Why such a low rating?

Possibly the Chuck Norris factor.

_____________________________
I'm a heavy metal maniac.
Metal = best form of music ever

Action movie+80s+"unhip"/ridiculed action star = lackluster IMDB rating.

"Who disturbs my Plasma Bath!!!?"

I think the low rating is due to the fact that Chuck Norris is now regarded as a total joke. Which is an honest shame because this is one hell of a fine and impressive film that certainly rates as one of Norris' best-ever 80's action vehicles.

"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"

Personally I think it's that awful robot. I was lying there on my couch, pleasantly surprised with the quality of dialogue and plot, when BAM! along comes that silly piece of machinery.

It doesn't help one bit that the PROWLER apparently was a real product (see this link http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/land/robart/history.html ), actually it makes it even more annoying. Presumably the company behind PROWLER opened its wallet in order to have their mechanical abomination featured in the film.

In the end I received some enjoyment from the film, but for the wrong reasons. 5/10 (and that's generous.)

Edit: Oh yeah. Also, I found the music absolutely terrible. A common problem in these 80's flicks.

Maybe Chuck is automatically put in a certain category and reviewers rate according to how the star is perceived, right or wrong.

Chuck may be seen as a B performer. However this movie is good and should have been rated higher, makes you wonder if critics are so prejudiced that they rate without even really evaluating a movie based on its merits.

One of my favorite critics is Roger Ebert, If he “with some exceptions” likes a movie and it is of a genre I like, I can generally be confident that the movie will be OK.

Though Ebert and most critics usually downgrade Norris action movies, Ebert gave this movie a high 3-½ stars out of 4.

In my opinion, this is a testament to Ebert’s integrity.

Because the characters are cliche, the writing is boring and lacking any sort of 'snap', the acting is garbage, the run-time is too long, the action scenes lacking, and the music ill fitting.

Hopefully that helps, a 5/10 sounds about right...

PS: Transporter 2 had way better action. The story was worse yes, but I don't watch action flicks for that, who the hell does?


"Did you mean for all those words to come out like that or did they just fall out randomly?"-H.H.

It's a routine 80s cop flick without any thrills. Take Above The Law, remove the lynching and special forces fantasy, add Rocky 4 robot - you get Code of Silence. Not Chuck's fault, he spends most of his screen time talking and climbing. I just couldn't believe how boring it was to watch, this movie's all over the place.

my friends enjoy rides
charade social improves the quality of life
charade social is good for you