Under the Gun

I must admit, though I saw a small number of Norton's films, but I heard that most of them are the same, but this one... well It's something different. First of all, Norton is a great martial artist, but here he does some good acting as well. The story is very interesting. Norton is a former football player that holds a nightclub (and, of course he happens to know martial arts), the key story of the plot that Norton's character Frank Torrence must endure through one night against the mobsters, the police, a few hit mans, street thugs and the most dangerous thing on the end - his wife. The fights and the action is quite solid, acting is funny, though OK, and everything is shown through a fine comedy and fun. It's a mixture of action and comedy. Watch it.

The scene is the night former hockey star Frank Torrence plans to sell his bar and redeem the promise of a better life for his wife and him. Rogue cops, weak friends, and an unreliable accountant get in his way! As Frank, Richard Norton delivers a knock-out performance in "Under the Gun", an unorthodox action picture that limits the plot to the course of one unpredictable night. The twists and the humor never slow down, as Frank has to make the sale and avoid the kind of downfall that took him out of hockey. He's being framed (again) for drugs and only one friend on the force is willing to help him out of the jam. "Under the Gun" is stylish, smart action that does not eliminate plot or character in favor of the fights. In fact, the fights are incorporated into the film to supplement and develop the characters, primarily Frank. Clearly Richard Norton invested his considerable talents into making an action movie with a difference, and the audience wins!

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.

I still can't believe this an Australian film. From looking at the box and the surroundings it looked like another low-budget american actioner, until I checked the credits where I was informed that this was filmed in Melbourne, Australia. Considering the above, I'd say this movie is watchable and certainly entertaining. The plot flows along smoothly from one situation to the next. All the while we watch as the night unfolds through the main character, Frank Torrance, played excellently by Richard Norton. The other side of this movie are the martial arts action sequences, which are excellentely choreographed and filmed in all their brutal bloody glory. There are no fancy jumps or flips in this movie, just plain, raw, martial arts combat. Very entertaining and sometimes funny. 9/10

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.