No Contest II
No Contest II
R | 22 November 1996 (USA)
No Contest II Trailers

Sharon Bell is back, this time she must stop a terrorist plot to smuggle Nazi nerve gas.

Reviews
Wordiezett

So much average

... View More
Mehdi Hoffman

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

... View More
Mathilde the Guild

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

... View More
Roxie

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

... View More
jasonisageek

This is the perfect example of why you can't have too much of a good thing. When I randomly came across the first film in the series, No Contest about a year ago, it was more than just a pleasant surprise. It was awesome. I loved it. Essentially just a low-budget Die Hard ripoff, it ended up being one of the better ones in a sea of Die Hard ripoffs. In fact, it's damn near an identical clone! What was even more surprising, aside from it's impressive casting, was that it was directed by Paul Lynch, who's only real big credit was directing the very first Prom Night. He again returns in the director's chair, and again re-teams with star Shannon Tweed.In this sequel, oddly re-titled Face The Evil here in the U.S., they bring along the always reliable baddie Lance Henrikeson, and Bruce Payne, who shockingly turns a good guy performance this time around. While not as impressive as the cast of the first film, they do solid work with what they have to work with.Aesthetically, director Paul Lynch seems to kind of go-through-the- motions here. While a competent looking film, it's a far cry from his slick streamlined approach where he was channeling John McTiernan. Here he takes a much looser and more freestyle approach, meaning you won't find any of the impressive widescreen shots and slick camera-work that made the first one so good.I have to admit. I had high hopes for this one. I mean, how could I not? The first one was just so fun and well made when I wasn't really expecting much to begin with. And knowing the same star and director were returning only got my excitement even hotter. But while the story, about a mad man who wants to release a chemical agent that kills instantly, was okay, the many sub-par fight scenes, action sequences, and less than stellar camera-work leave you let down.While knowing full well that Shannon Tweed cannot possibly do most of the fighting and stunts in both of these films, it was easier to take seeing her stunt double the first time around simply because the first one was a much better and enjoyable film all around. Here though, it comes off as annoying when 90% of the time you see a stunt double with a bad blonde wig doing everything, even the simplest punches, kicks, or tumbles.I think what this film does best is remind you how good the first film was, and if anything, get's you to go back and revisit that randomly surprising film.www.robotGEEKSCultCinema.blogspot.com

... View More
sol

****SPOILERS**** Like in the first "No Contest" Sharon Bell, Shannon Tweed, saves the day with her fancy foot-work and a number of swings from a steel pole in this outrageous action movie set inside a locked museum with her little sister Bobbie,Janye Heitmeyer,the museum curator lending a hand. There's an interesting sidelight to the movie between the two sisters and why Sharon is so hard and unfeeling when it comes to little Bobbie which stems from the two girls childhood. Bobbie finds that out from Sharon at the end of the film which was nicely done.Sharon filming her latest action movie at the Hollman Museum where a gang of art thieves take over the place and hold everyone hostage. Lead by world renowned art collector Eric Dane, Lance Henriksen, who in reality turns out to be Eric Dengler the son of the Berlin Museums, during the time of Hitler, curator and fanatical Nazi Manferd Dengler.The film deals with a number of valuable artifacts looted by the Nazis during WWII that in return were stolen by the Red Army at the end of the war. Later after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the artifacts were smuggled out of Russia by Dengler to the USA and brought to the Hollman Museum gallery. You begin to wonder why Dangler would want to steal the very expensive items that he already had in the first place? Is he crazy? Locked in the museum with only an identification card by Bobbi able to unlock the doors Dangler for some insane reason activates a globe-like bomb with a secret nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany. This unusual device can not only kill everybody in the museum but burn the sheet that has the formula for an antidote to it? now you know he's crazy. Sharon who escaped and hid from Dangler and his hoods takes out Dangler's girlfriend Lisette, Fiona Highet, in what looked like a hall of balloons, not mirrors. The fast swinging Sharon has it out with the powerful but a little bit off-the-wall Dangler associate and fellow thief Falco, Kevin Jubinville,in about a half dozen battles that took up the entire movie.With time running out and the nerve-gas bomb about to explode Sharon confronts Dengler who's holding her movie director Jack, Bruce Payne, hostage on the main exhibition floor. With her having the card to open the door to save everyone that's still left alive by getting out of the place before the bomb explodes. Nowhere as good as the original "No Contest" but you have to say that Shannon Tweed is some knock-out. The villain in the film Lance Henriksen is a far better actor the the villain of the previous "No Contest" Andrew Dice Clay. Even though he's nowhere as funny, intentionally or unintentionally, as the famous Diceman. What I thought was supposed to be the highlight of the movie the final confrontation between Sharon and Dangler was a bit disappointing. Dangler gets locked in an exhibit air-tight glass enclosure and i vaporized by the exploding nerve-gas bomb. The poor guy was out of bullets so he was not even able to blow his brains out before he disintegrated.

... View More
goldfinger2a-2

You get for what you pay, and l paid £1 for this in London, it`s not the best film l`ve ever seen but it certainly isn't the worse...It's nice to see Bruce Payne as a `goodie` for once, Lance Hendrikson did a competent job and Sharron Tweed was ok, the story line..well we have seen it all before but what do you want..it`s a cheap film..and it passed time on while l was doing something else, thats how l like to see films...It was ok, the story was l thought strong one...well written...pity all the acting did not match it..But as l say you get what you pay for...6/10

... View More
frejbak

This got to be on of the worst movies ever. The plot was terrible, the action scenes boring and the whole thing totally crap. Good action films makes you forget that some things are unrealistic, like having 100 bullets in a gun. This movie is not like that at all. Here it just seems silly. And the ending is crap as well. The only good thing is Lance Hendriksen who can actually act, otherwise do not waste your time on this movie.

... View More
You May Also Like