Dead Men Can't Dance (1997) User Reviews

Where to start, where to start...

[joel0903 · 4/10 · 29 April 2012]

Did they not even stop to check to make sure they were using the correct rifles? the M-16 A-2 mod was adopted in the mid 1980s based on a requirement by the Marine Corps and did away with the fully automatic setting. It was replaced with 3 round burst. The hand guards were also modified (both are round) in later models. Also, at the end, the Yong San sign is spelled wrong (it says US Eight Army when it should say US Eighth Army).

It's a somewhat entertaining B movie, all in all. About what I expected, though the quality of the writing doesn't do the actors and actresses abilities justice. Ah, also, the instructor at the end was one of her training squad. I don't recall her rank, but obviously you don't get selected to be an instructor at Ranger school less than a month after you graduate from said school.

Neither can dead scripts...

[vfrickey · 3/10 · 14 September 2001]

The presence of action and adventure film veterans Michael Biehn (Navy Seals), Adrian Paul (the "Highlander" TV series) and R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket) couldn't resuscitate this flick... the dialogue and plot rarely rise above sophomoric quality.

A major exception to that observation is an excellent gritty monologue delivered by R. Lee Ermey as a Cold War relic of a CIA bureaucrat pining for the good old days early in the film. More illustration of the conflict between Ermey's old-school spook and the (aw, crap!) lady general in charge would have helped the film considerably.

The cinematography is right down there with Saturday morning "hop n'chop" martial arts films - disappointing, considering the crew was equipped to do better. I frankly was angry that this movie didn't have more polish and visual impact than it does.

Also, the technical adviser was either absent or not being listened to by the director and writers. The military details - vignettes of Ranger training and the way in which Biehn and Paul's sniper/spook characters operate ring palpably false - lack the authenticity which even the average modern TV techno-thriller series has - even the later, more disappointing seasons of "24" inspire more willing suspension of belief than "Dead Men Don't Dance."

Finally, the plot peters out toward the end. It's neither compelling nor plausible. You don't strongly care about the characters toward the end, you're just grateful for the end credits so you can get on with your life. The bad guys are predictably bad, the plot twists, while not quite telegraphed, are not terribly surprising either. If a plot twists out in the demilitarized zone somewhere and no one's paying attention, does it make any difference?

The title of this film should be "Night of the Living Dead Plot." You'll never get the hour and a half of your life spent watching this turkey back; paint your house if there's nothing on the tube besides this... watching your walls dry will easily be more entertaining.

What Firebirds Was To Top Gun,

[wayfarer4 · 5/10 · 6 February 2005]

Okay, yes, this wasn't exactly a high power movie. My impression is that this was originally considered as an answer to G.I. Jane, but with the star power in a strange side story that really had little to do with the main character, other than adding a love interest and some mental anguish.

The fight scenes are fairly contrived, true. The degree of realism is less than believable. And if you can distract an Army Ranger from his assigned guard duty with a cable hack of "Dirty Dancing", then our military is in serious danger. And, if the military (at the supposed time of the movie) hasn't trained any female Rangers, then where did we get the female drill sergeant that runs them through the training? On the other hand, this is a movie with Michael Biehn and Adrian Paul that didn't get any coverage in movie trailers, and is likely only to be shown on the late late night movie when the regularly scheduled Brian Bosworth movie doesn't show up. If you're a fan of either of these actors, and are only looking for a movie with the two of them, then this isn't so terrible. I got my copy from a used book store, and have to agree that it was the cover that got my attention. Both Biehn and Paul have the best scenes and dialogs out of the cast. (If nothing else, Paul's pick-up line involving "Mr. Happy" is one of his better moments.) It does play shamelessly with bits from other movies, including what appears to be a co-ed shower that almost smacks of the "Starship Troopers" scene.

I would have to say that this isn't the worst movie I've seen. See this movie with an open mind and a willing suspension of disbelief. Or, find yourself a good movie editing system, and remove all other sections of the movie that don't involve Biehn and Paul. It will probably make about the same amount of sense.

Total Waste of Time

[Dabig_W · 1/10 · 22 August 1999]

This product of the Phillipines was made by people who have absolutely no understanding of US Army Ranger training and operations. It explains why it is the worst piece of drivel a few noteworthy actors and actresses have put into their acting careers. I think the few 10 votes here must have been from the makers of this film.

What Happened?

[Kaymarie · 1/10 · 29 March 1999]

I wanted so much to like a movie staring my two favorite actors--Adrian Paul and Michael Biehn. I'm not your crazed fan type. . .but somehow these two men have stuck in my imagination. Both have (for the most part) appeared in works with good scripts and intelligent characters.

Why this turkey? The story line-- women saving a male black ops team in Korea-- was painful. The film looked as if it had been shot with an old 8mm on a budget of $1.95.

I hope my favorite guys had a good time or got paid a lot of money. It was painful to watch.

Horrible!!

[Alex-372 · 31 October 1999]

I was totally sucked in by the video cover.

I love movies about small unit warfare (Sniper, 84 Charlie Mopic, Platoon even) and a movie starring Michael Biehn (Navy Seals) couldn't be totally rock bottom, even for a video rental? No such luck, though. Instead of being a movie of a small unit stuck behind the lines, it turns into a "we're going to prove women soldiers are just as good as men, and we're going to prove it in North Korea" howler come exploitation movie - except there are no decent shower scenes.

Watch the great R. Lee Ermey wasted in a throw away role. Watch Hiep Thi Lay (Heaven And Earth) go through 'Nam flashbacks when faced with a concrete cylinder "tunnel" (people, she's a girl going through Ranger training, how old is she supposed to be in this - 35? 45?).

All I can say is that the producers of this junk should be fragged.

Why, you ask? I'll tell you why.

It's because "Dead Men Can't Dance".

Alex

Few redeeming qualities hurt by horrible production quality.

[sgtdeal-1 · 1/10 · 1 March 2003]

I caught this movie on television on a Saturday afternoon and the thing that caught my eye was the "artistic license" taken on military details. While I know that movies require a certain suspension of disbelief, I was aghast by the aggregious inaccuracies in this movie. The movie depicts a squad of female Army Rangers on a covert mission inside of North Korea. While there is no such thing as female Rangers in the US Army, I would be able to overlook that little detail if it were not for the fact that they looked absolutely silly in a hodge-podge of military acoutrements that they were forced to wear. The costume person on this one should be ashamed of themselves. How much time, effort, or money does it take to research the basics of military uniform? From the Ranger tabs sewn onto their black berets, to their camoflauge t-shirts. I honestly thought this movie was a comedy at first. I was shocked to see Michael Biehn and R. Lee Ermey in this. You would think that both would have insisted on a certain degree of accuracy.

A disappointment

[wnterstar · 5/10 · 21 April 2006]

This is supposed to be an intense movie, but it just misses. Instead it is a physically dark mess. I am an Adrian Paul fan, but I gotta say, he just missed here also. He was too over the top as an intense soldier. Instead of intense, he was laughable.

This is a thin plot, combined with a poor script, lack-luster performances, and boring cinematography. The only saving graces with this movie is that the score is decent (not memorable, though) and some fairly good special effects.

This movie is a complete waste of time and only deserves a five out of ten. Watch three kings instead!

A Bitter Disappointment

[Tbisping1 · 1/10 · 20 August 2001]

Maybe because I spent 13 months in Korea, is why I had such high expectations for this film. The device has not even been conceived of yet that could my measure my disgust for this unrealistic piece of garbage! Everything about the military and Korea was incorrect. The "enemy" in the film was played by Filipino actors, who bore no resemblance to actual Koreans. The producers violated Hollywood's first rule for a war movie with an Asian theme...Get every available Japanese, Korean, and Chinese actor you can!!! For all it's flaws, at least the TV show "MASH" got this right!! Lastly, and I think why I hated this movie so much, the U.S. stopped patrolling the DMZ, in 1991. We still have people in Korea, but we no longer actively patrol the DMZ. This team wouldn't even exist. The film might have stood a chance if the producers made the team CIA, instead of Army. Oh well, you pay for cable and you get what cable shows. At least I didn't waste more money on a rental!

Plot as good as 'Expendables' 2010-ish....

[recoverygina · 7/10 · 15 April 2012]

2012 Comments--Good for 1997 Tech No reviews in a while, so here is mine:

OK the plot is relevant to current events- imagine that!! Art imitates life. I could speed up a few spots, but c.g.I. was just coming out, I think.The movie started & ended well and that matters. Lead acting was pretty good. So raw. & not high-tech, & a snooze or two, but better than many mindless tales still being produced. If you like to see females in action and you like nuclear topics, you could enjoy it --why not?

CIA meets Army rangers -- Females had balls!! just saying. Probably not for under 40-ish crowd with action-addiction.

Yes Virginia, there is a movie this bad....

[kaylaw3 · 2/10 · 12 November 2007]

I won't say this is the *worst* movie I've ever seen but it comes extremely close.

The heroine - discharged from her military assignment with the CIA - is given a chance to join a co-ed group of Army Rangers trainees by her female Brigadier General commander. Her group goes through such brutal training as having to poop their pants and stand in a pond. Her SERE training consists of having her shirt torn open, getting slapped and being shocked on her clothed thigh with a cattle prod immediately before she is congratulated on her ability to withstand this brief encounter and welcomed as a new Ranger.

For some reason there is an attempt at inserting a love interest in this movie. I really don't know why. Maybe there were plans for nudity which were later abandoned. Probably because there was no interest in seeing any of the actresses nude.

Other than the repeated scenes of the guys playing around with the tampon machine in the co-ed shower - where everyone is always fully clothed - the highlights consist of women in totally unbelievable combat scenes rescuing male soldiers. Wait... I remember some crying... And something about one of the male soldiers betraying his comrades...

Feel lucky if you miss this movie.

Are you F***ing kidding me?!?!?!?

[chris-2567 · 1/10 · 26 July 2005]

I have a hard time giving this movie a 1 star (awful), simply because, I did not want to degrade all the other movies that are rated 1 star.

I missed the beginning, but I assume, they went to a strip club, found 6 hot women, and gave them guns and tight uniforms, made them "Rangers" of all things and sent them to North Korea to destroy a nuke plant. This movie is predictable and annoying. Bad acting, lots of male ego, women crying on the battlefield, this movie just plain sucks.

Personally, I have yet to see a worse movie.... I have seen diaper and paper towel commercials that had better plots and better character development than this gem.

It's bad

[cobra_011 · 27 May 2003]

This movie was bad. And i usually like the low budget military movies. The only thing that i even half liked about the movie was the knife fight between Michael Bien and Adrian Paul. And it was kinda crappy. You would think with two action movie and tv show veterans like them at least the fight scenes would be better than they were. Ah hell. I could barely sat through the movie once. NEVER AGAIN

There are no loyalties, only targets.

[lastliberal · 4/10 · 29 April 2008]

You should know that direct-to-DVD movies about the military are going to be full of tired cliché's. This one put just about every single one I can think of in the mix.

Kathleen York has an Oscar nomination for Crash, but it is for the music. Stick to that because we don't need another G.I. Jane. especially one that gets a Ranger badge just for being slapped a couple of times.

Michael Biehn (Aliens, The Terminator) was her love interest and probably the best thing about this flick. At least he appeared to know something about being military.

R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket) made an excellent slimy Senator, and I always enjoy Grace Zabriskie ("Big Love").

I guess there is a good reason I have not seen anything before this that was directed by Stephen Milburn Anderson or written by Paul Sinor. It is not likely that I ever will except by accident.

Lowest of Lows

[refinedsugar · 1/10 · 19 May 2023]

I have certain expectations for a dtv action flick. I don't expect top notch, but it has to have a minimum standard of filmmaking quality and fun value. 'Dead Men Can't Dance' is one of those times I gave a movie a chance when I shouldn't have in hindsight.

Take a recycled plot about nuclear missiles in foreign enemy hands. Insert some cliche training montages, your typical romance subplot and "surprise" betrayals during the actual mission portion and you have this movie in a nutshell that isn't worth your time.

'Dead Men Can't Dance' honestly made me angry and I should have rightfully turned it off, but I never do. I always stick it out until the end getting "max value". I knew what drew me in - Michael Biehn - a good actor who's appeared in a variety of good stuff, but this was obviously no more than a flight to the Philippines and a paycheck for him. The story is bad, action isn't handled particularly well and all around sad.

I'll give the plot its props, but the production values are terrible!

[Tin Man-5 · 6 January 2000]

"Dead Men Can't Dance" is a film that relies heavily on other films, interweaving plot conflicts and cliches that we've seen a million times before into one motion picture. However, the ones they use to combine work nicely: A small all-women platoon fights its way through Vietnam, trying to figure out which among them are spies and which in the government are the villians working alongside the enemy. Sure, we've seen it all before, but in order for a film like this to work, it must take the cliches seriously and make sure they flow and interlap smoothly. This film does that, and it knows how to make them work. After all, this is a movie trying to be an action flick, not a serious approach to the Vietnam War.

The cast is generally good- Michael Biehn, Mark Edward Anderson, and Adrian Paul stand out as the men trying to lead the women to victory, and most of the women, played by a bunch of unknowns, are well played. Its almost as if all the actors know that their characters are paper-thin and designed to be cardboard cutouts, and they choose to have fun with it. This factor helps tremendously.

However, despite these pluses, the film as a whole is extremely poor. The camera work is shoddy, and the production values are terrible. It looks as if it was filmed with a cam corder most of the time, and the synthesizer music only adds to its cheeziness. Some directors can hide a low budget (1993's "Fortress" is a good example). This guy, however, cannot. The results are an impressive, if overused, plot with lousy details around it. And if you don't have the visuals mastered in war films, you don't have anything.

*1/2 out of ****