RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

darren_steven I'm not sure if I need to enable the spoilers for this movies as very few people will ever see this film or even care that I may have spoiled it.Pierce Brosnan sporting a musketeers mustache and some kind of mullet reprises his role from Death Train, and so does Alexandra Paul who died of cancer in Baywatch. (Death Train is better than this movie) The opening sequence features some kind of South American looking Soldiers chasing Pierce and his commando partner across a beach whilst they rescue some children, for some reason that currently escapes me, or the scriptwriters for that matter. These guys could not hit a cows arse with a banjo. They fire away aimlessly at some very static looking actors. Pierces partner get shot and dies. Pierce rescues the kids. The death of his partner affects Pierce in way many us will never be able to comprehend, but he does his best to at least make us feel his pain through the medium of acting.Next we learn that something known as 'Nightwatch' has been stolen, It could see stuff in old paintings the human eye was unable to perceive, schoolboy penises and stick women with boobs under the top layer of Renaissance art, the kind of thing Rembrandt always had to cover with paint after his art school mates had tried to ruin his canvass.So the director of some UN style organisation remembers how good Pierce and Baywatch were on Death Train and decides to get the old gang back together.Pierce is given a watch with a TV screen in it, he can use this to talk to his boss. There is no earpieces so whenever his boss calls him up everything he says is clearly audible to everyone around Pierce at the time, Pierce just talks into the watch in response. He looks mental whilst doing this.After this we head to Amsterdam where a man Baywatch 'Just wants to talk to' runs through town and decides to start shooting at Baywatch. He takes out a few civvies before escaping on a boat and crashing said boat into a barrel of oil? and erupts in a fiery explosion. Pierce has row with a big bloke after breaking into his house boat, and then they continue there quest to recover 'Nightwatch' in Hong Kong.All of this makes no sense. In the end I'm sure Pierce and Baywatch win.The action scenes are cheap, the gunmen can't shoot and I'm not really sure what Alistair McClean has done to deserve so many of his books made into bad movies.This film is bad.

gridoon2018 "Night Watch" is the follow-up to "Death Train", made 2 years earlier, but while Pierce Brosnan and Alexandra Paul play the same characters, they act more like spies and less like commandos this time around. It's fun noting all the parallels this movie, and Brosnan's character in particular, has to the James Bond series: he is an experienced secret agent; he regularly travels worldwide; he assumes a fake identity as a cover; he is given a watch equipped with all sorts of gadgets ("it does more than tell the time, eh?"); he visits the casino and cleans up the joint; he even orders a vodka martini; and of course he gets involved in fights and chases. The main difference is that Brosnan doesn't have the perfectly polished appearance of Bond here; he has unkempt hair and a long mustache. Alexandra Paul is (of course) gorgeous and tough and knows how to defend herself in moments of danger. The two stars get an enjoyable chemistry going and if Brosnan hadn't been cast as Bond the very same year, I could see them doing more films together. Like its predecessor, "Night Watch" is a medium-scale action film that knows its limitations, has some exciting action sequences, and provides more than passable entertainment to fans of the genre. (***)

FlagSteward This is not a great film. It's certainly no Where Eagles Dare and it's not even a Puppet on a Chain. And if you were hoping for a Brosnan film in the style of Goldeneye or The Thomas Crown Affair, forget it. The cast deserve better, but if you ignore the star names and don't set your expectations too high, it's an OK TV action flick.It wants to be a (low-budget) Bond movie with glamorous locations and a series of action sequences to make you forget a paper-thin plot, but there's no finesse to it, it's all a bit pedestrian. The dialogue creaks, the accents are all over the shop, and the direction uneven. There's several nods to Puppet on a Chain, with a lot of action set on the canals of Amsterdam, and I suspect that Brosnan had already been cast as Bond before filming the casino scene (Nightwatch came out a month before Goldeneye).The main problem with the film is that it all hangs on the relationship between Brosnan and Paul, which has little chemistry and is badly developed. I've not read the book but it feels like a fairly minor female character has been expanded to accommodate Paul at the height of her Baywatch fame, when just following the original story was at the limits of the scriptwriter's capabilities - and writing decent dialogue was waaay beyond him.Despite all that it rattles along at a reasonable pace, it's a passable way to spend 90 minutes if you don't expect too much of it.

dmullark This has to be the worst movie ever made, Ed Wood come back All is forgiven.I thought by renting this movie it was going to be a good spy/action movie BUT alas what I got has to be on the list for the worst movies ever made. From what I can make out this movie is about a stolen painting. I really don't know what it was about as after 10 minutes of this movie I decided to go out into the back yard and watch the grass grow.Mr. Brosnan you should be ashamed of yourself for making this DUD