I say that because most of the movie was filmed there and it looked like it was there, not in the countries it was supposed to be in, which did not look good.
Apparently this film was mooted before Raiders of The Lost Ark and other Adventure films of that nature, but production was late so it did not get completed until after that and others, and that's the problem, because all the good money went into Raiders and this can't have had much since it was made on the cheap, if it had gone into production earlier we might have had a different situation ? But that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.
What was then Yugoslavia seemed to be a popular destination for movie makers in this period as quite a few were made there, not without merit as the scenery is beautiful, however it does not look like Afghanistan, India, Nepal and China, in fact nothing like Nepal and China. So not a good base.
The acting was poor, Tom Selleck plays himself as the Airman Adventurer, he's Ok but not great, no acting required, Bess Armstrong looked the part but can't act, she plays a spoilt upper class English woman, but not very well, she sometimes breaks into her american accent, she's from Baltimore, Maryland. Jack Weston was the best, at least he can act but did not do much here, Wilford Brimley, another american playing an Englishman, is also a good actor, but not here, he does not even try to hide his accent. They can't have been offered enough money. The supporting cast and extras were ok to a point, we did actually get some Indians playing Indians and some Chinese playing Chinese, but several were westerners, including the Chinese Warlord who, despite being part Chinese but mostly Brazilian (born in Guyana) looked like he had too much make-up on. They had recruited a pretty good cast apart from the ones mentioned, there was also Robert Morley, Brian Blessed (a very dodgy looking Afghan), Michael Sheard, Lynda la Plante, Timothy Carlton, Dino Shafeek, Peter Llewellyn Williams, Ric Young and Robert Lee, all good support/character actors who were either underused or not putting much effort in.
The direction was not great, photography was ok but wrong scenery, the music average and many many mistakes, plot holes and missing dialogue, they must have done extensive editing. Like I said, made on the cheap and it looks it. I gave it a 5 because of the story which was good (until it was butchered in editing), the planes and for Tom Selleck who looked the part and I liked the character.
Perhaps this is a good project for a re-make (which is all the rage these days since no one will put money into an original idea), using the correct locations and with a Director who can get the most out of the scenery and the cast. I notice that most re-makes are of films that are already well rated, and the re-make is not up to the same standard, I think this is erroneous, if they do a re-make it should be of a poor film that had a great story, like this one, that way it should be better and be well received, what do you think ?
Apparently this film was mooted before Raiders of The Lost Ark and other Adventure films of that nature, but production was late so it did not get completed until after that and others, and that's the problem, because all the good money went into Raiders and this can't have had much since it was made on the cheap, if it had gone into production earlier we might have had a different situation ? But that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.
What was then Yugoslavia seemed to be a popular destination for movie makers in this period as quite a few were made there, not without merit as the scenery is beautiful, however it does not look like Afghanistan, India, Nepal and China, in fact nothing like Nepal and China. So not a good base.
The acting was poor, Tom Selleck plays himself as the Airman Adventurer, he's Ok but not great, no acting required, Bess Armstrong looked the part but can't act, she plays a spoilt upper class English woman, but not very well, she sometimes breaks into her american accent, she's from Baltimore, Maryland. Jack Weston was the best, at least he can act but did not do much here, Wilford Brimley, another american playing an Englishman, is also a good actor, but not here, he does not even try to hide his accent. They can't have been offered enough money. The supporting cast and extras were ok to a point, we did actually get some Indians playing Indians and some Chinese playing Chinese, but several were westerners, including the Chinese Warlord who, despite being part Chinese but mostly Brazilian (born in Guyana) looked like he had too much make-up on. They had recruited a pretty good cast apart from the ones mentioned, there was also Robert Morley, Brian Blessed (a very dodgy looking Afghan), Michael Sheard, Lynda la Plante, Timothy Carlton, Dino Shafeek, Peter Llewellyn Williams, Ric Young and Robert Lee, all good support/character actors who were either underused or not putting much effort in.
The direction was not great, photography was ok but wrong scenery, the music average and many many mistakes, plot holes and missing dialogue, they must have done extensive editing. Like I said, made on the cheap and it looks it. I gave it a 5 because of the story which was good (until it was butchered in editing), the planes and for Tom Selleck who looked the part and I liked the character.
Perhaps this is a good project for a re-make (which is all the rage these days since no one will put money into an original idea), using the correct locations and with a Director who can get the most out of the scenery and the cast. I notice that most re-makes are of films that are already well rated, and the re-make is not up to the same standard, I think this is erroneous, if they do a re-make it should be of a poor film that had a great story, like this one, that way it should be better and be well received, what do you think ?