MovieChat Forums > Eliminators (1986) Discussion > 2.9 IMDb stars? No way

2.9 IMDb stars? No way

posted 16 years ago by JoshAcid
3 replies | jump to latest

I just rewatched this film after 20 years, and I have to say that it is a lot better than 2.9 stars. I've always thought of ratings of about 3 stars or lower being appropriate for movies where the creators didn't know one end of the camera from another, knew nothing about maintaining continuity in the editing, non-professional acting etc.

'Eliminators' is stupid, cheap, and cheesy, but it's not BAD bad! It's easily watchable; with the exception of some of the effects, everything about it technically is adequate. And while it's certain that none of them are award-worthy for this particular film, the actors are believable enough. And there's a man with a tank for legs who can shoot torpedos from his arm! What more do people want?!

http://joshacid37.dvdaf.com/

[–] Sic Coyote 15 years ago

Yeah it's definitly say a 6 or if you're feeling mean a 5.

Given that though I like it now but when I was a kid and watched it I was very bored by the end.

----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

[–] ejcrandolph 13 years ago

I first saw it as a kid upon theatrical release.

I just re watched it again today.

I rated it a 6.

I would say that's fair and it certainly does not deserve such a low rating.

[–] Corpus_Vile 14 years ago

Totally. I loved this flick as a kid and still think it's great fun as an adult.
Zero concept of originality, but showing an absolute determination to throw in every crazy plot device imaginable. One of my favorite craptastic cheese-flicks.

"Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!"