Silent Trigger
Silent Trigger
| 26 June 1996 (USA)
Silent Trigger Trailers

Waxman is a former Special Forces soldier who is now working as a heavily armed assassin for a top secret government agency. When a covert mission goes terribly wrong, Waxman and fellow assassin Clegg become that agency's prime targets.

Reviews
Alicia

I love this movie so much

... View More
PlatinumRead

Just so...so bad

... View More
Matialth

Good concept, poorly executed.

... View More
Chirphymium

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

... View More
danieldonnelly-75655

Started off reasonably well, then the camera man seemed to have lost his way. The only thing he kept filming was the stonework inside the building. For Example, Dolph and Gina were talking at length, and the camera pans to the stonework, you don't see their faces, just a glimpse of an ear and top of Gina's' head. The camera work just gets hilarious after this, when they're not in the frame at all. Spent most of the movie talking about it. I had read the previous reviews, thought i'd give it a try as Dolph's a good actor. Gina's voice was really annoying but could see by it.

... View More
bowmanblue

Okay, where do I begin… I have been known to enjoy a good 'so-bad-it's-good' movie from time to time and I am a fan of the 'classic' action movies of the eighties (and therefore all those muscle-bound hunks who starred in them). Therefore, based on my nostalgia for Dolph Lundgren's stints in such 'classics' (well, I thought so!) in 'He-Man, Dark Angel and Universal Soldier,' I thought I'd give 'Silent Trigger' a go.Now, normally this is the time I say something like 'You should know what you're getting with a film called 'Silent Trigger.' I know it's a B-movie. I know it's 'straight to DVD.' I know there's no real (current!) stars in it. I'm just expecting a bit of mindless action and vague entertainment for an hour and a half. I guess I got the latter.'Silent Trigger' was certainly 'entertaining,' but possibly in the wrong kind of way. Whether it was due to the blatantly computer-generated attempts at major action set pieces, or just the ludicrousness of the script – it did hold my attention, sadly just to see how bad it gets. The plot (and I use that term loosely) begins with Dolph Lundgren failing to assassinate his target (did I mention he was an assassin? Well, he is) due to the inexperience of his partner, played by Gina Bellman and her forever-changing accent. The 'agency' (they don't really mention which) that they work for aren't happy and… and already it gets confusing. Skip forward a few years and the pair are reunited to carry out one more job from a vantage point that looks like the Nakatomi Plaza from 'Die Hard,' only not quite finished yet. However, it's not as straight forward as it sounds (and killing should be reasonably straight forward for a pair of professional assassins as it's kind of in their job description) as they come to blows with pair of security guards tasked with… er… defending (?) the under construction building.And that's sort of it really. It's two professional assassins versus two professional night security men. You may think that's a pretty one-sided battle, but you'd be wrong. I'm not sure whether the security staff are really good, or if the assassins are just bad. Either way there's a lot of 'cat and mouse' which takes place, leaving me a little unsure as who I'm supposed to be rooting for – the killers, or the nut jobs guarding the place.So, there's basically only four people in the cast and therefore what little action there is is sparse and hardly high-octane. So, in order to pad out the film's runtime there's more flashbacks which don't really make an awful lot of sense and all could have been left out of the story if truth be told.I like a good B-movie. Sadly, this just isn't really one of them. There's not really enough here to warrant recommending it. Yes, if you're a REAL die-hard fan of Dolph himself I guess you'll like it more than normal, but even he can do better (I take it you've seen the Expendables?). Just leave this one in the bargain basement of DVDs at your local petrol station where it belongs. Sorry, Dolph!

... View More
The_Phantom_Projectionist

Dolph Lundgren's 1996 vehicle here is a pretty unique production. A 90s action-thriller with heavy existentialist aspirations, the feature manages to attain most of its ambitions via the surprisingly careful touch of director Russell Mulcahy. It's got some problems that threaten my rating and may limit it to a niche audience, but for the most part, this is a successful experiment the likes of which Lundgren has yet to reproduce.The story: A mysterious sniper (Lundgren) and his spotter (Gina Bellman) face a series of internal and external threats as they prepare to eliminate a target from an unfinished high-rise building.From a thematic standpoint, this is an extremely ambitious effort for an action movie starring a performer best known for punching people. The first time I saw it, I thought of how easily this could have been turned into a play. There are only four prominent cast members, all generally inhabiting a single location, and there is an emphasis on character scenes with few action highlights. Sergio Altieri's screenplay mixes a typical action premise with heavy doses of noir and a touch of absurdity, creating a micro-world wherein alien codes of conduct are natural and the namelessness of characters is taken for granted. Though Russell Mulcahy can be a heavy-handed director, he's very in tune with Altieri's story and manages to create a tense, intimate atmosphere that's oftentimes more chilling than his attempts at horror have been. There are some lapses and excesses to this moody atmosphere, but for the most part, the filmmakers are very successful at striking the tone they want.The one major qualm I personally have with the picture is its treatment of Gina Bellman's character, which makes painfully clear that this is a movie written by men and for men. Bellman's talent shines through even in the most indignant of situations, but aside from the usual tropes of turning a highly-trained female operative into a damsel and a random sex scene, it's a challenge to find any statements or actions the character makes that aren't in some way critiqued by her male counterparts.The action content is measured. It's pretty sparse, but what's there tends to adrenalize. The worst of these scenes is the single brawl that Lundgren had with sadistic coke-fiend Christopher Heyerdahl, but the best scenes involve the use of Lundgren's unique sniper rifle. Two major shootouts compose the highlights of the action, and Lundgren's weapon of choice – with its immensely powerful bullets but agonizingly slow rate of fire – gives these scenes a unique pace that you don't get when both sides of a firefight are blazing away with automatic weapons. The uneven nature of these gunfights, combined with their infrequency, may understandably leave some action fans unfulfilled, particularly if the story is not to their liking either. Essentially, this is an action movie that asks you to take a chance on something other than the strength of its action, and if you'd rather spend your time on less of a gamble, Lundgren has an entire library of other flicks to check out.Personally, I had a good time with this one. The fact that the star has not attempted to make another film along these lines is a little disappointing, since Lundgren does well with the minimalist touch. Nevertheless, this helps make SILENT TRIGGER something of a hidden gem, and if nothing else, the strength of its production places it on the list of high-end offerings among Lundgren's non-theatrical features.

... View More
rps-2

This film ploughs new cinematic ground. It's the first motion picture ever made without a plot. This saves the viewer the trouble of wondering what is going on and the producers the bothersome need to provide some sort of logical thread for the non stop violence, the threatening bad guys, the gratuitous sex and the continual explosions, lightning bolts and unrelated violent flashbacks. It would have been so much more difficult, for example, if the writers (were there actually writers???) had had to explain that roadside massacre or name who was being assassinated and why. It's an interesting concept that allows the filmmaker to produce 90 minutes of tasteless crap and bad acting without having to invent reasons for it or waste time to explain things, time better used to cram in even more blood, bullets and bodies. You folks at the IMDb really should come up with a "0" vote because my "1" is undeserved praise for this film!

... View More