Rapid Exchange (2003 Video) User Reviews

Not quite that rapid...

[andertonian · 4/10 · 3 August 2005]

The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the "cult of Lance", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.

But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is "Rapid Exchange", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.

Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both.

mid air

[kairingler · 6/10 · 11 July 2013]

this wasn't a bad "b" movie,, direct to video,, stars lance Henricksen, and Lorenzo Lamas. the movie is about a mid air heist,, involving hundreds of millions of dollars,, lots of action, decent plot,, and twists, sure it's not gonna win any awards,, but that's not was I was expecting to get from this movie,, what I was expecting was simple.. lot's of action,, thrills,, plot twists,, decent camera angels good scenery , and pretty women,, well last time that I checked I'm pretty sure I got all of these in this movie. Lorenzo Lamas does a fair job in this movie,, sure I wish Lance Henricksen would have had some more screen time but I guess we all can't get what we want. but overall it wasn't a bad action movie at all, I will watch again to see if there 's anything i missed the first time around.

I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie, some good stunt work but many inconsistencies in the plot.

[john-3047 · 4/10 · 6 March 2006]

I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie. There was some good stunt work that gave a fair degree of excitement and suspense to the story. One did however have to suspend ones credulity on a number of occasions for the plot to work. For example despite losing their transfer cable, couplings and harness when the pilot retracted the undercarriage manually, they fortunately found a spare on-board the aircraft complete with Caribbeans. According to the plot drilling a hole in the ceiling of the vault would disable the alarm system in the vault when the system was reactivated (I can't think why), according to Daltry there battery operated drill would be unable to drill through the vault ceiling however they just happened to have a hydraulic drill complete with hoses and fittings to fit the equally convenient take off points in the planes hydraulic system located above the vault. As the plane has a closed hydraulic system it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without affecting the control systems or at least setting hydraulic pressure alarms in the cockpit. Accepting this for the sake of the plot it takes them several minutes to drill a small hole through the top of the vault (tension will they be able to drill through before FED's get there to check the false alarm), yet from the time the vault door closed and before the FED's had walked the few feet to the second security door they had cut a squire hole in the roof of the vault big enough for them to get through. One can accept all theses and other inconsistencies for the sake of a good yarn, however what spoiled the movie for me was when what appears to have been an effort by the script writers to discuses what up to that point was a fairly predictable ending, they killed off the two hero's (If one can refer to crocks as hero's) Ketchum & Brooks one was shot and thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet the other wiliest sliding down the cable between the two planes the villain Daltry with one hand manages to unhook the cable carrying the weight of a full grown man with the air pressure of several hundred miles per hour pressing on him, and letting him fall to his death. And yet in the next sequence these two without any kind of explanation (however tenuous or implausible) have miraculously survived the full from 10.000 feet and had time to set up an elaborate scam to get the money. The only comment on there survival was to Sophie that her brother is a bad shot. Don't expect an Oscar nomination for this one.

Blatantly unoriginal

[BennyM · 1/10 · 15 June 2003]

Like a cross between Air Force One, Cliffhanger and Lassiter, only without Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck (or any other real stars - I'm about to give up on Lance Henriksen), decent special effects or - well, basically anything worth watching.

Good music by Hans Zimmer and The Alan Parsons Project. The music actually written by Christopher Holden, however, pretty much reminds me of something left over from Dallas or Dynasty.

Rapid, yes. Rapidly forgotten.

[captainpervert · 3/10 · 8 June 2003]

As a fan of Henriksen (I liked him in the "Millennium" series) and of course Lorenzo "Renegade" Lamas, I had expected at least SOMETHING from this film. Sadly, the plot is predictable, the acting is bad and the computergraphics used for most stunts don't work out. Sometimes it even looks like they've captured some shots from Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The cinematography sucks as well. Unnecessary funky camerawork in the beginning only detracts (from the cheesy dialogue) and gives the film a cheap, made-for-video-look. It works in hiphop-movies and Jet Li movies, but seems out of place in this flick.

I would have liked this film 10 years ago. I was 11 then.

Surprisingly good heist movie

[Firedrake · 17 June 2003]

It's a heist movie. Sure, the idea's not original, and you can predict roughly what's going to happen as soon as you meet the players; but it's still good fun.

There are very few big-name stars, which helps a great deal - if you see Bruce or Mel, you know he's going to come out on top, and here there's just a little bit of doubt.

I was repeatedly reminded of The Italian Job - particularly in the "you're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" scene (it doesn't use that line, but you'll know the scene when you get to it); it's a shame that this didn't get the publicity that the remake of that film did, as I found it much more enjoyable.

The special effects aren't bad. They're not hugely flashy as on films with bigger budgets, but they do the job; most of the action takes place at night, which certainly helps with the bluescreening. The technicalities are a bit iffy, but not as wildly implausible as usual for Hollywood; they may actually have got a competent technical advisor on this one.

Not an intellectually engaging movie, but a good choice for a relaxed evening in.

Bad acting and horrible script.

[jwong · 3/10 · 27 January 2007]

The acting was so bad that is so difficult to believe in a movie with so crazy ideas. The expressions of the guards and their reactions were so bland that not even rookie actors in a high school play are so unbelievable.

So much money on a plane an such lousy and so few guardians on board. Okay a 747 is a huge plane, but you don't transport that amount of money so frequently as to have such an elaborate electronic equipment and a vault on board to "safeguard" the valuables. And also the interior of the "vault" is so unrealistic with high ceilings and very ample rooms, you are not inside a building, but a plane and don't have the luxury of empty spaces.

Blowing a hole on the side of a flying plane is no small issue but here the plane keeps flying as if nothing happened. There are so many inconsistencies that made me gag.

Just don't think too hard

[DEPRESSEDcherry · 5/10 · 7 March 2021]

Basically that scene in Cliffhanger where they steal the money from a plane in mid-air, except in this case it's most of the movie. It's not as terrible as it is predictable, but it's very direct to video quality will probably frustrate more than it charms. Henriksen bookends the action by mostly standing around, while Lorenzo gets lost in the crowd most of the time. The early 2000's look and presentation will probably give off some nostalgia vibes these days, although it might be more along the lines of what were they thinking?

Deserving Dynamic Director!

[rbrb · 9/10 · 19 January 2004]

Having recently viewed a clutch of expensive movies with big stars which turned out to be worthy of at most 1 out of 10 its a pleasure to find a decent movie on cable. Not only is this film well directed, fast paced, with a compelling story line, its' engrossing for the most part.Gang of robbers implement a spectacular robbery from a moving plane with duplicity amongst themselves along the way. Now maybe the aerodynamic heist is far fetched and the story line iffy as well as the ending but I for one was glued to the film all the way. Alright some unconvincing performances (as well as some good ones); but make no mistake this is a very very good tv movie with excellent special effects and the director earns my praise for hammering for all its' worth the central story line and keeping the action going throughout. Most importantly we have here a director who considers his viewers rather than his ego, so I hope he gets plenty of chances to make more of the same. 9 out of 10.

Exciting and intelligent, though I've seen better

[vchimpanzee · 13 December 2005]

Newcastle wants a $9 million Scottish scepter, and Ketchum, Brooks and others use their special skills to try to get their hands on it. Then a SWAT team shows up (at least that's what their uniforms say). Can they still succeed? Regardless, Newcastle has an even better opportunity for which Daltry (an annoying jerk, plus other names probably inappropriate here) is put in charge. Syrians have been printing counterfeit money--so much that new plates were made necessary. Hundreds of millions of dollars in new cash must be shipped by 747.

Daltry, Ketchum and Brooks are joined by Sophie, who is pretty, smart, confident, physically strong and quite flexible. As in the first operation, their team includes scientific types (not really geeks) who can hack into computer systems and get into places they are not supposed to be.

This operation should not be too much of a challenge because the people guarding the money do not seem all that competent, though the plane's pilots appear quite intelligent (if this is realistic, pilots have to know A LOT these days). Matthewson is an obnoxious trivia expert who seems to be too much of a coward to be on a plane, and he comes across as a bumbling idiot. His female partner may be smarter, but not by much. The uniformed guards aren't exactly rushing into action when the situation looks suspicious.

This film reminds me of "Ocean's Eleven" (which was a much better movie because of its stars and their performances), as well as "Sneakers" (which had stars and much more humor). The viewer wants the crooks to succeed.

A lot of work appears to have gone into making the computers and equipment look realistic, as well as the characters' knowledge about what to do. The stunt work looked good, and the military-style rappelling and climbing competently executed.

Now the planes looked like models, even on a 13-inch TV. This wasn't too much of a distraction because the excitement level stayed high much of the time.

Normally for me to get interested in this type of movie I need to see familiar stars. I didn't know any actors' names except Lorenzo Lamas (and I'm not even really familiar with him). He is at least good-looking, which should attract at least a few gals (who might also enjoy seeing Sophie as a strong, capable woman).

There wasn't a lot of humor, but this film was occasionally funny. The violence was not excessive. I did hear the sound go out a number of times, but it appeared to me that the f-word was being used in a lot of those situations.

It was pretty good if you're not expecting a whole lot.

How did they do it?

[hackraytex · 9/10 · 3 May 2020]

I am not the sharpest tool in the drawer but how did Ketchum and Brooks not get killed falling out of the plane? My only guess is that they has parachutes under their coveralls but it would have been nice for such a scene to be included.

A highly original movie with an exciting story.

[berge01 · 10/10 · 19 October 2007]

Excellent action movie with an original plot. I've never seen a plot like this where money is stolen in midair and the good guys come out on top. The musical score was outstanding and helped move the movie along at a real good pace, especially during the action sequences. The locations sequences where different too, I believe most of the film was filmed in Europe. I would enjoy seeing another movie of this type with the same actors and actress. The movie moved along at a good pace and was never boring. Maybe some of the interior sets were a little bit of a stretch for the imagination being inside an aircraft, but I felt overall they fit appropriately into the movie.