Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane

Have you ever watched a VHS (remember those?) that was copied from a tape that was already a copy? If you did, you'd know the quality was really bad by that point. That's how copies work...the more generations you make, the worse it gets. That's pretty much how I'd sum up this film. It feels like a Tarantino rip off, and all but Tarantino's first couple movies are rip offs themselves (you can call it an "homage" all you want...the dude steals stuff and makes a few minor changes).

The plot is pretty basic at best. A couple of friends decide to save their failing used car dealership by taking on more than they can handle with a random assortment of bad guys. Of course by the time that happened I was already bored to tears. The writers try to make up for a tired story with some snappy dialog and succeed once or twice, but overall the whole thing is just one big failure. They should really remove the "blood" and "guts" part of the title...there's not much of the former and none of the latter. The "bullets" part is up for debate as well since there's not much in the way of gun play going on. Sadly, there's not much of anything going onat all. Period. It's just bad...even for a low budget rip off.

Well, you have hand it to the filmmakers on this one. How they managed to hypnotize Lions Gates into releasing this low-budget piece of crap must be an amazing story. Too bad they don't give out Oscars for chutzpah. These guys would be a shoe-in. Why don't I like this movie? Well, for one thing the plot makes no sense at all (how many weeks does raw, nonrefrigerated blood last in the trunk of a car?), the dialogue is horribly overdone and annoying, and the acting is grade C throughout. I actually saw someone praise the cinematography in this movie. Heck, even to use the work cinematography to describe the camera work in the film is laughable, and an insult to real filmmakers everywhere. The film's entire `style' consists of close-up shots of the actors in poorly lit and badly decorated sets. Do these guys know what a wide-angle lens is? The only time it gets a passable grade is in the final 2 or 3 minutes of the movie. It might have been fun if they had made it into a goofy comedy. Actually, Ed Wood fans might find this one a treat. I just saw this one in a theater, so it might look less cheap on television. Hey, I'm trying to find SOME pluses here. Seeya.

Either this is one genius piece of filmwork or someone owes a debt of gratitude to Oliver Stone & Quentin Tarantino. Either way, the film takes off like a super jet and you better do some serious 100 meter dashing just to keep up. With more witty dialogue than 3 Lock Stocks, 2 Trainspottings, and a Pulp Fiction in a pear tree. This little flik here is what independent filmmaking is all about. I heard they made it on only $8,000. Shoot, you give em 8 mil, turn it into a polished up mainstream remake, and you got a cult-classic that will stand the test of time A+++

Check this one out if you like corny, campy action movies. I'm not ashamed to say that I do, and enjoyed it. The acting is wooden, but come on, the movie had a miniscule budget. The story is pretty good, and the dialogue is (unintentionally?) hilarious.

I did not like this movie when I saw it in the theater. I basically thought it was another Quentin Tarantino rip off. But I saw it again on cable and i realized what this movie really was. It is basically a marvel of movie making. As said before, the acting and delivery is wooden, but that was what gave it it's charm. It reminded me of Mamet's House of Games. I think the director Joe Carnahan is the new Quentin Tarentino... and will be one to watch.