Ni dieu, ni maître

After watching this movie you will know the reason John Stamos never did a movie again. The only role he can play is as Uncle Jessie. Now I've got nothing against John Stamos, but he is just too 2D. I've never seen a movie on WWII in which it looks, feels and acts like a sitcom. This isn't a Delta Force movie, where the incidents are in most part fiction. This was just like a primetime show, but with out a laughtrack. Had it been based on something else other than war it might have worked. Now I belive that most film critics try to go on weather the film will win an oscar. I don't belive this. All films aren't ment to be oscar winners. You have to rate films on what they were set out to do and did they make it to their goal. I belive this film did not make the goal, unless the goal was to lure Full House viewers to the movies to see Uncle Jessie(not John Stamos) star in a film.

Abel_II

OK let's be honest, all of us watched full house when we were kids. the shows was captivating in that Reagan era, family style. because of its popularity, john stamos and most of that cast will forever be remembered for those roles. now as trite as that show can be by todays standards, i don't see why one should bust john stamos' chops for the role in this movie. until i looked it up on this website, i had no idea that it made its way into a theatre somewhere. i saw it on t.v. and taped over 11 years ago and up until now had just figured it as a t.v. movie. so i had no standard as what it should have been otherwise. granted, the acting is a bit two-dimensional, the visuals aren't that great and the situation is unusual. but all in all, i would recommend this movie to people. not for its ability to break ground in cinema but anyone who is interested in watching an interesting movie that keeps you from start to finish and i can honestly say this ; DOES NOT DRAG! many movies should be as lucky to watch a flick and have your attention kept throughout the whole movie. so anyone who views this movie for the first time, i would recommend* this thought to try and keep while watching it. imagine it is a movie made for television and you should be OK. all in all 7 out of 10 stars.

This is a great movie. In the same genre of the "Memphis Belle". Seen it about 10 years ago. And would like to see it again. There is a link with the history of the hells angels!! How the pilot crew fight the Germans in WO2. And most Changes form pilots to Harley motor cycle rs. The movie is in a way really happened. See the movie! And reed the history of the hells angels at hells at hells angels.com Regards Frederik.

Cast & Crew: John Stamos, John Stockwell, Teri Polo, Kris Kamm, directed by Graham Baker more » Synopsis: The story of a rowdy backwoods rebel biker who joins the Army to avoid a stiff prison sentence after a minor brush with the law. Though he chafes at Army discipline, he soon proves himself under fire as a daring and charismatic leader of men in a Motorcycle Scout Troop in pr-World War II Spain. more » MPAA Rating: PG Runtime: 88 minutes

For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun"). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.

A bizarre item, a war film, an 80s shoot-em-up action film, and a biker film all rolled into one, graham baker made one of my favorites of 2022, impulse, and both of these films operate under that same level of precise, stripped down filmmaking that i tend to love, and here it is in all of its purest forms, with no level of schmaltz or care for over-the-top emotional moments, just a film focused on its task at hand, a 87 minute film that is just focused on structure and design, baker's direction is fantastic, he formulates what is obviously an early 1990s film, but uses the excellent wide screen photography of the war films from the 1960s, the blocking on display is wonderful, along with his excellent care for the editing, and the precision involved, included with that is his use of music, the score is surprisingly great, but it is about how he doesn't utilize music in the war sequences and in the emotional, dramatic moments, most of this film plays with a great care for atmosphere, the film puts out a certain feeling that is easily transferrable, with impulse, baker also added a certain level of atmosphere but also a weird balance in that film and this where the romance almost seems to act upon the exteriors of the structure of the film, the romance isn't the goal for both main characters in these two films, it is about the goal of the story and how that story will effect the character, so structurally similar to top gun: maverick except it has all the fat trimmed out, a young hotshot has to face a superior who looks down at him, but grows his superior's respect, has a romance with a woman nearby, and has to teach a group of hotshots, and eventually gets involved in the mission himself, it is great stuff, the screenplay is structured with profficiency, and what it is great is that baker cares about the drama at hand, but he never overplays it, relentless and yet still slow and observational, exactly the opposite to equalizer 3, and a great film to watch after that for comparison's sake, also john stamos is great, he's got great charisma, with none of that swarmy irritation that his full house character provided, and teri polo is also a true movie star here, beautiful, but with a great sense of care for drama that was always, unfortunately underplayed in the meet the parents franchise, like i've said before, 'failures' from the past will always be more interesting in the future, and graham baker here proves to me that he's one of the precise, assignment directors who adds a touch to his films, precisely designs it through efficient blocking and editing, and finds a great film all the same.