Under the Gun

I like Richard Norton. I've seen several of his movies; he's a decent enough actor, and his skills as a martial artist, stunt performer, and stunt coordinator are noteworthy. It was his involvement, specifically, that brought this title to my attention. Actors are constrained by the quality of the material they're given, however, and the quality of the direction, and to be very frank 'Under the gun' leaves a lot to be desired. I can appreciate that this was accordingly Matthew George's first film, made when he was quite young, and he demonstrates basic competence as both writer and director. "Basic competence" only gets one so far, however, and the sad fact of the matter is that this a bumpy ride that plainly shows George's inexperience in the medium. It's passably enjoyable, yet pardon me if I can't muster especial enthusiasm.

The stunts and fight sequences are unquestionably the chief highlight, a credit to Norton as choreographer and stuntman, and to everyone else who plays along; the practical effects are well done. This is an action flick first and foremost, and while at times it seems like we don't get as much as we'd hope, the dispensation is worth it when all is said and done. Working with what they had, the cast give suitable performances (if certainly nothing revelatory), and the sets are admirable, if modest. Rough as the proceedings are, there are still plenty of good ideas all throughout these ninety minutes: bad luck, desperation, corruption, multiple parties all gunning after the same interests, betrayal, and every proverbial chicken coming home to roost for a former ice hockey champion turned night club owner (what?), who of course is also a very skilled fighter because Richard Norton. It's a hodgepodge, but it's reasonably well done, and some moments are extra smart. The latter goes chiefly for the action, but even in his directorial debut, George deserves some high marks, too, including an extra raucous and violent climax that is surprisingly solid.

All that is the good news. The bad news is that in some important ways the picture is sorely uneven. Too much of this seems to have been conjured with the melodramatic sensibilities of a daytime soap opera, including and not limited to terrible, on the nose dialogue dialogue and cringe-worthy one-liners; milquetoast music, and weird tonal shifts including attempted infusion of romance and emotional beats; and instances of overacting, meager production values and bare-faced cinematography (it even looks like daytime television), and less robust direction, all of which sometimes pointedly betray the inauthenticity of the production. I said there were some good ideas here, and I meant it, but there are too many ideas, and the surfeit adds to the melodrama and the inauthenticity, and somewhat weakens the fun of the action sequences. Then there are moments so overblown as to be almost parodical, such as a garbled scene right around the halfway mark where multiple characters are coming into conflict and yelling unintelligibly, and it seems like George had just given up on trying to bring cinematic order; any time we see one particular faction rush gung-ho into the nightclub, the execution would need no alteration to fit right in with a Monty Python sketch.

I don't think the feature is bad. Part of me wonders if I'm not being too harsh; it's not as if this pretends to be anything it's not. It has real strengths. It also has real flaws, however, and no matter how magnanimous one is inclined to be, those flaws weigh heavily against the sum total. I did have a good time watching, and all the while there were also points where I was all but flummoxed by the choices that were made here. If you're looking for a fair action title, something to sate your cravings without requiring or inspiring major engagement, then this is worth checking out on a quiet day. However, even if you're a diehard fan of Norton or someone else involved, 'Under the gun' falls well short of demanding viewership, and I recommend approaching with keen awareness that the movie is not the cream of the crop.

Richard Norton is entertaining in anything, and in this he's funny as well. The scene where he bites a telephone in frustration (ad-libbed!) had my husband and me nearly rolling on the floor. Of course, it's a very serious movie, with some very tense and some tragic moments in addition to the many funny ones, but it has a happy ending.

THIS FILM IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. Richard Norton must the greatest actor ever to come out of Australia. His acting, fighting and screen presence are all fantastic and he holds the film together with his abundantly magnetic charisma and martial arts skills. It is a mystery why the great Richard Norton has not had more lead roles in his career because he easily has the charisma and acting skills, not to mention his incredible level of fighting skills, to match the Van Dammes and Seagals of this world. It's also worth mentioning the amount of times he bottles people in this film, he is truly prolific. in my humble opinion he should be crowned KING OF THE WORLD.

'Under the Gun' is one of those movies which can be hit or miss. It's not really martial arts movie, It's actually much more than that. Norton's character is running the night club which he wants to sell and get away with his wife but obviously one last night in the club turns out to be the worst night of his life. I have to say that I was impressed with Richard Norton's performance. This is the first time I have seen him doing real and I mean REAL acting. Usually his movies are packed with top notch martial arts but not acting. Aside from Norton, we have Kathy Long who's top billed but appears on screen for a few minutes only but she does have a two very nice fights. All other actors are pretty much unknown and rather weak(especially one eyed policeman) but it doesn't affect the movie. There are not many fights but those we have look very good, especially Kathy Long ones( 'cause they are very dynamic). Besides the fact It's much more of a thriller than an action film, It's very fast paced. Definitely worth to see, just to realize that Richard Norton is pretty good actor.

In comparison to many other stars of low-budget martial arts movies - say, Steven Seagal, Don "The Dragon" Wilson or Dolph Lundgren - Richard Norton has at least one quality that puts him ahead: his sense of humor. And this quality comes through clearly in "Under The Gun": there are a few humorous bits that made me laugh out loud. Besides, the whole movie at times begins to resemble a surreal black comedy. Norton's character simply wants to get through a few hours peacefully before he can escape to a better life, but almost everything that can go wrong, does go wrong, and he becomes the target of corrupt cops, impatient mobsters, big goons, suspicious accountants, humiliated pimps, etc. Even the airplane ticket lady on the phone is rude to him! The entire movie takes place during these few hours, which is a quite unusual concept for this kind of movie. The fight scenes (choreographed by Norton himself) are above-average, both violent and technical. Norton is supported by Kathy Long, the kind of woman who will melt your heart with her cute smile one moment, then on the next she'll take on three guys in a fight and come (convincingly) on top. In other words, she's great. But her role is briefer than it should have been, and that was my only serious disappointment with this film. **1/2 out of 4.