A least it's visually good.


While I don't mean cinematic brilliance, it didn't piss me off in the first 5 minutes with, shaky hand held, zoom in zoom out for no reason, high sped shutter direct to video style garbage. earlier in the day I watched A Good Day to Die Hard, and while I'm the biggest Bruce Willis DH series fan, it was unwatchable, specifically because of all the irritating, cliched upon cliched camera styles mentioned above. So, while Soldiers of Fortune may have been a bad movie, with a silly script and average action, it didn't make me want to find the director, grab him by the head and shake it back and fourth until his brain permanently saw the world as horribly as they make modern action movies look.

reply

Visually good? I get you dislike shaky cam. I hate when action scenes are impossible to interpret with flash cuts. But this movie looked horrible. It was straight forward... but remedial. It's like saying a perfectly centered, balanced image of a dog turd is "visually pleasing". UGH. I keep saying it, but this was a made for TV in the 80s style.

reply