Close Range (2015) Reviews

• Continuing the trend of decent action marred with sloppy production

  quincytheodore2015-11-22

  The most casting role Scott Adkins has nowadays is either supporting or antagonist character where he would only do a couple of fight scenes but plastered on the poster nonetheless for more draw. Luckily, Close Range has given him more freedom to deliver his trademark action sequences, although it's plagued with an alarmingly sketchy presentation of gangster genre with cheesy Cinemax vibe and awful soundtracks. Plot is actually good, at least for the first act, as MacReady (Scott Adkins) opens the movie trying to save his niece from mafia. It's a nice setup as it wastes no time to push the action, and continuous shot fighting scene definitely helps. However, it soon becomes the tedious cat-and-mouse between MacReady, the Mexican mafia and unsavory cop. The pacing loses steam fast, repeating the same angle of corrupt police officer or gang member chasing the hero. It lacks structure aside from the primordial rush of periodic fisticuffs and gun-totting scenes, even these are simplified. As expected, there's not much in term of acting, it's not utterly terrible but it does appear jarring at times. The characters are either stereotypical damsel-in-distress, overly vilified or straight up gangster extras. Most of the presentation revolves around old corny action flick ambiance, a bit like binge night on Cinemax with the music department playing the same Desperado inspired tunes over and over again. Fortunately, the action is admittedly decent. Scott Adkins has more plenty of chances on creating brutal beatdown, some of which are pretty creative. Even though this can get over-the-top, the high octane action would definitely please genre fans, or those wanting for more Undisputed action. Close Range tries to spice the bland drama with misguided style. It's a good thing that the combat looks visceral enough, but it still might not attract viewer beyond action buff.

• They spent all of the money on action choreography...ALL OF IT

  skantea-155-1134872015-11-22

  ...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.

• Excellent martial arts scenes, lousy gunplay, flimsy plot

  ginocox-206-3369682015-12-26

  "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.

• I tried to warn everyone

  A_Different_Drummer2015-11-21

  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...

• Interesting camera work

  kosmasp2016-02-06

  Something you might not expect of reading, with a low budget movie like this, but I really liked the stunt and camera work, which go hand in hand in this one. I won't waste too much time on "story". In this case this has nothing to do with spoiling it, because the story itself is not really exciting or anything extraordinary. But you wouldn't expect that anyway. Still very low and some of the acting to say the least does not help the movie either. But the stunt scenes are really well thought of, as are the camera angles and moves. I especially love the longer takes or the in your face (or hand) approach it takes. Again, this is small/low budget, so it's not like there is other things that are amazing (like locations, set design, even some of the "blood" effects seem more than cheap), but it can still work - and I think it does in some ways