City of Fear (2000 Video) User Reviews

City of Fear is recommended for Gary Daniels die-hards only.

[tarbosh22000 · 3/10 · 10 May 2012]

Steve Roberts (Daniels) is a journalist who is summoned to Sofia, Bulgaria by his friend Charlie Venco. When it turns out that Charlie has mysteriously died, it opens up a world of intrigue involving the Bulgarian government, the military, and the medical establishment. Not to mention thugs and the Russian mob. Luckily he has Alexa (Campbell) on his side. What is the secret of the "blood medication"? Steve Roberts certainly wants answers - and he'll have to use his wits, as well as his fists and kicks - to get to the truth.

Of course this movie is set in Bulgaria - but at least they don't try to hide it. Even in the fight scenes, dust is used for effect when blows land, but it just makes Bulgaria look like an unnecessarily dusty country. Maybe our Bulgarian readers can write in to see if the rumors are true. But Nu-Image always shoots there, and this one in particular has a low-budget feel compounded by its location.

Besides directing utter crud like Warhead (1996) and Marines (2003), Mark Roper also directed Gary Daniels the year after City of Fear to make the similarly-Bulgaria-shot Queen's Messenger (2001). But what's weird is that City of Fear seems to be directed...somehow wrong. There are a ton of unnecessary close-ups, the pacing is oddly stilted, and the minimal, weak action is more funny than hard-hitting. Plotwise, this movie is not very exciting or crowd-pleasing. It's wildly overwritten and needlessly complex. This leads to many dialogue scenes when there should be fight scenes. Maybe they were going for something a little more serious and dour here, but...why? Either way, it doesn't work.

The problem with Nu-Image is that most of their movies kinda suck. They're trying too hard to be PM. But there's no sense of fun here. It's just "eh". For every one good bit there's about ten bad-to-mediocre bits. The lack of a strong, central villain helps undermine the movie, as it usually does. Sure, Gary holds it all together, but as strong a screen presence as he is, he can't save it. City of Fear could have used another name in the cast to help out. Richard Lynch, Robert Z'Dar, Martin Kove...even Frank Zagarino might have added something. Well, maybe not. But Daniels and Scary Spice running around Bulgaria talking for over 100 minutes isn't what you'd call must-see.

Compare this to other Daniels movies, and you'll see the disappointment here. It's truly a missed opportunity. As strong as Daniels' repertoire is, we guess they can't ALL be winners. Unfortunately, this is one of the rare non-awesome Gary Daniels movies.

City of Fear is recommended for Gary Daniels die-hards only.

For more action insanity, please visit: www.comeuppancereviews.com

Decent, But Daniels Has Done Much Better.

[mvilla · 5/10 · 12 February 2001]

The main problem with this movie is that it had a overall cheap look and feel to it. It also had long periods where nothing exciting really happened. But, Daniels fans will be happy to know that the man gets to show off his awesome fighting skills in some good fight sequences. Too bad there weren't more of them. Average overall, 5 out of 10. To see Daniels in top form, check out Recoil or Cold Harvest.

Not too good

[Bezenby · 5/10 · 8 May 2013]

Just about everyone on here is correct – this is strictly a lower tier Gary Daniels film that suffers from a lacklustre script, disinterested direction, and many, many mistakes. Daniels deserves more than this, I mean come on! One time me and Gary were out on a shoot in South Africa, and were boozed up on the local hooch, and I swear he somehow managed to roundhouse kick a giraffe right in the jaw! But here he is, running around Sofia in Bulgaria, trying to get to the bottom of something or other.

You see Gary is a reporter travelling to Bulgaria to see his scientist mate, and see him he does, getting carried out of his house in a coffin. Before you can say "Riot and Epicentre are much better films that this" Gary's got a seven foot tall stripper sidekick and is up against the Russian mafia and the Bulgarian military! Plus, everyone's got a secret and you can't help but think that Daniels should have just got the first flight home to blighty or Australia or America or wherever he's supposed to be from this time.

There's a staggering amount of continuity errors in this film (microphones, camera shadows, extras grinning at the camera), and too many 'wait a minute…how?' moments for anything to be believable, but Daniels is likable enough (although he adopts a strange stance throughout this film…you'd have to see it to know what I mean)…there's plenty of other Daniels films out there before you should try this one.

Lesser Gary Daniels vehicle

[Wizard-8 · 25 January 2011]

I rented this movie because it had the Nu Image brand on it. (Nu Image usually makes better-than-average direct-to-DVD movies.) However, when I started to watch it I discovered that it was a coproduction with producer Harry Alan Towers, who has made a number of turkeys in the past. It looks like Towers had more control over this movie, which would explain why the end results are unsatisfying. It's somewhat cheap-looking, and while its laid back style is refreshing at first, it soon becomes so laid back in whatever it does - including action sequences - that you'll wish they'd liven things up significantly. The martial arts aren't spectacular, being both poorly directed and choreographed, and the gunplay is pretty pathetic. There are also a few times when it seems that important footage is missing, leaving some questions hanging in the air. On the other hand, this is one of the rare times where a shot in Bulgaria movie is actually taking place in Bulgaria, and the ending for a change is not 100% happy. This isn't one of the worst movies ever made, but it would probably land on a list of the most mediocre movies ever made because it doesn't seem to be trying that hard in any way you can think of.

Avoid!

[vlahov · 1/10 · 24 September 2005]

Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called "movie".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!

Passable albeit not exactly notable

[HaemovoreRex · 4/10 · 6 December 2009]

For me at least, alarm bells immediately start ringing if I learn that a recent action or horror film has been shot in an Eastern European location. Please note that is in no way whatsoever any disrespect to the utilised foreign crews, quite the contrary - they are entirely as competent as any other, rather my problem is that the recent trend to shoot genre flicks in said countries has invariably produced some of the most truly mundane and inane action and horror fodder there is going! The film in question only reaffirms my viewpoint in fact and proves to be a fairly lacklustre affair affair at best. Having said that, matters do at least get off to a cracking start with our hero, Gary Daniels having a great fight in a car park. Sadly, this is undoubtedly the highlight of the entire film and certainly the best action scene contained in its run time. To be fair, it's not a terrible film by any means and Daniels surprisingly gives a better acting performance than normal (no, really!) but I'd be hard pressed to recommend it to anyone other than die hard fans of Gary's work. A shame really.

Cheapo Bulgarian action from Harry Alan Towers

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 17 February 2016]

Gary Daniels (SUBMERGED) is the star of the show in this low-rent C-grade thriller that eschews action for plot, and comes off all the worse because of that. The story is a convoluted mystery involving Daniels as a reporter investigating the death of an old buddy. Cops, robbers and the Russian mafia are inevitably involved and repeatedly try to kill Daniels before he finds out too much. Sigh.

Yep, it's a story as old as the hills and portrayed particularly badly here, with sloppy, nonsensical editing and a real 'cheap' feel to it in every aspect of the production. Like many modern B-movies this was filmed in Bulgaria, and the producers actually deserve kudos for setting their film in Bulgaria rather than pretending that Eastern Europe looks like America.

Otherwise things are strictly routine and the film follows the tired formula of plot, action, plot action ad infinitum. The bad news for action fans is that it isn't even very good. A car chase plays it safe all the while, offering nothing new or unseen to the genre, and the martial arts fights are few and far between. The shoot-outs are cheesy beyond belief. There are probably about half a dozen spread out throughout the film which is just not enough.

Now, Daniels is a great martial artist, and when he does get to fight, he does a damn good job. So it's bizarre that they didn't let him do it more often! Daniels is a better fighter than he is an actor but he does a good job here compared to others in the cast. He's one of those actors that are impossible to dislike. As for the rest of the cast, they're instantly forgettable. One guy does a poor Jim Carrey impersonation while the love interest is played by the particularly bland and unattractive Carol Campbell.

Things begin to make more sense when you realise this was written and produced by none other than notorious exploitation legend Harry Alan Towers under his 'Peter Welbeck' pseudonym. CITY OF FEAR carries on in Towers' cheap, anything-for-a-buck tradition that the 81 year old shows no signs of stopping just yet.

Yes, I've found it! - the worst film ever made.

[freydis-e · 1/10 · 9 February 2020]

The "scary" city in question is Sofia, Bulgaria, which I happen to know well. Hadn't realised it was the wild west as recently as 2000 though, with thugs firing machine guns on every street corner. Of course it wasn't, even back then it was a modern sophisticated city - they just chose it as a cheap place to shoot this rubbish. Of course there are lots of films out there which are useless in every respect. This one is just a little bit more so.

Some other reviewers seem to like hopeless lead "actor", Gary Daniels. I'd never heard of him and pray I never will again. The only thing more ridiculous than his dyed-blond mullet, dopey expressions (it's impossible to tell what emotion he's trying and failing to convey) and silly accent is the guy's complete inability to act - it felt like he was reading off cards held up by someone just out of shot, with no real idea what the words meant. Apparently this guy is a kick boxer who once fought someone who fought JCVD. Great! They managed to match him with a female lead who also couldn't act. Can't imagine why they cast this freakishly tall woman, who must be well over six feet and towered over Daniels, even with her frizzy hair tamped absurdly down to minimise the difference.

The rest of the "acting" plumbed further depths (probably because the local actors they recruited didn't speak English and no-one bothered to tell them what they were saying) and the film dragged on at a snail's pace with a stupid stilted script and a plot that was silly and clichéd at the same time. Neither Daniels nor anyone else showed that much fighting ability and the action scenes were either routine or daft, as when on TWO occasions, just as a vital witness is about to tell our hero all, they both get sprayed with machine gun fire, the witness is riddled with bullets but the hero unhurt.

There's nothing entertaining here and no reason to watch. Literally I have never seen anything worse. The only so-bad-it's-funny laugh comes with the final line: "This is one story that should never be told." If only the film-makers had figured that out!

The WORST movie I have ever seen.

[ActionEcologist · 20 September 2001]

I wish to preface these comments by saying that I don't usually like to criticise the efforts of other Directors. That being said however, this is positively the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I have had the misfortune of being witness to some absolute travesties of cinema in my time but this must be right up there with "Scorpio Rising" in my opinion as an example of the worst possible waste of time, money, effort, and attention I can ever claim to have been associated with. From the very moment the titles began, I was dubious. This was followed by a wave of disbelief, a hope that this was a spoof, then the fits of embarrassed laughter took over and I can honestly say that every film-making mistake and cliche that I could think of at the time was being paraded on screen before my very eyes. The acting was non-existent, the lead actor was tragically mannered, wooden, and frighteningly bad. So bad that i could only imagine he was there for the "Fight sequences" if you could call them that. They too were cliched, pointless and boring. I'm not even going to comment on the other 1 dimensional jokes of characters that are thrown in there. Every possible stereotype and cliche you could imagine. As soon as you thought that they were all used up, there would be one more you had forgotten about being thrust at you. The directing was woeful, the pace mind numbing, the writing abysmal. I had to wonder how the Director managed to decipher the bar napkins the script must have come off through the obvious state he must have been in to bother to make such drivel. The financiers mustn't have even read anything, and it is a insulting piece of garbage that quite frankly saddens me. To think that there are so many deserving film makers all around the world that struggle to even get the necessary equipment and film stock to make their pictures, and here we see it squandered on what any deranged monkey could see was a piece of rubbish. If i could give it minus stars I would. But for comedy value, or for a lesson on what not to do, it can have it's one star.

City of Fear (2000) - Average Gary Daniels flick

[khellcatgaming · 8/10 · 19 February 2022]

Gary Edward Daniels - one of the most skillful martial arts actors of his era, and undeniably my favourite. But I am gonna be completely unbiased with this review of the film City of Fear (2000).

{No Spoilers}

Let's start of by listing the films Daniels is famous for. The amazing thriller 'Bloodmoon', the quite entertaining White Tiger, and the sub-par 'Fatal Blade'. I'm yet to watch some of his more popular films, so let's stop that list there.

Compared to Bloodmoon, or White Tiger, City of Fear is a relatively average film. Action is scattered at random points throughout the movie, but each fight scene is a solid one, with fluid choreography, and of course, the brilliance of Gary Daniels.

But the suspense plot bores you out in the middle from time-to-time. In each of these phases, you can either leave, or hang out long enough for another spike of interest.

But that is not the sign of good film. A good film keeps the viewer engaged throughout the film, and City of Fear fails to do that by being to slow-paced for its Action-Thriller genre. The relatively bland dialogue delivery doesn't help it, and if anything, makes it more unbearable in certain moments.

The films has a decent plot, interesting twist, and top-notch fight scenes, but fails to take any advantage of it.

Overall, it's still more entertaining than the pretty boring Fatal Blade, but if you want to see a film that will immortalize the name 'Gary Daniels' in your heart, this isn't it. Bloodmoon, White Tiger are great and the ones I haven't watched, but have heard to be pretty good are Cold Harvest, Fist of North Star(Have been told to 'ignore the plot' on this one), Rage, and Recoil.

Signing off, Random 15 y.o. On the Internet.

Plodding pace, ugly locations, dull action = a waste of time.

[aloep · 30 January 2005]

This was on a box set with 12 films which I bought for £8.99. This however was probably the worst of them all. Gary Daniels has done well on movies like Deadly Target, Recoil, Rage and Riot but since the demise of PM Entertainment who produced these movies, his choices have not been good. This is a NuImage production and while they have done several excellent straight to video movies, their main goal seems to be to make as many movies as possible per year and have employed the likes of Yossi Wein and Danny Lerner to direct ultra low budget and often hilariously bad flicks. This doesn't feel quite as low budget as some of the others in that it all consists of original footage and if there's anything positive to say about it, the lighting and picture are clean and the shots are focused and unlike most of those NuImage Bulgaria productions, it is actually set in the city it is shot in, Sofia!

However, City Of Fear is an "action" movie that completely fails to deliver in all counts. The plot is boring, the pace is absolutely plodding, the action scenes are few and far between and the few that are there are dull and way too short to give any lasting impression. The fight scenes are disappointing given Gary Daniels talents. The pace is very slow and a lot of the film consists of characters standing around being idle, often doing nothing that was sufficient to the story itself. The locations are dreary and overcast. Gary Daniels does his best to struggle through the material but his lack of interest clearly shows. The female lead while not only hugely unattractive and shows no interest either. Nobody is having any fun here, and I neither did I.

Basically, unless you are a huge, huge Gary Daniels fan, I could never recommend this to anyone. Not wretched enough to qualify as "so bad it's good" yet so lacking in any redeeming values to be classed as entertainment. If you want to see Gary Daniels in action try Deadly Target, Rage, Recoil, Riot, White Tiger or even Cold Harvest. Just stay away from City Of Fear.

The price says it all!

[mozzkingofnicotine · 11 November 2004]

As the other person who has reviewed this film says 'its cheap' it

cost me a pound from (suprise,suprise!) the pound shop. It is

obviously a low budget film though is far from being the worst film

for seen, i have definitely paid more for worse! in fact the low

budget style, pathetic special effects and crap acting almost give

this film a strange charm. Its fun, rubbish but fun and for a pound,

value for money. Don't pay more though. P.s look out for the old looking car that goes up a ramp and tips over, you can see through the front screen that there is no-one in the car because the camera work is so rubbish!