Missing in Action 2: The Beginning (1985)

Must See Movie...

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

We all know Braddock was Missing In Action (1984). But this sequel - actually a prequel - fills us in on just what went on in the brutal prison camp he was imprisoned in. Braddock and his fellow soldiers are routinely tortured and subjected to harsh, cruel, and sadistic practices, thanks to maniacal commander, Col. Yin (Oh) and his sidekick Lao (Tanaka). Will Braddock escape to see freedom? (Actually, you know he will, because this is a prequel, but just ignore that).The fans clamored for more Braddock, and more Braddock is what they got with this sequel/prequel. Cannon provided more jungle action and Prerequisite Torture with that trademark Reagan-style patriotism that we've all come to know and love. There's even stock footage of Reagan in the actual movie. It could definitely be argued that this sequel is superior to the original, because the plot is more streamlined, and the final fight between Chuck and Soon-Tek Oh absolutely delivers the goods. The movie primarily takes place in one location - the prison camp - and you see their travails, everything from Punchfighting to dealing with Professor Toru Tanaka. He's a fan favorite and his presence improves the proceedings.Like the first film, you kind of have to wait for any substantial action, but when it comes, it's a true crowd pleaser. Adding to this, you get to see the origin of Chuck's beard. When he was first captured in 1972, he did not have a beard. But he had to grow one in captivity because Col. Yin did not provide razors. Apparently, he liked the way he looked, so he kept it. Because of Chuck's long hair and beard, and the way he's treated, in Missing In Action 2: The Beginning there are certainly some parallels to the story of Jesus. Think about it.Director Lance Hool, who was credited with writing and producing credits on the first film, here steps into the director's chair with successful results. He obviously understands the Braddock character and that's probably why he got the gig. Once again Aaron Norris is on board for stunt work, as is fan favorite John Barrett. Dean Ferrandini, usually part of the stunt team, here steps in front of the camera in the role of Kirtle. It appears everyone knew what they were doing and did their best to expand the story of Braddock, and it certainly worked.It was released in one of those cool MGM/Cannon silver big boxes, so the collectability factor is high. But the movie is definitely worth seeing, as is the first one. But the highest heights of Braddock were yet to come: the final installment of the trilogy was still three years away.

the first missing in action was, okay, i guess, mindless action, cheesy. this was MUCH better though. it actually had a pretty good interesting story. the first part of this film is all the torture this crazy man yin. he runs the place. he is such a dick he made me want to go into the movie and kick his ass. the second half is chuck doing what he does best, kicking ass and blowing stuff up. and the ending is as satisfying as it gets, Braddock vs. yin. i found this film very predictable, but isn't that all 80s action films? ha but i loved it anyway. instead of mindlessness of the first missing in action, this one had heart. it was very phisicological for an action film. this had a certain effect, especially in this one scene were yin burns a letter from Braddock's wife. it was pretty original compared to the first one witch was obviously rip off of Rambo first blood part 2. this film is very good give it a watch!

Missing in Action 2 (1985) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Prequel to the first film has Col. James Braddock (Chuck Norris) and his men thrown into a POW camp where they are constantly abused and tortured. Soon Braddock finally realizes that their only chance for survival is by escaping. I've read at a couple sites that the first two films in the series were shot at the same time and that originally this prequel was meant to be the first in the series but the producer's film that the other film, the eventually part one, was better so this one here was released second and as a prequel. The first film was a laughably bad action film but this one here tries to play itself more straight and it works in some ways. I'm really not sure if the series would have been better had this one been released first but it does contain more human drama than the first film. This film has "B" movie written all over it due to the poor performances and lackluster direction but it still manages to be entertaining due to some nice action and a fun ending. Soon-Tek Oh plays the bad guy in the film and actually steals the movie. This isn't an all out action film like the first movie but I enjoyed it just the same.

Prequel to the 1984 hit Missing in Action depicts the hardships of the prison camp where Col. Braddock is held and his attempts to escape with the few remaining American soldiers. The film is a cut below the original in terms of just about everything. Hence the original was released sooner. This film, due to its storyline had to rely a bit more on drama rather than action. Most of the actors in this film just cannot cut the proverbial mustard in that department, though. It's a bad sign when Chuck Norris is pretty much the best actor in a film. No M. Emmett Walsh to steal any scenes this time, unfortunately! The story begins with Braddock and a helicopter full of soldiers getting shot down behind enemy lines. We then have some newsreel type footage of Memorial Day ceremonies for MIAs back in Washington DC. President Reagan even makes an appearance. Then, back to the POW camp we go. We meet the sadistic Col Yin who runs the place. And we see that there isn't much left of Braddock and the Americans after several years in captivity. The scene is basically stolen from Bridge on the River Kwai as the Col. explains to the men what they must already know. Escape is pretty much impossible due to the Vietnamese troops and the perilous jungle surrounding the camp. Two hapless prisoners of course try to make an escape right after this speech and are killed in gruesome fashion. The only way any of the men could ever possibly get home again would be for Braddock to sign a confession of his "war crimes". But this is B/S and Braddock knows it. There is no way Yin would ever let these men get out alive.The balance of the film basically depicts the torture that these men endure before Braddock is able to escape and eventually free the other prisoners. Col. Yin is a real S.O.B.. He uses hungry rats, mock executions, you name it. At one point, he even burns an American soldier alive after shooting him up with a gigantic dose of morphine. AMC doesn't show the burning scene, as it is particularly disturbing. Over the years, the psychological and physical abuse gets to the prisoners. One man even swears his allegiance to the Vietnamese so he can live better. His rationale: "Our country has forgotten about us, so does it really matter?" Maybe in some ways he has a point, but he is considered a filthy traitor by the other Americans.Finally, Braddock is able to get free and get his hands on some weapons. Lots of gun battles and explosions result. This film must have set a record for the most stunt men jumping off trampolines with an explosion behind them. Then, a scream is dubbed in. The effect comes off as pretty fake, actually. There are some neat stunts and camera work though. In one scene, a guy falls down a steep cliff and splatters on the rocks below. It kind of looked real! And there is an excellent martial arts showdown between Norris and Soon Teck Oh at the film's conclusion. Looked pretty painful! Unfortunately the entire film just looks kind of cheap compared to part one. It was filmed in Mexico, in case you were wondering. I believe part one was made in the Phillipines. Director Lance Hool doesn't seem as confident with the material as Joseph Zito did with the original. 5 of 10 stars.The Hound.