Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

rdoyle29 I like Norris and I like Cannon films, and this involves accepting the fact that Norris's politics are idiotic and most of his films are stupid. I get that, and a really idiotic piece of trash like "The Delta Force" is also an immensely entertaining near masterpiece of it's type. I really have to draw the line here. I not only didn't enjoy this film, I'd have to say I actively hated it. It's a really sincere and mean-spirited journey into Norris's delusional obsessions.

Spikeopath Chuck Norris is Col. James Braddock, a survivor of a Vietnam Prisoner of War camp who many years later decides to return to find proof - and liberate - American soldiers still being held against their will.As the 1980s boom for martial artists becoming filmic action stars gathered apace, Chuck Norris carved his own spot upon the testosterone fuelled wave. Much like a lot of films of its ilk, Missing in Action is of course daft, violent, jingoistic but also crucially it's a whole bunch of fun. This naturally comes down to expectation levels for a production of this type, park the brain and enjoy the cheese and carnage. It's a bit disappointing to find that we don't get to see much of Norris' martial artistry, it' s more a case of gun play and standard fists and kicks taking the lead in this one. The story is hardly taxing and many scenes just serve to show some flesh and pecs, but with M. Emmet Walsh along for the ride as an ebullient side-kick, there's enough here for the undemanding action film fan to enjoy. 5/10

Maziun "Missing in action " is along with "Delta force " and " The Lone wolf McQuade" the most famous movie with Chuck Norris as the main hero. Unlike the other two which are not great , but solid and enjoyable action flicks this one is bad , very bad . Chuck Norris stated that he made this film as a memorial honor of his younger brother Wieland, who was killed in the Vietnam War in 1970. I feel sorry for his loss , but it's still a bad movie , despite the fact it was a big box-office hit in the 80's with two sequels and it turned Norris into a star.This movie is actually the second in the series . The first two movies were made at the same time . When the producers saw the flicks , they knew that this one was obviously better. They decided to release the number 2 as number 1 . Wise decision . This one is obviously the best in the series (not that any of the movies in the series is good).The basic idea for this story - ex-soldier goes on a solo mission to Vietnam to find missing American soldiers was used before in 1983 ("Uncommon valor" with Gene Hackman and Patrick Swayze) and later in 1985 ("Rambo 2" with Sylvester Stallone). Both movies are MUCH better than this one.For the most part "MIA" is extremely dull. It takes long before Braddock even starts his mission. The action scenes are few and mostly very simplistic , even primitive I dare say. Director Joseph Zito has no sense of pacing or ability to create excitement. There isn't a single memorable action here. What we have here is poor and forgettable. It's like the movie makers were having a hard time making those scenes and no fun. The production values are still decent and the stunts look fine.The screenplay is poor too . The characters are stereotypical and feel fake . The enemies are portrayed in very racist way , not too mention they seem terribly incompetent. Some scenes don't make sense . Chuck breaks international laws and defies logic and realism.Norris has got a stone face all the time no matter what happens. Others are doing little better and the screenplay doesn't help anybody here to create an interesting character (although M. Emmet Walsh is not bad as the sleazy sidekick)."MIA" has some amusing moments , but I wouldn't even recommend it as a "so bad it's good movie" . There are better more laughable and enjoyable bad action flicks out there , for example "American ninja" or "Action Jackson". This one takes itself very seriously , but it's so bad and outdated that it's pure trash , not even an entertaining trash. There are better "one-man army " movies out there.I give it 2/10. Jean Claude Van Damme appears here as a truck driver, but I couldn't spot him anywhere. Maybe you will be more lucky .

tomgillespie2002 There were two main prevailing themes in 1980's Hollywood action cinema. One was the still prominent cold war, and secondly was the repositioning of the Vietnam war, where the domination of American warfare was scarred by its defeat. Missing in Action takes the latter theme, with Chuck Norris's Col. James Braddock, only a year out of a POW camp. Taken to Vietnam to either apologise for his war crimes during the war, or to get an apology for being held prisoner (it's not ultimately clear - unless I had already lost interest within the first reel), Braddock leaves his guarded hotel to get information from General Trau (James Hong) about other soldiers missing-in-action. Their presence is inevitably denied as unfounded.Action cinema certainly took liberties with the Vietnam defeat, giving the war an almost revisionist interpretation. By stating within the context of the film (the basic plot would be retraced a year later in Rambo: First Blood Part 2 (1985)), that Vietnam still hold many Vietnam vets imprisoned, Hollywood cinema is essentially stating that their defeat is justified as this race is barbaric and inhumane. Braddock eventually teams up with ex-soldier friend - and comic sidekick - Jack Tucker (M. Emmet Walsh) in Singapore. They somehow have thousands of dollars to spend on high-end military equipment, designed specifically for the needs of their eventual plan.Without humour, and with no tongue in any way near the cheek, the one- man army of Norris saves a bunch of POW's, bringing the inhumanity of the Vietnam government into disrepute. Missing in Action is a generic piece of action cinema, with a low-rent action hero. This prisoner-of- war rescue was so ubiquitous to the "war" film elements, and a way in which to recover America's damaged collective consciousness. Gung-ho had to return. As with all the action stars of the decade, the hard body was an important component to their raison-d'etre, and Norris can be horrifically spotted aimlessly walking around bland rooms, his shirt either open or completely off, revealing his gorilla-like torso.It dawned on me whilst watching this trash-action, that Chuck Norris was an action hero out-of-place. He appeared to me to be more of a 1970's television hero, such as Lee Majors or Gil Gerard. Then I remembered that he ending his career in the world of television, with the long running series, Walker: Texas Ranger (1993 - 2001). Fundamentally Chuck Norris has become a bigger cult than his "acting" output, but aside from the gratuitous chest-baring, I found his presence in this throw away action film quite endearing. Norris seems to take these cinematic films of explosions very seriously, a relic of the '70's next to the wisecracking, tongue-in-check machismo of the bigger (both in box-office and girth) '80's stars of the genre.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com