ccc-123
Should you have an appointment for root canal work, a visit scheduled with your proctologist, or even a meeting with the taxman, they might all be good reasons to watch this film. If you have anything else more enjoyable you should be doing, like say breathing, then don't bother.Rarely have I so wished I had something better to do than watch a movie! It does have an almost mesmeric quality, like watching the progress of your colonoscopy at the hospital.If you do watch it, check out Michael Ansara's curiously pale complexion - as if the makeup artist used flour.Richard Egan as always makes a good advertisement for Brylcreem.
Johnboy1221
This film had so many chances to be really entertaining, but fails to deliver. John Ericson is the main attraction. As always, he gives his best, and he can't be faulted for a weak script and poor direction.The DVD (and VHS) copies I've seen are all horribly "edited for television", which makes matters worse. (In one scene, a main character gets gut shot numerous times, but the shots are edited out, leaving the viewer wondering what the heck is going on).If all that weren't enough of a problem, the film was shot in wide screen, and several scenes in the full screen showings are either pan and scan, or people are not seen at all. Uggggh! I would actually buy this film on DVD, however, if it were ever released in widescreen from a decent print.
Patricia Hammond
I'd give this a 1 out of 10, but because the colour is good, nothing seems out of focus, big buildings are effectively set alight, I can't do that, in all fairness. Nonetheless, God only knows how any self-respecting filmmaker could look at the James Bond movies, think "I'd like a piece of that action" and then make this piece of tepid crapola. Not only is it tepid, but it's embarrassingly, self-consciously smug and seems to think it's funny. The women are stupid, with vague motivations; our leathery-faced, Marlboro-voiced all-American hero is supposed to be a real lady-killer and action man; and the genre is classified as Sci-Fi. Sorry folks, but one top-secret weapon made with Ruby crystals does not Science Fiction make. (apologies for overuse of the hyphen but I can't help myself) Richard Egan made a convincing weary gunslinger in Tension at Table Rock, but here, where wit and charm is required, he's left floundering. Furthermore, he looks as if he wouldn't hustle if his arse were on fire. To pull of that stunt in this type of film, you have to be a little bit cool, and more than a little bit suave. He doesn't have it I'm afraid. Sean Connery he ain't. Heck, Dean Martin he ain't! Can you believe it: they've even given him a wifey type who throws plastic vases at the door in a limp-wristed manner because he'll be late for dinner while saving the free world from the Red Menace. That could, of course, be funny. But here it most emphatically is not.
xrellerx
THE DESTRUCTORS is like a comic book. And a really bad comic book at that too. It all looks like a spoof from a James Bond movie (all-American hero gets all the girls and must get his hands on a weapon of mass destruction), but it's not meant to be funny . The acting is dull and the point of the story got lost in trivial situations filmed by amateurs. Only the music is pretty good and doesn't seem on it's place in a movie like this. 60ties detective stories: it's not just boy's fun...
AD
