Close Range

Close Range is the latest featuring action star Scott Adkins and as a fan of his films and other bone breaking martial arts action films, I was entertained. An action movie in many ways is as good as it's star, Adkins further proves he is one of the top actors in the genre today by delivering on what he does best - kick ass. Close range contains solid action from beginning to end with a solid opening fight sequence, plenty of bloody gun play throughout and a climax with hard hitting hand-to-hand combat that will definitely please fans of such films. The main character also has a bad ass name like any true action hero should - Colt Macready. The movie is not without it's flaws though, acting certainly isn't the strength of the movie and neither is the story. Overall, a good direct to VOD action film and I look forward to more from Scott Adkins including Undisputed IV and Hard Target II. If your someone who wants a fast paced, pure action film served rated R, done with no CGI and real stunts, your thirst for some real action will be satisfied.

7 / 10.

In between filming scenes of the upcoming UNDISPUTED IV, it seems as though director Isaac Florentine and karate torchbearer Scott Adkins decided to crank out an additional movie while they had the time. Shot on a low budget in only a couple of locations with a limited cast, CLOSE RANGE may be the most compact action film of 2015, but it's a pretty good one at that. While not the best work of either the director or the star, this is high quality time-wasting material that supplies all the thrills that action junkies and Adkins fans could want. Potentially the best DTV action title of the year.

The story: Following a rescue mission, a mercenary (Adkins) and his family are besieged on a rural homestead by the minions of a dangerous drug lord (Tony Perez).

For the most part, the film looks like something that Florentine would have filmed 15 years ago, before he achieved major cult fame. He's virtually exploiting himself here, from the pseudo-western vibe and corny dialogue to the condensed nature of the script. Running at a slim 85 minutes, CLOSE RANGE sticks pretty close to its adrenaline agenda and doesn't bother with things like character development, focusing instead on physical tension. It's the type of movie that drama snobs will hate, though it's also a step down from the level of storytelling that Florentine's become adept at. It's disappointing that the film's premise boils down to a white guy almost exclusively killing evil Latinos, and overall, I conclude that this one leaves less of an impression than almost any other picture the star and director have made together.

…Unless, of course, we're talking about the action scenes, for which the auteurs remain in top form. These scenes are an even balance of fights and shootouts, and both are exhilarating. The best of the gunfights take place within a home, at close quarters, with the shooters blazing at each other across furniture and through walls. The fights, though, are in a league of their own. Adkins has so many stellar matches under his belt that how these ones rank among the rest is a matter of opinion, but know that onwards from the very first fight – wherein Scott lays waste to seven thugs within a single extended camera shot – top effort has been made. These fights are potential star-makers, as Adkins finds some choice opponents in relatively unknown performers like Jimmy Chhiu, Craig Henningsen, and especially fight choreographer Jeremy Marinas. Occasional slow motion marginally taints some of the brawls, though their overall quality is strong enough to withstand this fault.

In a movie wherein the characters are stock, the setups are old hat, and the lines are recycled, what can still make it worth watching? In this one's case, the answer is gusto and talent. I emphasize how much this seems like something the filmmakers threw together as a side project, but the fact that it's Isaac Florentine doing the throwing means a lot. CLOSE RANGE is a short, fun trip to Actionville that I encourage all fans to take.

let me start with saying that Scott Adkins has the potential to continue the line of great fighters in the world of Hollywood like van Dame, Steven Segal etc.To be honest he is the only reason i watched this movie int he first place (wasn't worth it at all).

Going into the movie, which the least to say as a beginning is that it had the worst dialogue, actors and story i have seen in a long,long time.It is such a shame to see an actor with good potential in such a bad picture where the least i can say is that it isn't worth neither the money , nor the time to see it. To be just, the fighting scenes where incredibly well executed and performed. But that doesn't compensate the completely horrible acting,dialogue, story. Just go watch undisputed 3 if you in the mood for a better fighting movie.

...And it kind of works out. The acting, wooden. The writing, juvenile. The directing, well, he stuck to a detailed storyboard so it's not too terrible. But what is actually watch worthy is the action sequences. Fantastic fight scenes, creative shoot outs. Complex single shot stunt takes that wow. I was impressed from the beginning (except for one accidental camera angle where a bad guy clearly waits to jump into the fight-my peeve). This is not a thinking persons film at all. In fact I suggest you crack a twelve pack with your bros and sit back to cheer for some brutal MMA action. P.S. There really should have been some gratuitous nudity. It's just that kind of flick.

"Close Range" boasts excellent martial arts choreography. The hand-to-hand fights earn solid A grades, while the knife fights earn middling Bs. Production values are adequate for the budget and genre, although far too much reliance is placed on jiggly-cam shots. Make-up effects are of uneven quality. The script is a mishmash of overused tropes with just enough clever one-liners to consider a clemency plea when they go to lynch the writer. A climatic paean to Sergio Leone is fairly good – until they inexplicably shift POV from third-person to first with a memory flash. With no character arcs, moral or coherent theme, the actors don't have much to do except try to kill one another. Several characters are dispatched for no particular reason other than dramatic effect. Scott Adkins does an adequate job as the taciturn loner antihero and handles the action scenes admirably, but deserves a better script.

Where the movie fails is in the gunfights, which comprise a large portion of the running time. We should establish some basic rules for gunfight choreographers and movie characters who find themselves in gunfights.

1. If you have a limited amount of ammunition, you might not want to use it all laying down suppressive fire. Save your bullets until you have a target in sight.

2. If you've taken cover in a dimly lit house and the heavily armed bad guys are outside in the bright sunlight, you have a huge tactical advantage because you can see them much more easily than they can see you. However, you sacrifice that advantage if you stand by the window and stick the barrel of your weapon outside, because now they can see you and you may also have the sun in your eyes. A better strategy is to stand back away from the window and fire. If the bad guy is fifty yards away, you don't gain much advantage by moving to where he's only forty-nine yards away, but you sacrifice a considerable advantage.

3. If your weapon fires really big bullets that are the length of a man's finger and have tapered casings, they probably pack a bit of a punch and go through things like walls and the sheet metal used in automobile bodies. You're probably better off trying to fire through whatever the bad guy is hiding behind than firing overhead and hoping the bullet changes course directly above him.

4. Those little metal things over the barrel and above the breech are called sights. You stand a much better chance of hitting your target if you use them.

5. If you've seen "Zombieland," you know the advantage to a double-tap, but the incremental advantage drops dramatically. When you have a limited amount of ammunition, there isn't much advantage to putting five high-power rifle rounds through somebody's chest, as opposed to only one or two.

Other than the climatic scene, the gunfight choreography was painfully amateurish and largely nonsensical. The only purpose seemed to be to empty the weapons so the characters would need to engage in hand-to-hand combat. Initially, the characters seemed oblivious to the notion that bullets can go through things, even after a character is hit. Later, they did little except fire through walls, floors and protective gear.

The movie is a series of well choreographed fight scenes admirably executed by Scott Adkins and his opponents, linked together by a flimsy excuse for a plot. Fortunately, the fight scenes are worth the price of admission.