Close Range

wasting bullet... aimless. 🤣

Close Range_360P

The only reason I give it a 3 is because there are moments things are acceptable. Those are the moment the camera work and angles are on par and the scenery and colors are actually quite nice! Chunks of the fighting action can even be called decent as well. What ruins a movie for me is when things that shouldn't cost additional (or much more) budget money to make it much better. Things such bad scripting in which things are added in (at cost!!) that just puts down any form of IQ higher then 85.. When a movie starts zooming in on the faces with a 'shaky' effect added, it is time to start the 'i give this 2 minutes to get better' timer. Whom ever invented the notion that 'shaky' cam effect adds to a shot should actually be SHOT and so should the people who keep it going. Then you get (again at cost!) a completely USELESS intro of the Mexican cartel driving in three cars. I think like 8 people are being introduced, by very original nicknames i must add (sigh), as if we are about to watch a Quintin Tarantino master piece in which we need to get to know the characters...while in fact by the time you see the fourth face and name you already forgot about the previous ones. Bad scripting, dumb story, bad framing, bad directing and producing. I will stop my review here as it simply is not worth more effort. This is simply yet another movie of SO MANY nowadays that is just ruined by poor management of resources and by assuming the general population has the development of a 12 year old and the IQ of 85 or lower. They had the budget, they had decent actors, they had GORGEOUS scenery and they had GREAT equipment / camera / sound. You must simply suck at what you do to end up with a production such as this.

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

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.

This film was fairly hard to sit through. The characters were all out of a cartoon. All cardboard. The corrupt sheriff. The Mexican gangsters. The ex-husband of his sister. All poorly written. There was not much to hold my attention. Not ever much satisfaction derived from the bad guys going down, as there was nothing invested in any of the characters. Adkins is capable of so much more. Unfortunately, his stunts were kind of wasted on this turkey. I cannot recommend it, with any degree of sincerity. Hollywood, it seems, is running out of action stories. How anyone green lighted this film, is beyond my comprehension. It could not have looked good on paper.

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".

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 account for personal taste. Plot: ex soldier frees niece only to be hunted down because of missing piece of data. Close Range is a "fighting film", - I choose not too call it a martial arts film because, to me, films belonging to that genre/sub genre are movies like Undisputed and Blood Sport who centers on, most often anyway, martial arts on a stage of sorts, whereas "fighting films" contain/focus on martial arts skills, but also mixed with ordinary brawls depending on setting and often set in an "open world" i.e. a city, crime, war etc. I also argue that movies like Blood Sport most often have no focus on plot at all, and "fighting films", more often any way, put a little more effort into creating something you could call a plot. Reviewers complain about bad acting, bad script, stupid gang bangers, lack of plot. Come on!! What do you expect? Neither martial arts movies, nor "fighting films" are known for these things, sure a few have good acting or plot. However, there is a reason they are called martial arts movies, they focus on fighting. If they, the writers/producers, wanted excitement, Oscar nominations etc, they would not be doing martial arts movies. Now, Close Range won't go down in history as a particularly good movie in any regard. It is not very good. As one reviewer pointed out, all the money seems to be spent on the fighting scenes. But I always try to be fair and objective. Sure the acting is not good, but not worse that most other "fighting films". If focus is on fighting, why spend money and valuable time on explosions and writing the script? Also, if you consider, for example, the fact that movies are categorized as this or that on websites and media of all sorts and you study the cast you should understand what quality the movie will have. Close Range is categorized as "action" and "crime", the star is Scott Adkins and the only other "well known" is Nick Chinlund. I praise Adkins for his fighting skills and charisma, not his acting. I like Chinlund because of his skills in portraying bad guys, but he is not Oscar material either. The bad guys are stupid some say, well, can't argue there. But so are teens in horror movies. Close Range works as entertainment for the moment. The fighting scenes ARE good, however not memorable. I hope Adkins will get the recognition he deserves. He is a very good martial artist and a decent actor who deserves better roles/movies. But he will never reach cult status like van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, on the other hand, these two actors are "products" of their time like Stallone and Scwarzenegger. Finally, Close Range is similar in quality like The Night Crew, 4got10, so if you like those movies you will like this one. But if you like The One, Universal Soldier and Skin Trade - which all have better cast, acting, script, fighting scenes, you will be more or less disappointed. I give it 4/10, watch if you have nothing better to do for the moment.

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.

"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.