Showing posts with label low budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label low budget. Show all posts

Monday, August 9, 2010

Special Forces (2003) - By Mark Oswald


Well I said in my review of Attack Force Z that I was going to be reviewing some more group-based Action films in preparation for The Expendables, which comes out in a few days. Now I haven’t exactly filled my quota, so to speak, but I’ve at least got a cheesy but good one here to tell you guys about, and hopefully I’ll get another one done before taking in Sly’s newest Action extravaganza this Thursday at Midnight.

Special Forces is the first Action/Martial Arts collaboration from Israeli DTV auteur Isaac Florentine, and ass-kicker Scott Adkins. The film actually stars Marshall Teague (Armageddon, some episodes of “Walker, Texas Ranger”) and his merry band of Army Special Forces (!) soldiers, assigned to missions involving the infiltration/elimination of enemy targets and whatnot. The team is first introduced mid-mission by the old freeze frame on their face while the character’s name is plastered on-screen beneath them. In this first encounter, they offer an impressive display of silenced-shootings mixed with a quick martial arts move here and there and this is basically the form of combat they stick with for the remainder of the film. I also must say that regardless of a serious lack of character depth and/or development, they come across as a very tight-knit group of military bros.


The main story revolves around a power-mad Russian military guy who decides to take a female journalist hostage after she and her photographer witness the slaughter of a few dozen peasant villagers. After a video tape is sent to the American government, demanding a ransom for her life, the Special Forces team is dispatched to Russia in order to rescue the girl. While there, they must rendezvous with the surviving member of a British SAS team that had been sent into the country on a previous mission. Scott Adkins (with native accent for once) plays the sole survivor as a charismatic loner who is willing to help out the SF team when needed, but is primarily interested in exacting his revenge against the evildoers responsible for the slaughter of his unit.

Adkins, of course, really steals the show from the Americans. Because like, you know, they are well trained and kick a lot of ass and everything, but it doesn’t really matter, because he’s Scott Adkins. Whenever the film goes back to the SF members fighting after watching him do his thing, it just doesn’t compare. Adkins is always impressive, but here he seems faster than ever since it was before he bulked up a little more as to not look scrawny in comparison to Michael Jai White in Undisputed II. I mean he’s a very muscular guy anyways, but Jai White is just fucking large. Adkins’ acting in his native voice is overall pretty decent. You can tell he’s more relaxed than in his stiffer American roles, but maybe not having as much fun as in his aggressive Russian ones. You can tell he’s more comfortable fighting than in the dialogue scenes, probably because: A) He was only 26 and less experienced at the time, and B) the actual dialogue isn’t exactly what I’d call “rich”. I also found it kind of funny how the script had him calling people “chaps” and “blokes” and stuff a non-British writer would probably think he would say, but none of that shit sounds natural coming out of his mouth for some reason, so I thought that was pretty funny.

The requisite evil Russian in this movie is played by Eli Danker, who went on the play the mystical, wheelchair-bound inmate who helps out Michael Jai White in Undisputed II. In that movie his character was a grumpy, but sad-eyed old man, whose subplot added some heart to the film’s third act. Here he plays the typical evil foreign military bad guy; but he’s a solid actor, so he makes a memorable role out of one that would have otherwise been cliché and forgettable. Marshall Teague, as our main heroic type, does a solid job playing the uber-patriotic squad leader who is still scarred from a devastating previous encounter with Danker’s character. He has the utmost respect for the men under his command, but doesn’t baby them when they’re feeling less than optimistic about the mission. You know; tough love and all that…


The highlight of the film was during the final battle(s), which consisted of a fight between Teague and Danker shown parallel with a fight between Adkins and Danker’s right-hand man, who it seems was the one responsible for the assassination of Adkins’ team. The juxtaposition between the two encounters works well because of the different fighting styles being used. Teague and Danker duke it out in more of a clumsy brawl; punching, kicking, and utilizing improvised weaponry whenever possible. Meanwhile Adkins and the other dude (couldn’t figure out the guy’s name from the movie’s IMDB page) go at it in a highly-stylized and excellently choreographed martial arts battle of epic proportions. It is seriously fucking awesome. I absolutely did not want it to end and I should’ve been counting the times I let out an exclamation of “Whoa!” in addition to tracking the film’s impressively high body count. I’ve enjoyed immensely the fights worked out in the Undisputed sequels, but when the fighters actually get to perform in an outside-the-ring capacity, able to utilize and react to objects around them in inspiring ways, it is even more captivating.

Isaac Florentine, as usual, demonstrates some of his patented directorial flair. Lots of energetic camera movements and “whoosh” sound effects whenever something is swung, thrown, etc. The editing again is stylish and fast-paced, but never convulsive or disorientating. The film’s weaker moments reside mostly in the scripting department. The dialogue is nothing special, and often very cliché, except for a few golden nuggets sprinkled throughout. The look of the film exhibits its lack of a big budget. For example, even though this film came out three years after Proof of Life, it looks like it was shot ten years prior. A lot of the acting of course fails to reach the heights of Brando, Pacino, and at times even a young Seagal, but I’ve seen a hell of a lot worse too. Another thing that might bother some people is the balls out sense of American pride on display here. The SF guys are so gung-ho and stereotypical that it might turn some people off, but I thought it was all just corny enough to work. Plus none of them talk too much so I wouldn’t let any of that stop you from seeing this thing. Also, there is more than enough action on hand to help you overlook these detractions.

Next up is probably Florentine’s U.S. Seal’s II. No Adkins in that one, but oh well. You can’t have it all.


Body Count – 175! (Not including the lives lost in the peasant village massacre, since there were, sadly, just too many to count)

Thursday, June 3, 2010

No Way Back (1996) - By Mark Oswald


An obscure mid-90’s Action movie starring Russell Crowe? And it’s not Virtuosity? Even more obscure, you say? Well get me on in there!

The truth is; this is a pretty weird movie. Story-wise it goes in several different directions that you probably weren’t expecting. What starts as an FBI thriller, switches to road movie, then to buddy movie, and then to silly movie. Visually, it looks like a glorified student film. Yet the filmmakers still managed to secure actors like the above-mentioned Crowe, Kelly Hu (The Tournament), recognizable “that guy” actor Michael Lerner, Francios Chau (Dr. Pierre Chang from “LOST”), and "90210"’s Ian-fucking-Ziering as a Skinhead gang leader! In case you are uncertain, yes; that is pure excitement you’re feeling. The son of Crowe’s character is played by Andrew J. Ferchland, who none of you probably know, but looked so damn familiar to me while watching that I swear he must’ve also been the young kid in like Stepmom or something; not that I’ve ever watched that, of course. Turns out it must have been The Last Leprechaun I was thinking of…

Take it eeeeeeeaaasy...

So how does this thing stack up as an action film? Well, not bad. There were several points where I was unsure about whether or not someone’s bullets actually made contact with an adversary, though. It wasn’t until I didn’t see that person again that I decided they must’ve been killed, and racked up one more point for the body count. There was one part of the movie that I found really funny/interesting. There is a point where Crowe’s character is transporting a high-ranking member of the Yakuza to L.A. on a plane and when the guy gets free and hijacks the plane, Crowe acquires one of those plastic 2-shot pistols, like John Malkovich made in In the Line of Fire, from a surprise bad guy onboard. Then while in the cockpit, the Yakuza dude ends up getting his hands on a flare gun! I gotta say this image of two badasses going head to head with plastic guns brought a big ol' smile to my face.


One of the main things I kept questioning during the film was why Russell Crowe had agreed to do it at all. I mean I liked the movie enough and I wouldn’t call it complete garbage or anything, but even though he hadn’t hit stardom yet, it still seemed like a pretty low-brow role to take. He had appeared in both Virtuosity and Sam Raimi’s The Quick and the Dead the year before and you’d think he would at least be moving up in the industry from there, so this role is a little perplexing. Still though, it’s always funny to see big name actors show up in B-movies before they really attained stardom. As a matter of fact, No Way Back’s director, Frank A. Cappello, had made his previous movie, American Yakuza, with none other than Viggo Mortensen in the lead! How this guy, who to this day has only directed 3 films, was able to snag these future superstars before their time is a mystery to me, but still strangely awesome as well. He did apparently write Suburban Commando, though. So maybe I shouldn’t be so astounded.

So should you check out this movie? Umm…sure; if for nothing else than your own curiosity and the fact that it may continuously shake up your expectations in amusing ways.


Body Count – 31

American Flags – 2 (Yeah sorry, that was a weak one)


Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Silent Rage (1982) - by Mark Oswald

 

Here’s something you don’t see every day: a low budget slasher-movie mixed with an even lower budget Chuck Norris action vehicle.


When a clandestine psychopath (wearing a fully-buttoned collared shirt so you know he’s crazy) finally wigs out and kills two people in their suburban home in Texas, local Sherriff, Dan Stevens is called to the scene to deal with the perpetrator. After some of the most poorly choreographed fight scenes I’ve ever seen in a film…of any kind, the killer ends up being shot multiple times by Dan’s fellow officers. It’s then that he’s taken to the local hospital that coincidentally doubles for a research facility…and placed under the care of three doctors. One is Dr. Tom Halman, a level-headed guy played by Timecop villain Ron Silver, who seems to have everyone’s best interests at heart when he makes the decision to let the killer die of his wounds, rather than be subjected to an experimental formula devised by his creepy associates. One that, according to them, could possibly save the man’s life, though the side effects would be completely unpredictable. If the good doctor’s orders had been properly followed we probably wouldn’t be talking about this film right now, so it’s pretty obvious that once Halman leaves the room, the remaining doctors, Spires and Vaughn, decide to administer the formula anyway. 


What happens next is just really a shock to everyone (unless they read the film’s description on the DVD case or online somewhere). The killer, awkwardly played by Brian Libby, gains a Wolverine-like or The Crow-like ability to heal himself after being injured. I have to say that the practical effect they use to show the healing process is one of the more admirable things about the film. So I will give the filmmakers points for that one. What I will NOT give them points for are the ridiculously obvious ways they rip-off John Carpenter’s Halloween. From the P.O.V. shot walking into the house, grabbing a knife, etc. at the beginning to placing bodies around the house to surprise his next supposed victim. They’re all here once again for you to enjoy, only in a far inferior movie.

So what do you think?

One thing that surprised me though, was the relationship between Chuck and his girl. They start the film bickering, due to their previous failed relationship, but when things get going again between them, they really seem to be into each other, like convincingly. They have a surprisingly good chemistry, which I normally wouldn’t expect between Chuck and anyone outside of his pet Armadillo from Invasion U.S.A. The two of them even spend a whole day just having sex and nibbling off this fruit & cheese plate that always seems to be nearby. I do have to mention that Chuck’s character, Dan Stevens, has a big “Texas-sized” belt buckle sporting a huge “S” in the center. As corny as this is, I also found it to be a nice little personal touch to help any Norris fans to distinguish Stevens from Walker, Texas Ranger. Because aside from the belt buckle, his outfit is damn near identical. Oh, and I guess since he has a full beard in Walker and only a mustache in this one, that they are totally different characters. Another excellent personal touch!

So what do YOU think?

There is a great bar fight in the middle of the film where Chuck’s partner/comic relief, played by Steven Furst, leaves him to “call for backup.” Even though any self-respecting Norris fan knows that he needs no help in defeating an entire bar full of unruly bikers. The fighting here is slightly better choreographed than that abominatiuon in the first scene. Or maybe there’s just more going on to distract your eyes. This scene is a lot of fun and I really wished the movie had featured more like it (Chuck kicks a guy in the face roughly seven times before the dude hits the floor). If there had been, it probably would have been more entertaining all around. You see, there are several “stalking” scenes where the Michael Myers-esque Libby slowly follows his victims around in the dark. I don’t understand why sometimes he is moving at a literal snail’s pace, and then all of a sudden he’ll burst into action and go after people like his life depended on it. Needless to say, the majority of these scenes aren’t all that exciting since there really isnt’t any tension, probably because of Libby’s general goofiness.


Also, I just have to mention the part where Libby gets dragged by a car through grassy terrain. It’s clearly somebody really getting dragged here, which always these types of stunts more exciting to watch. Finally, I’m not really giving anything away, but the final battle between Chuck and Libby could almost rival They Live in its awkwardness and extreme length. Then again, I did say “almost.” Another plus is Ron Silver. He’s a good actor and I’m surprised he hasn’t had more high-profile work. He sort of gives the film some legitimacy here and there. Also, he’s looking kind of like Al Pacino in Serpico in this one, which is obviously a plus. And come to think of it, I’ll be damned if he hasn’t aged in the time between this film (1982) and Timecop (1994). Good genes, I guess.

Local Roadkill BBQ was a bad choice...

Well I think overall this movie is definitely worth a look, if only for its own oddities. “Michael Myers” vs. Chuck Norris? Sign me up.


Body Count – 10

Number of times Halloween is ripped off – 7 (at least)


This came up in the "Silent Rage" Google search...?