Panama

Around the time of the US invasion of Panama the CIA decides to make a deal with some contra guerilla fighters. Mel decides to recruit some buddy of his, Becker, who is currently a mess because his wife died. Along for the ride monitoring things is another agent, Burns. Becker is supposed to make the deal happen: he has to buy a Soviet chopper from some bad guys in Panama and deliver it to the guerilla guy. The Panama guys are involved in drugs and Becker has to go undercover and work in a casino where the gets to meet hot girls and the partying bad guy who is supposed to sell him the chopper. He is also contacted by a DEA agent who offers help if he helps them out in turn. Things of course don't turn out as expected at all and Becker ends up stabbed in the back from all sides just as the full invasion breaks out. Yet he somehow has to make it out alive and try to make some deal happen.

Panama has a good idea and story. The cast does the best it can. Mel always delivers but here he is a tertiary character. Kiara Liz is absolutely adorable. Cole Hauser isn't the most compelling lead but does alright. The problem of course is that this was done with a 3rd of the budget necessary to make it a solid international spy undercover thriller. It's not as bad as the rating here suggests but this is an unfortunate case, where they should have really desisted with the project unless they could procure the appropriate budget but instead went ahead and ended up producing a C-level movie.

And not one of them noticed the sloppy incoherent lazily-written convoluted and cliched nonsense of a so called screenplay? And they all greenlit the final cut to market? Like what was with the long dragged out and boring intimate scenes? It seems the writers put all their effort in those parts. Everything else seemed like a bunch of screenplays for this genre were put in a shredder then randomly pieced together for this story. To make things worse, this was directed by the Crank movie series Mark Neveldine. Isn't experience supposed to make you better, instead of giving the viewers this sub-par 1980's slow-mo-filmed amateur nonsense? I guess we now know that Neveldine's partner in the Crank series Brian Taylor was clearly the brains and talent of the two. I'm assuming this was a low budget film, but the horrible shaky cam filming is inexcusable. A handheld gimbal stabilizer for an iPhone only costs $50. This felt like it was filmed on a flip-phone by someone having a seizure. Between the horribly confusing writing and shaky camera work, I still have a headache. The only thing this film was missing was Bruce Willis. Then I could understand the failure. But I feel bad that Gibson got stuck in this mess, he's better than this. It's a generous 3/10 from me, all going towards the hotties (only worthwhile viewing) and sympathy points for Gibson.

Not nearly a 3 score for me. More like 5.

Then again, I personally am not a hater and dislike every film.

The film has major flaws. But Mel Gibson and Cole Hauser are awesome.

I think it was marketed so badly because it leads you to believe it's more action than it really is.

It's espionage and a little bit of action.

This is a turn-your-brain-off film.

I recommend for fans of Cole Hauser.

5/10.

It's a decent enough, I've seen worse over the years... 3.3 rating is harsh and that's generally because if the haters of Mel Gibson that will go above and beyond to tarnish his films. Ignore wannabe critics and watch it with your own mind not others. The only issue I had was the camera could be all over and can mess with ones eyes... I don't mind Hauser but I'd rather see Michael Parè and Gibson in something like this...

Where was the plot, the story was all over the place and the acting woeful ,why was this even made...a low budget film not worthy of being on the screen, avoid at all cost.