You must create a Free Account
in order to STREAM or DOWNLOAD this video
Close Range

Close Range

Colton MacReady...is coming home.Dec. 11, 2015 USA80 Min.
Your rating: 0
8.6 1,809 votes

Video trailer

Director

Cast

Scott Adkins isColton MacReady
Colton MacReady
Nick Chinlund isSheriff Jasper Calloway
Sheriff Jasper Calloway
Caitlin Keats isAngela Reynolds
Angela Reynolds
Jake La Botz isWalt Reynolds
Walt Reynolds
Tony Perez isFernando Garcia
Fernando Garcia
Madison Lawlor isHailey Reynolds
Hailey Reynolds

Synopsis

A rogue soldier turned outlaw is thrust into a relentless fight with a corrupt sheriff, his obedient deputies, and a dangerous drug cartel in order to protect his sister and her young daughter.

Close Range
Close Range
Close Range
Close Range
Original titleClose Range
IMDb Rating4.9 3,000 votes
TMDb Rating5 51 votes

(31) comments

  • from Sweden
    23 November 2015

    I have said it before...reviews/votes on quite a large bunch of films are odd at best. Some are over the top, some way too low to be taken seriously, a fact even if you acJanuary 1, 1970Reply

    what do you expect??

  • karam-22496November 20, 2015Reply

    please don’t go see this in cinemas…for your own sake.

    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.

  • haarryiNovember 21, 2015Reply

    Not worth the time

    The movie has nothing that deserves phrase. Bad direction, no
    screenplay, shoddy acting. A lot of shooting, but they are mostly
    ridiculous and hard to enjoy. Apart from a couple of hand to hand
    combat there is nothing in it that even deserves a mention.

    The plot is so wafer-thin and implausible. Now, I am not saying
    implausibility is what makes it bad, no. It is just that most of what’s
    happening in the movie is so ridiculously stupid that you will have a
    hard time digesting it. The bad guys are dumber than a box of rocks.
    Their actions or their methods make no sense to anyone with half a
    brain.

    Now, if it was a comedy or a spoof it would have worked. But this one
    lacks the humor to be a spoof or the audacity to be an action flick.
    It’s dumb, pale and boring.

  • A_Different_DrummerNovember 21, 2015Reply

    I tried to warn everyone

    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…

  • mensur93November 22, 2015Reply

    Close Range- Scott Adkins back in Action as an main actor

    Scott Adkins is better than ever. A lot of new Martial Arts and Action
    Projects like Hard target 2 or the new Undisputed IV movie. He is one
    of the best action actors of this time. ( my personal opinion) Back to
    Close Range. Scott delivers again.

    Positive + Scott as main actor in Western Actioner Close Range +
    Effective Fights, well choreographed + A lot of well directed gun shots
    + Creative Action Scene in the middle of the movie + fast paced, no
    slow downs + Good atmosphere music

    Negative – Too short (79 Minutes without Credits) – End was
    disappointing, i was hoping for a final fight – Not so much spectacular
    Martial Arts ( Jumping Backkick and that’s it)

    All in one it was a very entertaining Actioner with the Action Maestro
    Scott Adkins himself. Waiting for the Home Video Release in Germany.
    Hard Target 2 and Undisputed IV will come soon.Sorry for my
    unprofessional English. 🙂

  • ladcrooks-26-192893November 22, 2015Reply

    in a good mood today, I give it 2

    If your 18 and under or got the mentality of a brain in a jam jar, this
    film will please you. So sad that nearly all action films have Bruce
    Lees in them, no, they are even better than Bruce Lee. Why couldn’t it
    be just the war trained veteran that had the fighting skills? Nearly
    every bad guy he fought was karate expert.

    Shame that the producers have the same mentality – Want to make a good
    film? Think ‘Leon, Heat… and so on, not these childish non believable
    films, where things explode, which never would and fights that would
    never happen,, how many bullets in this film? If the bullets were real,
    theirs where the budget went, ha! I get to the stage now where if there
    are more than 2 Bruce’s in a film or a car explode when it hits brick
    wall, then I’m off.

    Shame on these dipsticks that make these films

  • skantea-155-113487November 22, 2015Reply

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

    …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.

  • quincytheodoreNovember 22, 2015Reply

    Continuing the trend of decent action marred with sloppy production

    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.

  • KineticSeoulNovember 22, 2015Reply

    It’s a alright B movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • cantonieNovember 23, 2015Reply

    Feeling generous giving it a 1

    Cheap video games are better choreographed than this movie. Unless you
    are 10 years old, don’t even bother. I had to force myself to finish
    it. I’m racking my brain trying to come up with the minimum of 10 lines
    of text required for this review and all that I can think of is to beg
    you not to waste your time. Even the worse Steven Seagal movie ranks
    better. The plot is juvenile and the acting is as bad as in a low
    production, two o’clock in the morning SyFy Chanel flick. And the
    whistling at key action scenes is just annoying. Thumbs down all the
    way. If this is the kind of roles that Adkins is being cast on, I can
    only advise him to fire his agent.

  • Chung KimNovember 30, 2015Reply

    It rises above its limitations . . .

    Scott Adkins have been making a definite name and reputation for
    himself over the past few years with primarily direct to DVD action
    films with appearances in a few mainstream action feature films in a
    background and secondary role.

    He frequently collaborates with director Isaac Florentine who also has
    an established reputation for directing primarily direct to DVD action
    films.

    CLOSE RANGE is definitely a low budget action film, but it definitely
    rises above its limitations. It contains very tight and
    well-choreographed action fights scenes that are typical of such films,
    but the visual execution and presentation rises above the low budget
    stigma associated with such films.

    The plot is the usual standard fare for such films, but what impressed
    me is the how the film firmly and quickly established the plot with the
    primary and secondary characters in terms of pacing without any ”fluff”
    one may find in other such films.

    The film clocks in right at 82 minutes, but it’s above average action
    packed 82 minutes.

    Scott Adkins is the primary notable actor in the film. Nick Chinlund
    delivers a tried and usual performance as a secondary character in a
    villainous role.

    I confidently recommend this film for those who appreciate a good
    action film that manages to rise above its limitations of which there
    aren’t many that is able to do so. CLOSE RANGE does.

  • DareDevilKidDecember 5, 2015Reply

    Scott Adkins Plays a Badass, and We Have Fun Again

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Andreas BohlinDecember 9, 2015Reply

    It was not worth the electricity used to watch it

    Enough have been said already. Had to create a user here just to warn
    people. Actors and story had at least a Van Damme potential. The main
    character knows his moves. With the right manuscript, director he could
    make good movies. The director however, should start a bakery instead
    of wasting resources on film makes and people time. The shooting scenes
    in the house became boring indeed. Hire an expert on shooting sprees
    next time. Unrealistic. The director could try Google ”directing a
    movie.” The cutting of the drama in the end, with the bad cop… Might
    become a school example of how to suck the water out of a stone. Did
    not know they still made films like this…

  • The_Phantom_ProjectionistDecember 11, 2015Reply

    ”Ain’t nobody getting’ killed here today but them!”

    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.

  • LordJiggy ([email protected])December 14, 2015Reply

    Almost instantly forgettable

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mikevonbachDecember 14, 2015Reply

    Who’s Father is Scott Adkins dad —- I’ve seen him in about 8 Awful films

    This is rare for me To see an Actors name on the Title and say This is
    going to be a bad film . But with Scott Adkins that’s the way it is
    Really he must know someone very big to keep putting this guy in films.
    He has not had one big winner yet . HERCULES 3D was a total flop . I
    just dint buy this guy in movies

    Cheap video games are better choreographed than this movie. Unless you
    are 10 years old, don’t even bother. I had to force myself to finish
    it. I’m racking my brain trying to come up with the minimum of 10 lines
    of text required for this review and all that I can think of is to beg
    you not to waste your time. Even the worse Steven Seagal movie ranks
    better. The plot is juvenile and the acting is as bad as in a low
    production, two o’clock in the morning SyFy Chanel flick. And the
    whistling at key action scenes is just annoying. Thumbs down all the
    way. If this is the kind of roles that Adkins is being cast on, I can
    only advise him to fire his agent.

  • A KDecember 21, 2015Reply

    Craving Some Adkins Action? Watch 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.

    6-6.5 / 10

  • altersaegeDecember 25, 2015Reply

    Only reason I gave 2, because I have seen worse.

    I always feel ”there cannot be anything worse than this” when I watch
    something like this. But then I remember that I have actually seen some
    worse things. So I want to be generous and I give 2 stars. The guy is
    actually not thaaaaaaat bad. Looks a bit like Ben Affleck with more
    muscles. But all the rest is as pathetic as it can be. I really cannot
    imagine which kind of people can really enjoy and like this film. I am
    sure that there must be somebody. And I am sure that’s not me, and not
    anybody who is used to at least mid level of quality. Here you will not
    find any level of quality at all. Quoting Kung Fu Panda ”there is now a
    level 0”.

  • Gino CoxDecember 26, 2015Reply

    Excellent martial arts scenes, lousy gunplay, flimsy plot

    ”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.

  • Phil HubbsJanuary 23, 2016Reply

    Close Range

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • kosmaspFebruary 6, 2016Reply

    Interesting camera work

    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

  • zardoz-13February 21, 2016Reply

    A Rock’em, Sock’em Shoot’em Up!!!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • swaldeck2006February 22, 2016Reply

    grade b at best actors

    I personally felt that the was cheesy and very poorly acted out… it
    was like watching a movie with brand new actors who had no idea what
    they were doing…the beginning just looked so fake he kills with a
    knife a bunch of people and there is no blood any where but a little
    drip on his hand…. and the fighting looked so fake… like the other
    people were not even trying… and the other guys just stood there not
    helping waiting for their turn… the trailer looked good… and the
    story line would had been great if the acting its self was better and
    the fights were more realistic or not so fake looking… ans the
    dialogue just came off so fake and set up.. not real… not like it was
    really going on it was more like it was all set up,….

  • John MonneFebruary 22, 2016Reply

    Damn waste of resources, while they had everything going for them

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • festus-26986April 17, 2016Reply

    $3 million budget – $2 million wasted on ammunition.

    A little good acting. A lot of STUPID situations with trained
    gunfighters going through a thousand rounds of ammunition leaving only
    holes in buildings. It’s easy to see that the writers didn’t know how
    to fill up 90 minutes without adding copious amounts of gun fighting
    and hand-to-hand. Pay attention within about five minutes of the
    opening credits and you’ll basically know how the film ends. The only
    twists in this plot are the ones in the road. What upsets me the most
    about this film is that I’ve had to add extra lines just to make the
    review contain enough lines to submit it. SO I’ll just have to continue
    on until I can type enough lines to submit which should be about now.

  • BratE9000April 24, 2016Reply

    Its an Action Movie

    I’ll start by saying that my 6 rating is not for anything lackluster in
    this movie. I just don’t dole out high ratings for anything that isn’t
    stellar, and action movies such as this rarely have all the pieces in
    place that would leave a person (me) emotionally blown away. An 8 would
    have me thinking about it for days and wanting to talk about it with
    everyone I know. A 9 would put me on my knees and deprive of me of
    sleep as it invaded my dreams. But this movie had me engaged and
    entertained from beginning to end. The opening is directed finely and
    trapped me right in. The rest isn’t quite as artistic, but who cares,
    its action action action.

    This movie is precisely what you would expect and is a cut above your
    average action movie, on par with Jason Stratham films and comparable
    to his best.

    It is non-stop action and the hero is pretty good. As some others have
    commented, the acting is questionable, but I say it is good enough and
    my disbelief was thoroughly suspended throughout the movie (except
    maybe once for a second). Truth be told, there isn’t time to think
    about it because the action is non stop. The Jujitsu, or whatever they
    use in the hand-to-hand fight scenes is pretty darn cool. The fight
    choreographers and stunt men put on a wicked show! Several times, I was
    thinking, ”wow, that was a cool sequence.” Mind you I watch MMA, not
    WWF or whatever they are calling All-Star Wrestling these days (and not
    to discredit myself, but I have been impressed by sequences on WWF
    where I have to wonder how many hours they practiced together to pull
    those moves off.) (Mickey Rourke – that was a 7 in my book, but not
    because of the ”fighting” – never mind) Sorry for the multi-level
    digression. Yes, the fights are great. Dare I say Vikings and Game of
    Thrones might like these guys on their team.

    On the gun nerd front, I was elated that not everyone walked around
    holding their gun with their finger on the trigger (one of the sacred
    three gun safety rules). You see, there is plenty of time to put your
    finger on the trigger when the target is in sight. Next time watch
    where the soldiers have their fingers on CNN coverage (not that I watch
    that channel). Triple thumbs up on that. I should change my rating to 7
    just because of that. On the other hand, our hero expends ammo
    unwisely. He is just blasting away. More of a pro would not pop off a
    round without a reasonable chance of connecting.

    I didn’t hate the score like some others did. It wasn’t Mozart or Eric
    Clapton (I still can’t believe he said Prince was better than he), but
    I thought appropriate and not in any way distracting.

    If you like Jason Stratham movies, you will like this like I did.

  • latinfineartMay 1, 2016Reply

    Pretty poor action flick, and I am tolerant with action flicks! Sometimes.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • LeonLouisRicciMay 1, 2016Reply

    Sometimes Really-Cool and Sometimes Not

    In the Bubble of DTV Action Movies Director Isaac Florentine and
    Kick-Ass Specialist Scott Adkins are Bonafide Stars. This Cheapie chips
    away at every Trope available to the makers of this sort of Stuff.

    The most Impressive thing in this thing is the way the Camera Lingers
    on the Martial Arts for the Viewer to be Awed and made aware that these
    Guys have Skills. Compare that to its Big Budget Betters and the Cheat
    of Shaky Cameras and Quick Cuts that leave the Audience with
    Incomprehensible Scenes that contain absolutely nothing in the ”What is
    Actually Happening?” Department.

    Here stands an Appreciation for the Skill Involved and a Respect for
    the Fans delivering what They Paid for. Sure, the Story is Thin and the
    Director makes some rather Questionable Decisions that Detract from the
    Film.

    First, whose Brain-Dead Decision decided to include Actual Scenes from
    the Movie in the OPENING CREDITS. Imagine the Production Meeting (if
    there ever was such a thing) and someone said…”You know what would be
    Really-Cool…Let’s take some of the Scenes in the Movie and show them
    in the Credits before they actually occur”. Sheesh!

    Sergio Leone notwithstanding, that rarely is anything but Artistic.
    It’s just Plain Bad Filmmaking. How about the lengthy Scene in the Car
    when Characters are Introduced with Nicknames on Screen. Just Plain
    Dumb and Unforgivable unless You are Tarantino.

    This Guy is no Leone or Tarantino. The Ending is a Homage it seems with
    a Protracted and Embarrassing contrived Suspense Builder that does
    nothing but draw attention to its ”Hipness”, or lack thereof.

    Overall, despite its Corny Conceits and Endless Bullet Bouncing, the
    Martial Arts Scenes make it Worth a Watch.

  • nikola17May 2, 2016Reply

    One of great Scott Adkins Movies

    first of all this movie is very underrated, very fun to watch a lot of
    kicking martial arts Scott Adkins is best lead role ever ! i would
    highly recommend for Action fans to watch this movie if you guys love
    Scott Adkins and Isaac Florentine you should check this out this is one
    of Very Non Stop Action Movies Scott Adkins kicked a lot of ass, a lot
    of martial arts moves fights a lot of them just goes Non Stop
    completely Storyline there is but short one because movie goes for
    1h,20 min. Plot is A rogue soldier turned outlaw is thrust into a
    relentless fight (Scott Adkins) Colton MacReady went to place and All
    Cartels are kick’s Mexican Cartel ass to get his niece back after been
    kidnapped buy them, Colton killed Victor Garcia (Ray Diaz) Cartel Boss
    of Son father founds out guy who was in EX Special Forces Marines from
    Sheriff Jasper Calloway corrupt sheriff (Nick Chinlund) told him that
    Colton killed his son father Fernando Garcia (Tony Perez)all cartel’s
    and one of dirty cops coming after family Angela Reynolds, Hailey
    Reynolds are his family his obedient deputies, and a dangerous drug
    cartel in order to protect his sister and her young daughter. are in
    danger he is has to product them while he is doing that the killed a
    lot of ass in movie camera movement is very interesting movement in one
    single fight with one shot no cut to cut scenes very well made no fake
    staff Scott Adkins got new moves for fight scenes movie went on and on
    with action very short movie, with big action to it Scott Adkins is
    just badass in movie full on range with action. Scott Adkins was great
    in such badass roles like Undisputed 2 & 3 A lot of new Martial Arts
    and Action Projects like Hard Target 2 witch has noting to do with Jean
    Claude Van Damme film or the new Undisputed IV movie witch it looks mad
    in my opinion Scott Adkins is great actor honesty if you guys are
    action go and check this movie out !

  • Finfrosk86May 18, 2016Reply

    Heavy on the generic filler gunfights, light on the cool action. Adkins deserves better!

    Wow, this movies is like a roller-coaster ride. Not in a very good way,
    unfortunately. The action is varying to say the least. Some of it,
    mostly the fighting, is pretty cool. Not shaky, you see whats going on,
    decent choreography, pretty cool at times. Not overly edited, either.

    But the gunfight are not that good. Some of the shoot-outs just keep
    going, on and on, with no progress. The same shots recycled several
    times. Goes on for several minutes (felt like) then they change spots,
    and repeats the same thing. That’s pretty dull.

    It reminded me of how in a video game, if you’re in a gunfight, and
    your objective is to reach a checkpoint or something, but as long as
    you don’t go forward, the gunfight just keeps happening, with no real
    progress. Get it? No, yes? Anyway, that’s the feeling I got from some
    of the action scenes.

    However, super generic gunfights are followed by pretty awesome fights.
    (well, one or two times, at least one!) My guess is that the second
    unit director made some of the filler gunfights, and then the main
    director made the better ones. (Or maybe the other way around?)

    Close Range has a couple of sweet moments, the first action scene is
    probably maybe the best one, but mostly it’s just very generic. Too
    much filler, dammit.

  • Destroyer WodJune 8, 2016Reply

    Not Isaac Florentine’s best for sure, but decent and entertaining.

    Isaac Florentine + Scott Adkins is a must watch for me. Undisputed 3 is
    still to this day in my top 3 (easily) best martial arts movie and the
    Ninja Movies (also starring Adkins) are pretty cool. The guy knows how
    to film great action and honestly here i must say the hand to hand
    combat is pretty sharp once again.

    The little problem with this one is that there seem to be less hand to
    hand and focus more on gunfights. Those gunfights are not bad at all
    but there pretty cliché of the 80/90s type, lots and lots of ammunition
    wasted and this is where it kinda lost a bit of appeal to me. After
    having watch the excellent JOHN WICK with Keanue Reeves, i don’t know
    if i can go back and watch tons of gunshots hitting walls and
    everything but the enemies. The protagonist is supposed to be some kind
    of elite soldier, but he does miss a lot and some shots that you would
    expect a marksman to hit. I can buy the thugs missing lots of bullets,
    but him? When it comes to acting and story, well the story is okay, it
    serve its purpose. Its nothing off the hook, very simple but effective,
    and as for the acting, its nothing stellar but it didn’t bother me
    much. Its important to note i watched a french dubbed version and the
    dubbing was pretty ordinary, so i don’t want to put too much emphasis
    on that on my review.

    So in the end, was i entertained? Yes. Would i had like more hand to
    hand combat? Yes, cause the ones in it, no matter if they where
    justified or not, where very cool. But overall the movie was nice
    enough, i wasn’t bored, i liked the characters overall. I noticed some
    flaws yes but its a B action movie, so well? What else to expect.

    I still have lots of ”new” Scott Adkins movie to watch yet, being in
    Quebec and watching mostly my movies in french does not make it easy so
    i will give this one a plus for the effort of being released here on
    blu ray in french. But i do hope much better for the next Boyka movie
    for sure.

  • Leave a comment

    Name *
    Add a display name
    Email *
    Your email address will not be published
    Website