Delta Force 2: The Colombian Connection

Aside from its propagandistic aspects (it seems to argue that America has the right to invade any foreign country in the name of "law and justice"), this is a standard, brainless actioner, with lots of explosions and large-scale stunts, but not much excitement. Billy Drago, as the slimy villain, is the film's only redeeming factor. (*1/2)

This movie has very little in common with the first movie, the only real connection between the two is Chuck Norris is in both of them. That and the movie does involve the Delta Force once again. It is also a very unmemorable movie as there are very few scenes in this one that I can recall. While I remember the older movie Delta Force almost entirely and I did not exactly watch that one a whole lot more. One of the few scenes that I even remember is the scene involving the Delta Force doing a sky jump with the drug lord and the fact this film had a bit of a similar plot to the James Bond film "License to Kill", however that film is superior to this one as I can remember a lot about that one too. I do not remember this one being particularly horrible or anything, I just remember it not being as good as the original and that I got a bit bored during this film, another thing that did not occur during the first film. In the end I think it is just one of those sequels that uses the success of the first film to try and market an almost unrelated film. Like this one was supposed to have Chuck in some sort of drug task force, but they thought they could get some more bucks by making it a sequel to the Delta Force movie.

I'm not sure why "Delta Force 2" gets such a bad rap. Is it just because it's a sequel? Or is it because it was the film that came out just at the point when Chuck was transitioning from feature films to Direct-To-Video and Television?

In fact, is it really a "bad" film at all? Well, yes and no—depending on what your expectations are. For instance, is DF2 a bad film when compared with Norris' other films? Definitely not! This film is the pinnacle of the latter day Norris persona. He's the superconfident, superbearded superman of action, tough and gruff but also noble and likable. He a man of few words who shoots a lot of big guns, narrowly escapes a lot of very big, very orange explosions, and doles out justice to the bad guys with no second thoughts. (as a sidenote, this is very different from the early days Norris persona—a basically peaceable karateman pushed into action, often the pursued instead of the pursuer; sometimes he was mustachioed, sometimes his face was (gasp) naked.). The story is clichéd and the characters are clichés personified, but I don't think that was an accident. Cliché can be very effective in movies if used properly (see "Rocky"). DF2 pushes all the buttons—pushes them in all the right spots and pushes them hard. It doesn't try to be ironic, self-referential, a parody, or a "reimagining" of anything. Like a John Wayne western, it just is what it freaking is.

Is DF2 a good film in the B-Action film genre as a whole? If by that we mean the Bronson/VanDamme/Segal level genre, then the answer is another resounding "yes!" DF2 is an excellent example of the kind of simple action flick that no one makes for theatrical release anymore.

Is DF2 a good action film if your tastes run exclusively to higher budgeted, more elaborate action flicks like "Die Hard," the James Bond series, "Lethal Weapon," Tarrantino flicks and the like instead of lower budgeted action melodramas? Nah, no way in hell. In comparison to the $100 million action epics, the acting in DF2 is stiff, the action too basic, and the story style outdated by decades. Compared to the big studio tentpole Summer blockbusters, all Norris films are like home movies. To me personally, however, the line between these big budgeted action flicks and Chuck's is becoming thinner and thinner as time goes by (what at first seems like innovation soon becomes just another cliché as it is imitated by everyone everywhere, a la "The Matrix").

So—Delta Force 2. Good movie? The answer's either "hell yes!" "good lord, no!" depending on who you are.

Personally, I dig it.

Is this the best movie ever made? Probably. Certain people have described this and other films starring Billy Drago as "sleeper hits". Well let me tell you something - I was wide awake when I watched this one. While the action scenes are classic, the most memorable portion of this film is the dialog. Without saying a word, Billy Drago commands a presence so powerful that I almost hid behind my couch while watching him. General Taylor's blatant violation of military procedure reveals his hatred for the Columbian drug lords. This is evident in one of his greatest quotes from this film, "Why don't you....shut the f**k up!". Simply powerful dialog. To any who deny this film's greatness, I say you are a fool who deserves death as quickly as possible. I have watched this masterpiece over 180 times, and each time I find something new and beautiful hidden within its recesses.

I do not know how you can not say that this is a good movie. Chuck Norris is not supposed to be a realistic actor...his soul purpose is to be cheesy and take it up the gut everytime against the bad guys. So yeah, he is invincible to bullets, but aren't all good guys? And on top of that, he uses the total gym which makes him even more all powerful. You better watch out buddy, cuz Chuck is coming for ya...