Close Range

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.

"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.

In Mexico, the former decorated and now rogue soldier Colton "Colt" MacReady (Scott Adkins) rescues his niece Hailey (Madison Lawlor), who was kidnapped by a dangerous cartel. During his operation, he kills the son of the druglord Fernando Garcia (Tony Perez) and brings a flash drive with the handcuff key of Hailey that Garcia's son had on his necklace. Garcia contacts the dirty Sheriff Jasper Calloway (Nick Chinlund) that goes to the ranch of Colton's sister, Angela Reynolds (Caitlin Keats), with two deputies. Angela is married to the scum Walt Reynolds (Jake La Botz) that stole drugs from Garcia's shipment, the reason why Hailey was abducted. While Calloway holds Angela and Hailey in the ranch, Garcia heads to the spot with eleven "soldiers" from his cartel to retrieve the flash drive.

"Close Range" is an action film for fans of shootings and fightings cnly since the choreography is very well made. However, the storyline and specially the acting is awful, full of clichés and wooden faces. It is difficult to point out who is the worst, but at least Madison Lawlor and Nick Chinlund are funny to see their faces. I am not sure whether Hailey last name is Reynolds, since Walt is her stepfather; therefore does not make sense his last name for her, only for Angela. Last but not the least, who would keep vital information in a flashdrive without any back-up? The USB flash drive is the same vulnerable as the hard disk drive. In other words, it can fail at any time without any omens. Once it gets broken or become inoperative, without any doubts, your data will get lost likewise. Hence, it is prudent and advisable to back up your flash drive data. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Perigo Extremo" ("Extreme Danger")

Let me be clear about this once again so there is no misunderstanding.

Adkins has potential. He can deliver. His work as Boyka in the Undisputed franchise was stellar and Undisputed 3 in particular is actually one of the best MMA films of all time.

In my various and sundry reviews for the IMDb, I pointed out that Adkin's film roles subsequent to Boyka were reflecting a downward career path.

For this observation I received the usual monkey-hammering of the NOT USEFUL key.

But this film says it all. Even the opening credits, done in the retro feel of the 1960s Italian Westerns (and you have to be of a certain age to know that!) tells you IN ADVANCE this is a B-movie, DTV production, done to generate cash flow and little else.

Adkins really deserves better.

The good news? There is another UNDISPUTED in the works, with the same production team.

We can only hope...

...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.