film flash-forwards to real footage of Ronald Reagan giving a Memorial Day speech circa 1984. Then the film confusingly switches back to Vietnam but doesn't say what year it is so the viewer might mistake it for the 1980s because of the Reagan speech, but it's not; it's back in the early/mid 70's.

How do I know? Because Braddock is in Saigon in 1975 during the prologue of "Missing in Action 3" (1988), which means the events of this one finish sometime before that. After the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January, 1973, US troops pulled out of Vietnam and in March, 1973, all the American POWs were supposedly released by North Vietnam. The camp scenes in this movie take place after that because the protagonists are now MIA and being secretly held.

The film runs 1 hour, 35 minutes, and was shot in Jalapa, Veracruz, Mexico and St Kitts, St Kitts and Nevis (an island 200 miles east of Puerto Rico). The Philippines is also cited according to one source, which is where "Missing in Action" was shot.

GRADE: C+/B-

This was filmed at the same time as Missing in Action and was supposed to be released first, but they liked the other one better. It was better.

There is not as much action in this film. It is basically a Hogan's heroes with Norris at a POW camp being tortured by Colonel Yin (Soon-Tek Oh) for 10 years until he has had enough. It has good fight scenes, but you won't find the over-the-top action that you saw in Rambo II.

It is a forgettable movie and you won't lose anything in the MIA series if you never see it.

For many years I have enjoyed Chuck Norris. Now I can say that one of his movies made me cry. This movie was an absolute heart-stopper, tear-jerker, and gut-wrencher. This is a total psychological flick, exposing to the viewers the horrors of Asian prison camps. Of course, Norris busts out in the end with his comrades. After watching this movie one feels like a true American. If you can't crack open a Budwieser and wear a t-shirt with an American flag on the front you shouldn't watch this movie. This makes me think of Bruce Springstein's Born in the U.S.A. The only thing missing from this movie was Billy Drago, of course. All in all, a worthwile and moving flick to view. Rent it right now, or better yet, buy it.

MIA 2 is as stupid, racist and hypocritical as typical action-cheapos from the golden 80s can get. But this alone shouldn't stop anyone to have fun with this kind of movie, unfortunately there are some other problems. The first half of the movie is rather boring with it's torturing scenes, the conflicts between the P.O.W.and so on. The actors are bad, Chuck Norris is extremely unlikable as Col.Braddock just like in the first MIA, therefore these scenes are neither involving nor convincing. In the last 40 minutes Chuck Norris strikes back, but in a quite unsatisfying manner. The action is cheaply made, shootouts without any impact, just a few badly staged fights and moves, A-Team-style explosions. It's quite entertaining, though, but pales in comparison with similar scenes in the second RAMBO, although the final fight betwenn Braddock and Yin is surprisingly well choreographed. Nevertheless, if you like 80-Style action and have already seen the gems of that decade, than MIA 2 is an acceptable time-waster, but this movie isn't even one of the better Chuck Norris-flicks. CODE OF SILENCE, LONE WOLF McQUADE or the third MIA are much better movies.

This movie isn't THAT bad. If it wasn't so over-the-top with the blowing stuff up, it might not be so bad. But what did you expect from this movie anyways? Come on, it's Chuck Norris. Basically, if you don't expect too much from this movie, you won't be let down.

Missing in Action 2 (1985) is a bad sequel to a bad movie. Actually, part two is worse than part one. The film is a "prequel" (despite the fact Braddock looks the same as he did in part one). The Colonel is a p.o.w. in "Vietnam". The "N.V.A." officer is portrayed by Korean actor Soon Tek-Oh. Wrestler Prof. Toru Tanaka is a "N.V.A." soldier. Real bad stuff from Cannon Films. Just another Chuck Norris vehicle that was filmed back-to back with Missing in Action. A boring film that has a very lackluster finale. The action is twice as bad, the acting is twice as horrid and the storyline is twice as implausible as the first film. If you have a strong constitution by all means watch Missing in Action 2!!!

Another bad film from Chuck Norris. Unlike some of his other films, this one is virtually unwatchable. The lack of logic and common sense is amazing! People actually bankrolled this movie? No wonder Cannon went belly up a few years later. By the time part three came out. They were on their last legs as a force in the low budget film market.

Strongly not recommended.

D--

This movie has lot more story to it than the part 1.

Most of the scenes in this movie are beautiful. On the average, Golan-Globus made some of the best quality budget movies of the '80s. Many of them had compelling titles that made you want to go to the theaters and take a look regardless of the content.

Chuck Norris' chronic sour expression spoils the mood of this movie. He's supposed to be the hero, so lighten up Chuck, we don't want to be depressed watching you.

Soon Tak Oh was great as the villain. The inevitable duel in the end was one of the most memorable martial arts combat scene of the decade.

Good movie that could have been better if Chuck wasn't so down all the time, but part 3 answers to that.

This is actually a first movie in the series. Hence "The beginning" in the title. . It was made along with part 1. The producers when they saw two movies decided to make the original part one a sequel . It was a wise move . "Missing in action" was a box office success. It had some action in it and was definitely better than this flick. I'm pretty sure that if "Missing in action 2" was released first it wouldn't be a hit. Not that any of the movies in this series is good.

American soldiers here are 100% good and noble , while the Vietnamese are shown as devils children , all 100% evil. There is no touch of gray here , everything is simplistic black and white morality. The movie is full of brutal scenes and the whole atmosphere is depressing. The director Lance Hool doesn't know what a decent action scene is and the pacing is dreadful. There is very little action here and I think it's fair to call this movie a prison drama. I like prison dramas when they good . Sadly this one wasn't.

Norris has got one stony expression through the entire movie , even when he should be at least TRYING to act. The rest of the cast is also wooden beyond belief.

Plot ? Message ? This is a moronic POW Vietnam tale , where Chuck Norris eats a rat. Even by the standards of B-class action movie this is incredibly bad . Avoid it. I give it 1/10.

When we last left Colonel James Braddock, he was shoving it up Vietnamese butt by barging into their press conference about how they didn't have any POWs in Vietnam with a POW he just rescued. Truly a fairy tale ending, but what about the beginning of the fairy tale? Missing in Action 2: The Beginning is his most personal mission of all! Because it's when he was a POW himself! Which we already saw in sporadic flashbacks in the first movie.

Missing in Action 2: The Beginning shows the capture of Colonel Braddock (Chuck Norris) during the Vietnam war in the 1970s, his captivity with other American POWs in a brutal prison camp, and his plans to escape. Norris and his crew are holed up in a prison camp for the whole picture, ruled by tyrannical Colonel Yin (Soon-Tek Oh) who resorts to psychological mind games, torture and murder to try to make Braddock sign a statement admitting to war atrocities he never committed.

There seems to be no end to the different scenarios and interesting scenes that play out during the film: escape attempts, arranged fights between prisoners, a guy who stumbles onto the prison camp and gets executed. Things really start to pick up when Braddock gets really mad and you see him sneaking here and there, setting bombs, picking off people one by one, freeing people, blowing up stuff, and staying behind after everyone leaves because he doesn't believe Yin really died when he bombed Yin's hut.

But Chuck really delivers in the end, especially in his final feel good showdown with Yin. In my opinion, Missing in Action 2: The Beginning is the best of the Braddock movies, it's part action film and part action drama, which sets it apart from the other movies.

The first time i ever watched this film was in the early 80's in the cinema and it was great, and i still think it's great...

"You lose."

In Missing in Action 2, Soon-Tek Oh's soulless character says this phrase several times to the equally soulless character played by Chuck Norris.

But when the movie is over, it is clear that the only real loser is the viewer himself. An hour and a half of life forever lost . . ..

"I lost."