Direct Action

Dolph Lundgren is one of my favorite B movie actors, so when I got a chance to see his movie "Direct Action", you can be sure that I took it. In this movie, Lundgren is in fine form, giving a likable and relaxed performance, and giving it his all in the action sequences. Unfortunately, the script and direction he was working with are disappointments. The script has a number of plot holes (if Lundgren's character wants to testify, why doesn't the prosecution give him some protection?), and has a number of twists and turns that will be very familiar to those well versed in B movies. And while Lundgren gives it his all in the action sequences, the action is directed and edited in a way that never rises above routine. The most striking thing about the entire enterprise is its strange setting. While Canadian director Sidney J. Furie makes no attempt to hide Canadian license plates as well as Canadian businesses like Mr. Sub and Swiss Chalet, at the same time there are a number of references to American things like the FBI and the CIA!

Given that I had read several positive reviews on this movie and that it comes from the hands of Sidney J Furie, a veteran for over 40 years responsible for 1960's spy thrillers like The Ipcress File and The Naked Runner and has also delivered some very slick direct to video action movies such as Top Of The World, The Rage and Hollow Point as well as the largely underrated 1991 theatrical release The Taking Of Beverly Hills. Furthermore, he also did Detention with Dolph Lundgren which was by no means great but I enjoyed it a lot more than many others did. Given that the general opinion of this was "a step up from Detention", I couldn't wait. Well, having seen the finished product it doesn't really surprise me it's been shelved for so long. It isn't bad, but it could be so much better.

None of this can be blamed on Lundgren or any of the cast really for that matter, as much of them deliver acceptable to good performances. Lundgren especially deserves credit as he is in excellent shape and does very well in the action scenes. The film has a good sense of pacing, never letting up enough for the action to stop and plot itself is fine for the type of movie.

What really lets this down is the very poor production values - it looks extremely cheap. No better than a Roger Corman produced Bloodfist film for example. Automatic weapons are fired at cars in the line of fire and they don't receive one bullet hole and no glass breaks. We just get a couple of very simple CGI sparks. This happens way too often, and becomes very hard to ignore. There is also some incredibly bad editing. Weather will change from clear Sunny skies to rain and back in seconds. And there's no interesting locations. All you'll get is residential areas and some abandoned factories. The budget of apparently 5-8 million certainly hasn't been well spent. Of course none of this really makes the movie any less watchable, but it's all those little touches that make a movie all that more enjoyable to watch.

Overall, this is a decent, entertaining action picture with all the visual flair of a TV drama but it's worth a watch once and for Dolph Lundgren fans it will be a must. I would probably have enjoyed it more with lower expectations, but the overall low quality of the movie is something I just couldn't ignore. Sorry.

Had I heard about the 2004 action crime thriller "Direct Action" prior to stumbling upon it here in 2023? No, not even remotely. But that is the thing with the Dolph Lundgren movies, isn't it? They don't really make much of any stirring out there.

But with it being a movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I opted to sit down and watch it.

And I have to say that writers Greg Mellott and Sidney J. Furie actually put together a rather good script. Sure, the storyline was sort of generic and predictable, but it still made for a good viewing experience. And this was actually one of the better of Dolph Lundgren movies.

The acting performances in "Direct Action" were good. This was, as I mentioned just above, one of the better of Dolph Lundgren movies, and that sort of makes it worthwhile sitting down to watch. I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble, aside from Dolph Lundgren, but the actors and actresses put on good performances.

There is a good amount of action throughout the course of the 97 minutes that the movie ran for. And that helped making "Direct Action" all the more enjoyable.

My rating of director Sidney J. Furie's 2004 movie "Direct Action" lands on a six out of ten stars.

"Direct Action" is one of the best direct-to-video action flicks ever.

Frank Gannon (Lundgren) is about to blow the whistle on a group of dirty cops from the "Direct Action Unit". But first, he has to train his new partner, Billie Ross (Polly Shannon). During a drive to a coffee house, they are ambushed by the cops. Gannon kills them all. When some other members hear about this, they also try to kill them.

The plot is simple, but exciting. All the action scenes are terrific. You don't usually get to see Lundgren use his hand-to-hand combat skills, when he does, it's awesome. He did all of his own stunts.

Like Van Damme, Lundgren is branching out as an actor. He does a great job. Polly Shannon is a good foil for him. They have a nice chemistry.

In the end: "Direct Action" is one of best action movies out there. Grab some popcorn, crank up the volume and you'll have a fun time.

For more insanity, please check out: comeuppancereviews.com

Although I admire the ambition enough to give this 4/10 It is certainly not a 5/10 movie as IMDB has it listed.

The film is going for a grounded gritty take on police procedural akin to 'Training Day' it simply doesn't have the budget to pull it off.

At times it looks amateurish.

I dont want to be too harsh on it but some of the continuity problems pulled me right out of the movie completely... And I am not sure I even finished it.

It was ambitious and I think with a bigger budget and some reshoots it could have improved the movie.

I would probably rate it 3.5/10 I wouldn't reccomend it personally, but I do think there is an audience for this one...just not for me.

1.5/5 stars. Avoid.