1) Low budget. I mean REALLY LOW BUDGET. If they spent $20k to make this stinker, I'd be amazed. Richard Hatch must really be desperate for work these days. The tanks are radio-controlled models. You never see actors in the same shots with moving tanks. The close-ups are plywood or cardboard mock-ups. The interiors shots look like they were filmed inside a closet. The electronics of the "supertanks" are about as convincing as the bridge controls of the Starship Enterprise from the Star Trek TV series . . .no, they are worse.
2) Editing flubs, like dangling mikes on-camera, and spectators in the background of fight-scenes.
3) Totally gratuitous nudity. Why would two members of a crack tank crew (male and female, thank God!)hunting a dangerous fugitive decide to sudenly have a sexual liason in a deserted town where they KNOW the fugitive is hiding? In broad daylight, no less.
4) Obvious rip-off of "BLUE THUNDER"
5) Totally deceptive cover art. The DVD cover shows M60 tanks and Apache helicopters, neither of which show up in the film.
6) Looks like it was shot on video tape. You've heard of "straight to video" (no theatrical release)? This clunker looks like "straight FROM video".
I really wonder if this movie wasn't some college kid's art school project? Maybe Richard Hatch's nephew or something?
So why isn't it a total waste of a buck? Well, it's SO bad, that it's almost a comedy. Watch it and you will laugh - I guarantee it. This movie makes "BEST DEFENCE" (remember that stinker?) look like Oscar material! If I was responsible for making this movie, I would be ashamed to release it for public viewing.
Anybody else (un)fortunate enough to have see it?

