See a boiled egg fly through the air from one mans mouth to another mans mouth and then back again - all in Technicolor!
Comedy - negligible. Interest factor - negligible. Original cast members - negligible. Audiences watching it in the theatres in 1994 - negligible. Box office gross - negligible.
Farting noises - absolutely. Cartoon sound effects - absolutely. Disinterested/embarrassed performances - absolutely. Enthusiastic Russian actors who believe they are performing in a masterpiece - absolutely.
After watching this movie I had forgotten how to smile. I saw somebody else laughing and I had to ask them what they were doing with their face and what the unusual sound meant.
Filipe Manuel Neto
Feb 11, 2017
1/10
An unnecessary film.
Sometimes it seems producers have a hard time understanding when a movie shouldn't be made. The “Police Academy” franchise should have ended in the sixth film, and even then it would be ending up pretty worn out. This film, made several years later, was an effort that was simply needless and certainly leaves no one with good memories.
After seeing the movie, I was really sorry that the franchise ended with such a bad movie. It was something that, for me, should have been avoided. “Police Academy” was one of the most interesting and successful comic franchises of the 80s, and there are still many people who have fond memories of these films today. I myself, as a child, saw them several times on television.
The script is perfectly idiotic and a simple excuse to take some of the characters in the film to post-Soviet Russia, where they must help the local police to fight a big mobster who is turning into an oligarch (one of many that, as we know, emerged from the ashes of the communist regime, fat with shady deals in which the Russian people ended up losing). It's an unhappy, poor script made by incapable people. Humor, on the other hand, is completely absent. I don't laugh for a single minute.
The cast, which until now had been relatively stable (with the absence of several actors starting from the fourth film), had completely collapsed, and most actors refused to be part of this project. George Gaynes is back, but his character, Commander Lassard, looks simply like an old man with Alzheimer's (with all due respect to anyone suffering from this serious illness, don't get me wrong). Gaynes is not funny, and his performance here is disgraceful. Michael Winslow also tries to make some of the jokes he's already used to us, taking advantage of his vocal skills... but he doesn't have the material or time and what he does has no freshness or novelty. Sir Christopher Lee makes a brief appearance in the film, and as far as I can understand, he did so as a favor to the producer. Friendship is a beautiful thing, and also professional courtesy, but I bet Lee won't want to be remembered for this movie (and he certainly won't, he's done better things, as we know). Who ends up standing out in some way is Ron Perlman. The actor, who we know for other, much more dignified works, tried to be funny and give some dignity to his character. Meritorious, respectable, but unworthy of the actor he is. The rest of the cast is not worth mentioning.
Are there any redeeming qualities in this film? To be honest, I don't think so..., but even so, I feel obliged to make a small caveat: I liked the fact that they did a lot of the filming in the real city of Moscow and that they used real Russian extras and Russian speakers. This gives the film a certain authenticity that deserves to be highlighted, and which is most lacking nowadays, where any piece of green or blue screen replaces a real set and saves a few dollars on the production budget. However, it must have taken courage and some dose of madness to try to make a film in the midst of the political and military upheavals Russia was experiencing in those years.
