Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I don't know what the rest of you guys watch Steven Seagal movies for, but I watch them because, as silly as they are, they're at least always good for a laugh. Why would you rate this movie a 1 out of 10 based on the dubbing, when that kind of thing is exactly what makes a movie like this into a cult favorite that you can laugh at the silliness of?

Attack Force is by no means a great movie, but I felt it was as worthy a Steven Seagal vehicle as many of his other movies; in fact I didn't think it was one of his worst by a long-shot. It had, most of the time, a half-way coherent plot line, and it was, most of the time, fundamentally exciting. The ending really sucked, but even that had some enjoyably trashy elements. In the end the story itself did not deliver what it promised, but I actually thought that the acting, characterization (if I may use such a big word) and the rest of the production values delivered exactly what a true Steven Seagal fan would expect. Seagal himself in particular was exactly the stone-faced, no-nonsense man's man that we've come to expect, and the rest of the cast backed him up pretty well, without ever up-staging him. This, people, is what a Steven Seagal movie does. Deal with it. Or even better: laugh at it.

4 out of 10.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: The main problem I see with this film is its score, which screams with every note, "This is a cheap-ass movie." There's not much more to say here. The score just plain sucked.

The second problem, which I see as quite severe as well as it involves the unwinding of the plot near the end of the film (one of the the money shots, if you will), is the dialogue between Martha (Adrienne Barbeau) and the sunflower man (Richard Ziman), in which Martha is revealed to be the leader of the experiment. At all times during this dialogue, the viewer is very much aware that s/he is listening to a movie dialogue. In other words, suspension of disbelief breaks down here. The integrity of a believable dialogue between two people is sacrificed for a willy-nilly stuffing of information the movie makers wish to impart to the audience.

The third problem was the casting of Adrienne Barbeau. While I honestly believe her to be a fabulous actress within her oeuvre, I feel that this part may have been too much of a stretch. The main point of her performance that didn't seem to mesh was the spectrum across which the character moves through the film from a loving mother of a troubled family to an almost Rambo-like woman on a mission. This aspect of the script would obviously have been a stretch for any actress, and one cannot place too much blame, therefore, upon Barbeau. To the degree that she fairly competently acted her part, however, I would only call this a moderately severe problem to the film as a whole.

Finally, the film did a wonderful job in the first half building a creep factor, most notably during its horror flashes. I feel that the film would have benefited by more of a commitment to these flashes as a mechanism for preventing a fizzling of the creep factor in the second half of the movie.

So what's my holistic grading of this piece? I'd give it a solid C+ to B-, depending upon how much credit you're inclined to give the makers for producing this film on a limited budget. Even with two severe and two moderately severe problems, the film is premised on the solid plot of the Jungian side of Nazi mysticism. I see no problems with plot development or coherence; the dialogue, with the noted exception above, is downright brilliant in places, especially the all important keystone scene between mother and daughter at the beginning of the movie; as mentioned, the creep factor was well crafted, if a bit fizzly in the second half; and Nicholas Brendan, who also associated produced, delivered a wonderful performance.

All in all, this film is definitely worth the view---see it with a Nazi you love. :)

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
Although Lang's version is more famous,Borzage's work is not devoid of interest ,far from it:its "celestial" sequences are even better.The metaphor of the train (perhaps borrowed from the ending of Abel Gance's "la roue" ) is eventually more convincing than the "up above" heavenly world.

Borzage's tenderness for his characters shows in Marie's character and love beyond the grave is one of his favorite subjects (the ending of "three comrades" ).The amusement park seems to be everywhere: we see it even when we are in Marie's poor house.I do not think that the sets are that much cheesy,they are stylized to a fault.The fair from a distance almost gives a sci-fi feel to the movie.

Borzage never forgets his social concerns: in the heavenly train going up,the Rich cannot stand to be mixed up with the riffraff but as "chief magistrate" tells :"here there's no more difference" .

Not a major work for Borzage (neither is Lang's version),but to seek out if you are interested in the great director's career.