Striking Range

"Striking Range" is a entertaining action-filled movie. The plot: "Vash" (Phillips) is a mercenary, who is asked to guard Ted Billings (Glenn Morshower) because he has a hi-tech WMD. "Vash" doesn't like the guy, but then he gets his money's worth because criminals from all sides are after him.

What's interesting about this movie is that it takes the time to flesh out some character development. Phillips is very good in the role. Yancy Butler plays his ex-girlfriend. She gets her time to shine. Jeff Speakman plays one of the villains and gets to utilize his martial arts ability. Speakman is a big guy and he moves fast. The whole movie is one big action sequence. The beginning is little lame, but once that gets out of the way, It's B-movie fun till the end.

In the end: If you like L.D.P., you'll enjoy this. Non-fans will also like the non-stop action.

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

Though this movie is a little on the bloody side for me, it held my attention. Even though it's a low budget indie movie, the FX were pretty good and believable. The story line is easy to follow and suspenseful. All of the actors do a really good job of becoming their character. I have seen co-star Tom Wright in several movies over the years (including "World Trade Center")and he is becoming a staple to the industry. The fight scenes made me groan in pain. Ouch!!This is a better movie than some of the high dollar movies being made now and the quality and editing are really pretty good. It looks like the director, Daniel Millican, is working his way up the movie business ladder and hopefully on to bigger projects. I hope he does a variety of movies in the future. I loved Vash's car!

This is, without a doubt, one of Lou's worst film. "Red Water" was better than this. Just horrendous. Even Lou's acting was bad...and it is usually decent.

I love Lou like the next guy, but I could not tolerate more than 40 minutes of this film - and that was the most tedious experience I have ever felt while dealing with a shoot 'em up flick. Ever.

I can not in good faith recommend this film to anyone. I am sorry if the director reads this, or anyone involved with the project, but this movie was just bad.

The worst, most inane, dialog of all time. Shifty and lame script that is all over the place. Bad acting, as well.

Not a pleasant experience.

A cheap movie full of bad imitation of great movies and clichés. The writer/director desperately and clumsily tries to catch your attention using great ideas from other movies IE the first part trying to use the "Pulp Fiction formula" by Tarantino. Since this is a valid approach (the use of references from other movies) when done with quality and class, in this movie the director/writer comes with a a very unfortunate solution. Inconsistent plot: is a mixture of action movie, with a little of horror, a little of suspense a little of love and hate story, a little of friendship… . The characters are poorly defined, uses the ambiguous character formula in order to create a "obvious surprise" at the end. The acting is weak. A cheap movie, with awful story and direction. An insulto to the public.

When his career began, Lou Diamond Phillips promised so much as an actor, that I have continued to see his films hoping that this promise would be fulfilled. But, while Phillips' acting is as good as ever, he has just made one bad film after another, so, until he or his agent learn what to look for in a script, I'm afraid "Striking Range" is the last time I'll be seeing Phillips for a while.

This is an action film, and the actions scenes are OK. But the script really reeks. line by line the dialog is OK, but the story is a real mess. The idea of tossing a psycho-killer into the mix of a conflict between two mercenary groups might have seemed good on paper, but it's a bad strategy: psycho-killers have to be explained at some point in a film, because otherwise their motivations come off as silly. I know that sounds bizarre, but what I mean is that the explanation helps the audience suspend their disbelief in why anybody would want to kill people simply because they work at some office or attend some school or stopped at the wrong restaurant for dinner. This disbelief is essential to our sense of morality - it is why the violence of real psycho-killers, like the Columbine boys, is so horrifying and why we take such strong measures to counter it: we simply cannot believe anyone could be that vile.

Since the writer of this film has left himself little time to develop the psycho-killer aspect of the plot, he has to resort to cheap tricks, stereotypes, and cliché to make the whole thing work somehow. The psycho-killer comes across as a parody.

Meanwhile a plot twist seems to resolve the mercenary conflict - except that it doesn't, it's so wholly unprepared and obviously artificial. We want clues to this sort of thing, so we can look back on the film to say "I should have seen that coming," but we can't do this here, no one could have seen it coming, it doesn't make sense.

And what is the thematic connection between the mercenary conflicts and the psycho-killer's? Even Sigmund Freud couldn't tell you; I don't think there is any.

the writer here needs psychoanalysis for coming up with this hodgepodge, and Phillips needs it to try to figure out how he could throw away his mature career on such hooey.

Four stars for the action scenes, the rest gets - blah!