Rapid Exchange

Basically that scene in Cliffhanger where they steal the money from a plane in mid-air, except in this case it's most of the movie. It's not as terrible as it is predictable, but it's very direct to video quality will probably frustrate more than it charms. Henriksen bookends the action by mostly standing around, while Lorenzo gets lost in the crowd most of the time. The early 2000's look and presentation will probably give off some nostalgia vibes these days, although it might be more along the lines of what were they thinking?

The acting was so bad that is so difficult to believe in a movie with so crazy ideas. The expressions of the guards and their reactions were so bland that not even rookie actors in a high school play are so unbelievable.

So much money on a plane an such lousy and so few guardians on board. Okay a 747 is a huge plane, but you don't transport that amount of money so frequently as to have such an elaborate electronic equipment and a vault on board to "safeguard" the valuables. And also the interior of the "vault" is so unrealistic with high ceilings and very ample rooms, you are not inside a building, but a plane and don't have the luxury of empty spaces.

Blowing a hole on the side of a flying plane is no small issue but here the plane keeps flying as if nothing happened. There are so many inconsistencies that made me gag.

this wasn't a bad "b" movie,, direct to video,, stars lance Henricksen, and Lorenzo Lamas. the movie is about a mid air heist,, involving hundreds of millions of dollars,, lots of action, decent plot,, and twists, sure it's not gonna win any awards,, but that's not was I was expecting to get from this movie,, what I was expecting was simple.. lot's of action,, thrills,, plot twists,, decent camera angels good scenery , and pretty women,, well last time that I checked I'm pretty sure I got all of these in this movie. Lorenzo Lamas does a fair job in this movie,, sure I wish Lance Henricksen would have had some more screen time but I guess we all can't get what we want. but overall it wasn't a bad action movie at all, I will watch again to see if there 's anything i missed the first time around.

Newcastle wants a $9 million Scottish scepter, and Ketchum, Brooks and others use their special skills to try to get their hands on it. Then a SWAT team shows up (at least that's what their uniforms say). Can they still succeed? Regardless, Newcastle has an even better opportunity for which Daltry (an annoying jerk, plus other names probably inappropriate here) is put in charge. Syrians have been printing counterfeit money--so much that new plates were made necessary. Hundreds of millions of dollars in new cash must be shipped by 747.

Daltry, Ketchum and Brooks are joined by Sophie, who is pretty, smart, confident, physically strong and quite flexible. As in the first operation, their team includes scientific types (not really geeks) who can hack into computer systems and get into places they are not supposed to be.

This operation should not be too much of a challenge because the people guarding the money do not seem all that competent, though the plane's pilots appear quite intelligent (if this is realistic, pilots have to know A LOT these days). Matthewson is an obnoxious trivia expert who seems to be too much of a coward to be on a plane, and he comes across as a bumbling idiot. His female partner may be smarter, but not by much. The uniformed guards aren't exactly rushing into action when the situation looks suspicious.

This film reminds me of "Ocean's Eleven" (which was a much better movie because of its stars and their performances), as well as "Sneakers" (which had stars and much more humor). The viewer wants the crooks to succeed.

A lot of work appears to have gone into making the computers and equipment look realistic, as well as the characters' knowledge about what to do. The stunt work looked good, and the military-style rappelling and climbing competently executed.

Now the planes looked like models, even on a 13-inch TV. This wasn't too much of a distraction because the excitement level stayed high much of the time.

Normally for me to get interested in this type of movie I need to see familiar stars. I didn't know any actors' names except Lorenzo Lamas (and I'm not even really familiar with him). He is at least good-looking, which should attract at least a few gals (who might also enjoy seeing Sophie as a strong, capable woman).

There wasn't a lot of humor, but this film was occasionally funny. The violence was not excessive. I did hear the sound go out a number of times, but it appeared to me that the f-word was being used in a lot of those situations.

It was pretty good if you're not expecting a whole lot.

It's a heist movie. Sure, the idea's not original, and you can predict roughly what's going to happen as soon as you meet the players; but it's still good fun.

There are very few big-name stars, which helps a great deal - if you see Bruce or Mel, you know he's going to come out on top, and here there's just a little bit of doubt.

I was repeatedly reminded of The Italian Job - particularly in the "you're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" scene (it doesn't use that line, but you'll know the scene when you get to it); it's a shame that this didn't get the publicity that the remake of that film did, as I found it much more enjoyable.

The special effects aren't bad. They're not hugely flashy as on films with bigger budgets, but they do the job; most of the action takes place at night, which certainly helps with the bluescreening. The technicalities are a bit iffy, but not as wildly implausible as usual for Hollywood; they may actually have got a competent technical advisor on this one.

Not an intellectually engaging movie, but a good choice for a relaxed evening in.