In order to understand this movie I believe some context may be in order. Let me first say that, despite the genre classification by IMDb, this is NOT a fantasy or sci-fi film. It's a Christian film based primarily upon the beliefs of certain fundamentalist denominations typically residing in the southern part of the United States. In particular, this film concerns prophecy stemming from their interpretations of the books of Daniel, Isaiah, Revelation, and Matthew. On that note, one doesn't have to believe in these prophetic interpretations to enjoy the movie. All it takes is a bit of understanding and a healthy respect for the beliefs of others even if they differ from your own. In any case, while I don't necessarily subscribe to the beliefs espoused by the makers of these films, I am still able to appreciate movies of this type because I understand the general plot and have no desire to disrespect the religious convictions of others. That said, allow me to explain what this movie is all about. First, many Christians believe that the world is heading for a dramatic return of Jesus Christ. No real surprise there as I think most true Christians believe that he will indeed return one day. However, this particular group of Christians believe that the end times will begin with an event known as "the Rapture" which features a disappearance of all true Christians into Heaven "in the blink of an eye". This will cause world-wide confusion which a certain nefarious person known as the "anti-Christ" will use to assume power over the entire world. To facilitate his power he will create a "mark" of some kind to establish a one-world currency. Now, there are several different theories on what this "mark" will actually be but in this particular film it is a computer chip which has been made by a firm called "Avanti". Anyway, after being refused the rights to obtain it legally the anti-Christ, who goes by the name of "Phillyp Turk" (Ivan Kamaras) in this specific movie, sends a hit-squad to Bangkok to acquire it by force. As a result of the intense battle the doctor for Avanti is unable to implant the computer chip into the willing subject. So he hastily injects it into an unconscious security employee by the name of "Chad Turner" (Craig Sheffer). After the hit-squad has been repelled Chad regains consciousness and he is then told about the computer chip and instructed by an Avanti executive named "Cooper" (Eric Roberts) to board a flight to Berlin so that it can be presented to a G20 conference. But the anti-Christ is not through and he orders an especially vicious mercenary by the name of "Joseph Pike" (Gary Daniels) to get it before the G20 summit convenes. So Joseph gathers a team and boards the flight from Bangkok to Berlin. Anyway, rather than detail any more of the story and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just stop right here. As far as the overall quality of the movie was concerned I thought it was pretty enjoyable. I especially liked the performance of Gary Daniels who played his role to near perfection. Another person I liked was Sonia Couling as the stewardess named "Dao" who was definitely an attractive addition to the cast. At any rate, while this might not be a great movie by any means I liked it and rate it as slightly above average.

Avanti Corporation creates one biometric computer chip intended to have some profound interface with a human being. If that were not strange enough, their lab was just about to implant the thing inside a chosen test subject when the lab is attacked. While the lab burns and things are still blowing up, the lab surgeon does an emergency implant into a member of the security force for Avanti, one Chad Turner.Cooper, the failed head of security for Avanti, gets Turner on a plane to a safe place. That does not work. For one thing, Joseph Pike is determined to have the chip.The plane is hijacked by three murderers and one tech accomplice. The attempt at re-taking the plane and killing all the hijackers was almost successful. The lights go out; when they come back on, some passengers are gone, with their clothes left behind. (This event was given a spiritual explanation.) There are more problems than just the departed hijackers.Will the plane land safely?-----Scores-----Cinematography: 2/10 Poor close-ups accompanied by camera shake. Stupid camera angles.Sound: 7/10 The actors are miked OK. The music is not all that effective.Acting: 2/10 Absurdly bad. The lead actor, Craig Sheffer, is perhaps the worst of them all, with Gary Daniels a close second. The pair who played the pilot and co-pilot were terrible.Screenplay: 4/10 The dialog is odd and stilted, especially where Christian beliefs are being injected. There is not much story stretched over 92 minutes.SFX: 4/10 The mock-up of a commercial passenger jet airplane is ridiculous. The animated airplane exteriors were not good.

This was a surprisingly good movie that I thoroughly enjoyed watching. As a producer and director, I did find a few weak points of the film, but then again, that is part of my training.The overall story is strong, the acting is strong and the believability is strong from my perspective as a viewer who has watched and reviewed a plethora of movies while in film school and as a director and producer.THE WEAK AREAS:* The hand to hand fight sequences with the lead actor. It seemed obvious that little combat training or coaching, if any, was provided to the lead actor, Several fight sequences lacked enthusiasm, intensity, style or technique and reminded me of a horrible film pilot I worked on a few years ago, that didn't even make it through post-production. Those particular scenes were key to the conflict rise in the film and were pretty soft. It would've been better to have brought in a couple of stunt doubles for these scenes in the lower sections of the airplane cavities and made them more intense.* The airplane had no airplane noises, how is that possible?That was either an editor or director decision. Not having ambient airplane sound, even at a low volume was a really poor decision in this production, since much of the movie takes place in the plane.This was even more critical in areas of the plane where there absolutely would have been high volumes of sound.There is no excuse for poor sound design, since it does not affect the film budget or require much additional time in post-production to lay the audio track.* Everything about the story was tight, except for two areas of the film where it felt and looked like most "Faith Based Films". The story would not of suffered with a subtle approach. No one likes being pulled out at the beginning of the rising conflict to be told the motive up front. Find a way to reveal it without having to interrupt the flow with overtly obvious dialog.THE STRONG AREAS:The acting was very strong throughout almost all of the movie, Great actresses and actors, good story, very well told. However, out of the entire film, the weakest acting showed up with the lead character.Again, there is something about most faith based films when I watch them, that look almost identical from movie to movie, especially these end-time movies. I am a fan of end time stories, but to make them work, you must keep the intensity tight.I don't know if its the story, the Director interpretation of the story, the editor, or the actors inability to pull it off. It might even be all of them. There is just something undefinable that in one or two key scenes, the acting of the lead seem weak and unbelievable.I saw the same thing in the first two Left Behind series movies Kirk Cameron was in. The third Left Behind, "World At War" was the exception, with tighter acting and more believable acting. In World At War, they killed off the weak actor in the beginning which was the smartest decision that could've been made. Had they kept that weak actor, the film would've sucked, but instead it was one of the best faith based films about end time events, made to date.Conclusion:I really enjoyed this movie as a viewer and a film maker. As far as films with a faith based underlying theme, it was on the higher end of believability and entertaining.I've watched lots of higher budget films that were not as good as The Mark. If the writer, director and editor of The Mark sequel can manage to pull off the tight balance of telling the story subtly without creating a pause in the flow in its delivery of its motive, than it will be a winner.Worth watching - I think so . Movie Value - I gave it a score of 6. I would've given it a 5 1/2 if that rating was an option.

This was indeed one of the worst movies I ever saw, and I can get a lot watching bad movies.The guy invented this is on some kind of drugs I think...If you really want to throw away 1u35 of your life look at it, otherwise just do something else...And next to the story line, the acting is even worse and so are the special effects.I hope this is really helpfull to win some time for all the filmlovers to see other movies than this one, and to know the best of all, THERE IS A SEQUEL!!!