I do not kid when it comes to proclaiming films as heinously poor.One look at my ratings will tell you as such.What makes Direct Contact such a poor quality feature is the shoddy editing, overuse of stock footage, failed dialogue in both content and delivery and a plot riddled with unexplained and largely unnecessary nuances.The film will under most circumstance draw laughter that was surely not intended. I say this having shown the film to well over two dozen people who I felt had a wide range of tastes.This is literally an ideal reference for bad filming.The fact this feature apparently cost six million is astounding, that's 6 million in case you missed it. Naturally I am inclined to assume the majority of the budget went to Mr. Lundgren and severely overpaid crew. While some of the action sequences that were originally filmed were far from the worst I have witnessed in some other low quality action films, this did not raise the stock to a modest degree.Many may give this film a 1 but I gave it a 3 based on the following defaults:1. The video quality was satisfactory, albeit made for television. 2. Some of the original action sequences were somewhat spectacular. 3. Although the story was sub-par, it was not itself painfully horrendous.In my opinion, any feature length film with even the slightest effort that has a quantifiable beginning and end merits a 1, and in most cases a 2 due to adequate completion. By default due to some of the more expensive action sequences, I have it a 3.Rest assured however I will never recommend anyone see this film for positive entertainment unless it is for reference of failure or based off the pleasures to ridicule.

This movie was so bad, I don't even know where to start. Mike Riggins (Lundgren), is an American in a Bulgarian prison, he used to be Special Forces, but after seeing the horrors of Kosovo, he retired and started smuggling weapons out of war zones... Now, not only does that not provide him with a good income, but it lands him in said prison. Fortunately Riggins is blessed with morphing guns, that change from one model to another right in the middle of a fight. He also possesses ammo clips that contain unlimited bullets. He can outrun a Humvee type of vehicle while dragging a woman and shooting behind him. I was really impressed at how he outran an helicopter by dumping his cellphone...I could go on and on, but there is so much that is wrong with this movie, that people should be compensated for having seen it or even being told of it.If you have a choice between chewing glass and watching the movie, go with chewing glass.

I have tried on some occasions to writing reviews about some films starred by Steven Seagal,but the truth is that they are all so similar (and so execrable) that I do not find enough enthusiasm for writing about them.I thought that because of its supernatural elements,Against the Dark would be more ambitious and entertaining...however,the film resulted to be absolutely tedious.So,when I was about to abandon the action films made straight-to-DVD,I watched Direct Contact,a film which,in spite of having various fails and being very far away from the greatness,is entertaining.Most people must remember actor Dolph Lundgren for his role of Ivan Drago in Rocky IV or as the villain from Universal Soldier.On this decade,he has only appeared on action films made straight-to-DVD and although he is not as prolific as Seagal,the quality of the movies he participates is much better.Direct Contact is the most recent example of that because,at difference of the movies starred by Seagal,it made me have a good time with its traditional formula and dynamic development.Lundgren does not try to hide the fact that he is 51 years old.At the difference of Seagal,he recognizes he is not a youngster anymore,and his performance reflects it at avoiding positions of invincible super man or immortal action hero.The screenplay shows the main character on a realistic way,because it does not portray him as a superhero.The main character is beaten multiple times and he is susceptible to making mistakes,being fooled or loosing fights.I truly appreciated that realistic attitude.Danny Lerner's direction is competent,because the movie has a good rhythm and the action scenes are well filmed.However,I had previously mentioned this movie has various fails.Most of them are on the screenplay,and the most important ones are the inconsistence of some things and very basic details which could have been corrected by paying more attention to the logic of the situations (for example : in order to face a suspicious North American agent not to fall on an ambush,Riggins -the main character- establishes a busy public square as a reunion point...and the first thing he does is taking out a gun to threaten the agent; was not that what he was exactly trying to avoid?).However,in spite of its fails,I recommend Direct Contract as an entertaining action film which is not memorable at all,but which works well for having a good time.

Direct Contact: 6 out of 10: This is one of the most action packed movies I have ever seen. Keep in mind the action is not always good and the script certainly writes checks that the budget cannot cash. In addition, Dolph Lundgren gives the best performance in the film… However, one cannot deny that compare to those bloated (in more than one-way mind you) Segal films like Driven to Kill; this is a fit, fast and fun ride.Dolph starts the film in an eastern European prison but is released to rescue an American girl from a concentration camp located just east of a World War 2 film. (Direct Contact takes place in modern times but both the camp commander, and the camp victims, would not be out of place in Schindler's List as done by Full Moon Productions.) Bashar Rahal plays camp commandant General Drago with such a silly vigor, that when he shoots children in the head you just cannot help but laugh. Not to mention the fact that any character with the name General Drago belongs in a film with either Lightsabers or Dragons, not Fiddler on the Roof extras being mowed down by machine guns.Gina May plays the American girl, whom is much easier on the eyes than she is the ears. Her acting could have been improved with more nudity and less dialogue: much less dialogue. The rest of the cast is Michael Pare, random Bulgarians or James Chalke who gives the kind of horrible performance that makes one wonder if he financed the entire film.Now back to the reason to watch the film: the action. Dolph is in good shape and makes a surprisingly agile action star. Moreover, even though Bulgaria has no native word for continuity, it is a country that, for a couple of bucks, you can drive tanks through buildings downtown like some sort of Goldeneye road show.Overall, I enjoyed the film more than I should have. Lord knows it could have been better. However, as the good lord above also knows, it could have been a lot worse. Direct Contact may commit countless cinematic sins but it is never less than entertaining.