This sequel to the 1994 actioner "No Contest" (which I enjoyed much more than I expected to) is a much inferior film. The fight scenes are not badly choreographed, but all the rest is just SO stereotypical and familiar. Shannon Tweed still is up to the game, but Lance Henriksen does his usual "psychotic villain" number, and we're not impressed anymore. (*1/2)
10 Reviews
Please vacate the museum, patrons. Be calm.
refinedsugar28 April 2023
The first 'No Contest' had a bunch of recognizable faces, a decent budget and a simple charm. This action sequel sorely does not. Shannon Tweed returns as Sharon Bell and after the events of the first film has parlayed her success into an acting career.
She and a few crew members of her latest film find themselves at a museum near closing where Sharon's sister works. Scouting it as a potential filming location. Who else happens to be there? Lance Henriksen as the well known art collector Eric Dane. This flicks pretty obvious bad guy. I don't think I have to spell out the rest, but it turns out he's not who he seems, they're trapped inside and there's a biological weapon involved.
The story is weak and makes little sense if you think about it. Lance is one of my favorite actors and he can easily do bad guys justice but this script ain't it. While Tweed pulled off the action heroine the first time out, it's nowhere near as believable or exciting to see her do it the second time. The meager subplot with her sister is paper thin too.
Stuck in the "museum" for 95% of the time, everything feels cheap and rushed. Borderline boring. Definitely lower budget than the original. What little action there is doesn't satisfy and Bruce Payne (memorable as the villain of the Wesley Snipes flick 'Passenger 57') shows up in a wasted appearance.
In other circumstances, I would have tuned into a flick like this just for Henriksen. I actually turned out to be both surprised and entertained by the original 'No Contest'. Which made this piece a letdown in more ways than one.
She and a few crew members of her latest film find themselves at a museum near closing where Sharon's sister works. Scouting it as a potential filming location. Who else happens to be there? Lance Henriksen as the well known art collector Eric Dane. This flicks pretty obvious bad guy. I don't think I have to spell out the rest, but it turns out he's not who he seems, they're trapped inside and there's a biological weapon involved.
The story is weak and makes little sense if you think about it. Lance is one of my favorite actors and he can easily do bad guys justice but this script ain't it. While Tweed pulled off the action heroine the first time out, it's nowhere near as believable or exciting to see her do it the second time. The meager subplot with her sister is paper thin too.
Stuck in the "museum" for 95% of the time, everything feels cheap and rushed. Borderline boring. Definitely lower budget than the original. What little action there is doesn't satisfy and Bruce Payne (memorable as the villain of the Wesley Snipes flick 'Passenger 57') shows up in a wasted appearance.
In other circumstances, I would have tuned into a flick like this just for Henriksen. I actually turned out to be both surprised and entertained by the original 'No Contest'. Which made this piece a letdown in more ways than one.
Not Bad, And Not As Good As The First
jasonisageek26 September 2016
This is the perfect example of why you can't have too much of a good thing. When I randomly came across the first film in the series, No Contest about a year ago, it was more than just a pleasant surprise. It was awesome. I loved it. Essentially just a low-budget Die Hard ripoff, it ended up being one of the better ones in a sea of Die Hard ripoffs. In fact, it's damn near an identical clone! What was even more surprising, aside from it's impressive casting, was that it was directed by Paul Lynch, who's only real big credit was directing the very first Prom Night. He again returns in the director's chair, and again re-teams with star Shannon Tweed.
In this sequel, oddly re-titled Face The Evil here in the U.S., they bring along the always reliable baddie Lance Henrikeson, and Bruce Payne, who shockingly turns a good guy performance this time around. While not as impressive as the cast of the first film, they do solid work with what they have to work with.
Aesthetically, director Paul Lynch seems to kind of go-through-the- motions here. While a competent looking film, it's a far cry from his slick streamlined approach where he was channeling John McTiernan. Here he takes a much looser and more freestyle approach, meaning you won't find any of the impressive widescreen shots and slick camera-work that made the first one so good.
I have to admit. I had high hopes for this one. I mean, how could I not? The first one was just so fun and well made when I wasn't really expecting much to begin with. And knowing the same star and director were returning only got my excitement even hotter. But while the story, about a mad man who wants to release a chemical agent that kills instantly, was okay, the many sub-par fight scenes, action sequences, and less than stellar camera-work leave you let down.
While knowing full well that Shannon Tweed cannot possibly do most of the fighting and stunts in both of these films, it was easier to take seeing her stunt double the first time around simply because the first one was a much better and enjoyable film all around. Here though, it comes off as annoying when 90% of the time you see a stunt double with a bad blonde wig doing everything, even the simplest punches, kicks, or tumbles.
I think what this film does best is remind you how good the first film was, and if anything, get's you to go back and revisit that randomly surprising film.
www.robotGEEKSCultCinema.blogspot.com
In this sequel, oddly re-titled Face The Evil here in the U.S., they bring along the always reliable baddie Lance Henrikeson, and Bruce Payne, who shockingly turns a good guy performance this time around. While not as impressive as the cast of the first film, they do solid work with what they have to work with.
Aesthetically, director Paul Lynch seems to kind of go-through-the- motions here. While a competent looking film, it's a far cry from his slick streamlined approach where he was channeling John McTiernan. Here he takes a much looser and more freestyle approach, meaning you won't find any of the impressive widescreen shots and slick camera-work that made the first one so good.
I have to admit. I had high hopes for this one. I mean, how could I not? The first one was just so fun and well made when I wasn't really expecting much to begin with. And knowing the same star and director were returning only got my excitement even hotter. But while the story, about a mad man who wants to release a chemical agent that kills instantly, was okay, the many sub-par fight scenes, action sequences, and less than stellar camera-work leave you let down.
While knowing full well that Shannon Tweed cannot possibly do most of the fighting and stunts in both of these films, it was easier to take seeing her stunt double the first time around simply because the first one was a much better and enjoyable film all around. Here though, it comes off as annoying when 90% of the time you see a stunt double with a bad blonde wig doing everything, even the simplest punches, kicks, or tumbles.
I think what this film does best is remind you how good the first film was, and if anything, get's you to go back and revisit that randomly surprising film.
www.robotGEEKSCultCinema.blogspot.com
Nowhere To Run Nowhere to Hide
sol-kay17 September 2004
****SPOILERS**** Like in the first "No Contest" Sharon Bell, Shannon Tweed, saves the day with her fancy foot-work and a number of swings from a steel pole in this outrageous action movie set inside a locked museum with her little sister Bobbie,Janye Heitmeyer,the museum curator lending a hand.
There's an interesting sidelight to the movie between the two sisters and why Sharon is so hard and unfeeling when it comes to little Bobbie which stems from the two girls childhood. Bobbie finds that out from Sharon at the end of the film which was nicely done.
Sharon filming her latest action movie at the Hollman Museum where a gang of art thieves take over the place and hold everyone hostage. Lead by world renowned art collector Eric Dane, Lance Henriksen, who in reality turns out to be Eric Dengler the son of the Berlin Museums, during the time of Hitler, curator and fanatical Nazi Manferd Dengler.
The film deals with a number of valuable artifacts looted by the Nazis during WWII that in return were stolen by the Red Army at the end of the war. Later after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the artifacts were smuggled out of Russia by Dengler to the USA and brought to the Hollman Museum gallery.
You begin to wonder why Dangler would want to steal the very expensive items that he already had in the first place? Is he crazy? Locked in the museum with only an identification card by Bobbi able to unlock the doors Dangler for some insane reason activates a globe-like bomb with a secret nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany. This unusual device can not only kill everybody in the museum but burn the sheet that has the formula for an antidote to it? now you know he's crazy.
Sharon who escaped and hid from Dangler and his hoods takes out Dangler's girlfriend Lisette, Fiona Highet, in what looked like a hall of balloons, not mirrors. The fast swinging Sharon has it out with the powerful but a little bit off-the-wall Dangler associate and fellow thief Falco, Kevin Jubinville,in about a half dozen battles that took up the entire movie.
With time running out and the nerve-gas bomb about to explode Sharon confronts Dengler who's holding her movie director Jack, Bruce Payne, hostage on the main exhibition floor. With her having the card to open the door to save everyone that's still left alive by getting out of the place before the bomb explodes.
Nowhere as good as the original "No Contest" but you have to say that Shannon Tweed is some knock-out. The villain in the film Lance Henriksen is a far better actor the the villain of the previous "No Contest" Andrew Dice Clay. Even though he's nowhere as funny, intentionally or unintentionally, as the famous Diceman.
What I thought was supposed to be the highlight of the movie the final confrontation between Sharon and Dangler was a bit disappointing. Dangler gets locked in an exhibit air-tight glass enclosure and i vaporized by the exploding nerve-gas bomb. The poor guy was out of bullets so he was not even able to blow his brains out before he disintegrated.
There's an interesting sidelight to the movie between the two sisters and why Sharon is so hard and unfeeling when it comes to little Bobbie which stems from the two girls childhood. Bobbie finds that out from Sharon at the end of the film which was nicely done.
Sharon filming her latest action movie at the Hollman Museum where a gang of art thieves take over the place and hold everyone hostage. Lead by world renowned art collector Eric Dane, Lance Henriksen, who in reality turns out to be Eric Dengler the son of the Berlin Museums, during the time of Hitler, curator and fanatical Nazi Manferd Dengler.
The film deals with a number of valuable artifacts looted by the Nazis during WWII that in return were stolen by the Red Army at the end of the war. Later after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the artifacts were smuggled out of Russia by Dengler to the USA and brought to the Hollman Museum gallery.
You begin to wonder why Dangler would want to steal the very expensive items that he already had in the first place? Is he crazy? Locked in the museum with only an identification card by Bobbi able to unlock the doors Dangler for some insane reason activates a globe-like bomb with a secret nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany. This unusual device can not only kill everybody in the museum but burn the sheet that has the formula for an antidote to it? now you know he's crazy.
Sharon who escaped and hid from Dangler and his hoods takes out Dangler's girlfriend Lisette, Fiona Highet, in what looked like a hall of balloons, not mirrors. The fast swinging Sharon has it out with the powerful but a little bit off-the-wall Dangler associate and fellow thief Falco, Kevin Jubinville,in about a half dozen battles that took up the entire movie.
With time running out and the nerve-gas bomb about to explode Sharon confronts Dengler who's holding her movie director Jack, Bruce Payne, hostage on the main exhibition floor. With her having the card to open the door to save everyone that's still left alive by getting out of the place before the bomb explodes.
Nowhere as good as the original "No Contest" but you have to say that Shannon Tweed is some knock-out. The villain in the film Lance Henriksen is a far better actor the the villain of the previous "No Contest" Andrew Dice Clay. Even though he's nowhere as funny, intentionally or unintentionally, as the famous Diceman.
What I thought was supposed to be the highlight of the movie the final confrontation between Sharon and Dangler was a bit disappointing. Dangler gets locked in an exhibit air-tight glass enclosure and i vaporized by the exploding nerve-gas bomb. The poor guy was out of bullets so he was not even able to blow his brains out before he disintegrated.
No Contest that this is horrible
movieman_kev21 December 2004
Shannon Tweed is back fighting terrorists, but this time Lance Henrikson fills in for both Rowdy Roddy Piper and Andrew Dice Clay. I prefer the first one, even though I like Henrikson as an actor. This one is tedious to sit through and not nearly as fun as the film that preceded it. The fights are put together in such a haphazard way that those are boring as well. Giving a casual glance to both the writers on this film, I shouldn't be surprised at how bad it was, as neither writer has done ANYthing even remotely good. Skip the snooze-fest. Rent the original instead, or better yet just watch the vastly superior Die Hard for the upturn time.
My Grade:D-
My Grade:D-
Awful
frejbak21 June 2000
This got to be on of the worst movies ever. The plot was terrible, the action scenes boring and the whole thing totally crap. Good action films makes you forget that some things are unrealistic, like having 100 bullets in a gun. This movie is not like that at all. Here it just seems silly. And the ending is crap as well.
The only good thing is Lance Hendriksen who can actually act, otherwise do not waste your time on this movie.
The only good thing is Lance Hendriksen who can actually act, otherwise do not waste your time on this movie.
While it was nice to see Tweed, Heitmeyer, Henriksen, and Payne working together, is it really worth going out of your way to track down
tarbosh2200024 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
When actress Sharon Bell (Tweed) goes to visit her sister Bobbi (Heitmeyer), a curator at the Holman Gallery, at said art gallery, it's not going to be a dejeuner sur l'herbe. Not at all. You see, a group of terrorist baddies under the command of Eric Dane (Henriksen) has - you guessed it - taken over the gallery. Part of their plan for world domination involves a highly potent and toxic nerve gas and the key to unlocking its potential lies in the art gallery. But rather than submit to these goons, Sharon and Bobbi - along with gallery worker Jack Terry (Payne) - decide to fight their way out of the situation. After all, Sharon is an action movie star, not to mention she's been through all this before...
When the world cried out for a sequel to the Shannon Tweed-Andrew Dice Clay Die Hard knockoff No Contest, director Paul Lynch answered the call. Just why it's called Face The Evil in the U.S. when in most other places it's called No Contest II (its production company was named NCII Productions, not surprisingly) isn't really known, but it doesn't matter. Out of all the "DieHardInA" movies we've seen to date, we can honestly say this is the first one to take place in an art gallery. It's easy to see why filmmakers used this formula so much in the 90's - most of the action takes place in one location so it's relatively easy and inexpensive to shoot one of these things. "Sequel to No Contest? Sure, what the heck, why not?"
One notable element this movie has that its predecessor did not is the employment of some horror elements. Perhaps that's not surprising, as Lynch is the director of 80's-horror fan favorites Prom Night (1980) and Humongous (1982). He tries to inject some style as well, and the fact that at least one person dies by a sculpture would seem to indicate Mr. Lynch has been watching his Dario Argento, especially The Bird With the Crystal Plumage (1970) and Tenebre (1982). However, if this floats your boat, don't get too excited. The vast majority of the movie is standard Die Hard stuff. Yes, there are some shootouts, fights, a throat slash, and the time-honored catfight between Shannon Tweed and some other chick. Even though some of the practical effects are well-executed, they're not front and center here.
The whole thing has a somewhat campy, "we're not taking this entirely seriously" vibe. There's also a lot of stupid/childish dialogue. And it's really obvious it was shot in Canada. Even still, Shannon Tweed was probably psyched to not have to do yet another "erotic thriller". She doesn't take her clothes off and she's the action heroine. She even gets to show off her comic timing. As crazy as it may sound, she probably wanted to do more movies like Face The Evil. As much as we enjoyed the team-up of Tweed and Heitmeyer, why has no one ever made a movie where both Shannon and Tracy Tweed are sisters who have to bust the heads of the bad guys? It's too good of an idea. And in true Batman (1989) style, the baddies deface priceless works of art with spray paint. Perhaps they should have called the movie "Deface The Evil"? Groan.
While it was nice to see Tweed, Heitmeyer, Henriksen, and Payne working together, is it really worth going out of your way to track down and watch Face The Evil if it isn't readily at hand? Two words: No Dice
When the world cried out for a sequel to the Shannon Tweed-Andrew Dice Clay Die Hard knockoff No Contest, director Paul Lynch answered the call. Just why it's called Face The Evil in the U.S. when in most other places it's called No Contest II (its production company was named NCII Productions, not surprisingly) isn't really known, but it doesn't matter. Out of all the "DieHardInA" movies we've seen to date, we can honestly say this is the first one to take place in an art gallery. It's easy to see why filmmakers used this formula so much in the 90's - most of the action takes place in one location so it's relatively easy and inexpensive to shoot one of these things. "Sequel to No Contest? Sure, what the heck, why not?"
One notable element this movie has that its predecessor did not is the employment of some horror elements. Perhaps that's not surprising, as Lynch is the director of 80's-horror fan favorites Prom Night (1980) and Humongous (1982). He tries to inject some style as well, and the fact that at least one person dies by a sculpture would seem to indicate Mr. Lynch has been watching his Dario Argento, especially The Bird With the Crystal Plumage (1970) and Tenebre (1982). However, if this floats your boat, don't get too excited. The vast majority of the movie is standard Die Hard stuff. Yes, there are some shootouts, fights, a throat slash, and the time-honored catfight between Shannon Tweed and some other chick. Even though some of the practical effects are well-executed, they're not front and center here.
The whole thing has a somewhat campy, "we're not taking this entirely seriously" vibe. There's also a lot of stupid/childish dialogue. And it's really obvious it was shot in Canada. Even still, Shannon Tweed was probably psyched to not have to do yet another "erotic thriller". She doesn't take her clothes off and she's the action heroine. She even gets to show off her comic timing. As crazy as it may sound, she probably wanted to do more movies like Face The Evil. As much as we enjoyed the team-up of Tweed and Heitmeyer, why has no one ever made a movie where both Shannon and Tracy Tweed are sisters who have to bust the heads of the bad guys? It's too good of an idea. And in true Batman (1989) style, the baddies deface priceless works of art with spray paint. Perhaps they should have called the movie "Deface The Evil"? Groan.
While it was nice to see Tweed, Heitmeyer, Henriksen, and Payne working together, is it really worth going out of your way to track down and watch Face The Evil if it isn't readily at hand? Two words: No Dice
Shannon Unbound...
azathothpwiggins22 February 2022
In FACE THE EVIL (aka: NO CONTEST II), Shannon Tweed returns as Sharon Bell. This time, she's visiting her sister's art gallery. All is lovely until a group of homicidal criminals arrive to poop on everyone's party. Sharon must battle these terrorists along with their loathsome leader, Dane (Lance Henriksen).
Ms. Tweed must shift from uber-hot socialite, into uber-hot commando mode, while Mr. Henriksen grimaces and acts in eeevil ways. They're both great, raising the material above the typical DIE HARD clones.
Fear not! There's plenty of gunfire, explosions, and karate throughout, and the gushy finale is classic stuff indeed...
Ms. Tweed must shift from uber-hot socialite, into uber-hot commando mode, while Mr. Henriksen grimaces and acts in eeevil ways. They're both great, raising the material above the typical DIE HARD clones.
Fear not! There's plenty of gunfire, explosions, and karate throughout, and the gushy finale is classic stuff indeed...
Ok..no wonderful but!!!
goldfinger2a-216 September 2002
You get for what you pay, and l paid £1 for this in London, it`s not the best film l`ve ever seen but it certainly isn't the worse...
It's nice to see Bruce Payne as a `goodie` for once, Lance Hendrikson did a competent job and Sharron Tweed was ok, the story line..well we have seen it all before but what do you want..it`s a cheap film..and it passed time on while l was doing something else, thats how l like to see films...
It was ok, the story was l thought strong one...well written...pity all the acting did not match it..
But as l say you get what you pay for...
6/10
It's nice to see Bruce Payne as a `goodie` for once, Lance Hendrikson did a competent job and Sharron Tweed was ok, the story line..well we have seen it all before but what do you want..it`s a cheap film..and it passed time on while l was doing something else, thats how l like to see films...
It was ok, the story was l thought strong one...well written...pity all the acting did not match it..
But as l say you get what you pay for...
6/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
