Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

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.

I'm very puzzled why so many people have referred to THE DESTRUCTORS as some type of James Bond homage / clone when it's nothing of the sort . Every TV guide for this week have described as such and that was the only thing they agreed on apart from mentioning it was utter crap . I certainly agree with the latter statement but how can anyone compare this with what was at the time a groundbreaking film franchise ? The hero Dan Street looks more like a world weary beat cop rather than a suave sophisticated secret agent and the whole movie plays out more like a film noir with basically every scene set in a small room featuring dialogue . Action ? What action ? there's no death defying stunts or anything resembling the ilk , it's just talk talk talk . With the exception of the premise of a death ray being stolen and a punch up featuring frogmen there's nothing here that will fool you into thinking you're watching James Bond , Matt Helm or Napoleon Solo . Methinks this was originally a film noir screenplay , and a poor one at that

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.

Agents employed by Red China plot to steal a new American laser weapon powered by rubies. Enter Richard Egan as the counter-espionage agent who stands between the West and commies bent on global domination. Fortunately for the free world, his precious bodily fluids are working just fine. Does he save the day? Whaddya think?This filler film, with its paranoid reds-under-the-bed plot, was probably at least ten years out of date when it was released. It's a strictly comic-book adventure, dashed out to capitalise on The Man From Uncle, Bond, etc. It totally lacks the wit of those productions, however, and takes a more Dragnet-type approach, ie. stiff, no nonsense, and rapidly tiresome. Richard Egan is quite impressive though. Egan, a big, chunky guy and a decent leading man, sports a tan for this movie deep enough to turn George Hamilton green with envy. B-movie king Michael Ansara features as the smoldering baddie (no surprises there), while the rest of the cast give their producer his money's worth.It's childish rubbish of course, but smoothly filmed in an expensive TV film manner. The elaborately symphonic musical score by Paul Dunlap totally out-classes the movie and almost makes you think you're watching a good film. You're not though. You're just listening to the score for one. Dunlap pretty much left the film scoring field after this. A pity. He was (is) good, but all too often seemed to get saddled with B-movies like The Destructors. Fate's fickle finger jabs again.