MaximusXXX 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.

lost-in-limbo Dolph Lundgren hits us with another by-the-numbers straight to DVD action fare set in Europe where he plays an American ex-marine turned arms smuggler who's spending time in a Russian prison, that's until he's given his freedom in exchange for the rescue of an American heiress who's being held hostage by some Russian criminals and rogue soldiers. But what he is to believe is not quite the case and it triggers a domino effect of violence and destruction. The action clichés come fast and furious, but these formulaic staples offer up plenty of carnage; metallic and flesh. It's speedy, swift and frenetic. Onslaught after onslaught. Chase after chase. The blood simply flows, numerous splatter on show in the many glorious shootouts, explosions and thank god no CGI is used either way. Director Danny Lerner does a competent job. Predictable, but workable even though it might get repetitious and a touch clumsy in the jaunty fight choreography. The locations add to the spectacle too. Lundgren is on cruise control, but still looks good kicking ass. One man, well equipped and going it alone. Michael Paré and Gina May also shows up."Do not shoot the girl!"

bstavrev This film is amazingly stupid. It just can't be matched with Tarantino's films as the other guy commented! The film's logic is just missing.The story is for a classical old school action movie,but the realisation is so bad.Everything is chaothic and pointless. Only the action scenes are MADE good,but actually they aren't good,because they're terribly unrealistic and foolish.It reminds me only of 20/30 years old action film on which you can laugh all the time....try watching "Operation : Delta force 2" for example :D . So the movie can be fun if you understand there is nothing serious in it.I just can't understand how can people make such films in 2009...

julian kennedy 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.