Hunt to Kill

en français

Truly awfully directed. Steve Austin brings it up to a 4 out of 10 just for being Steve Austin. Villain - bearable. Hot girls - watchable. Deaths - unrealistic. Setting - decent. Characters thought process - laughable. Ending - painful. Storyline - dull. Movie - barely watchable. Thats my views on the movie anyway. Thought there was too many stupid scenes in this movie to be considered good. *SPOILERS* Small things such as using an axe or a stick instead of guns which are in sight or even on them. Not tieing up or keeping watch on steve austin while asleep. And don't get me started on the bit where Steve was suppose to die.

I gotta hand it to Anchor Bay. When they release Direct to DVD action flicks, they actually put a little attention to it. Unlike the ones studios like Lionsgate release, these have surprisingly good production values, and look like they could have been given a theatrical release. Well, not a wide theatrical release, but a theatrical release nonetheless. Sadly, that doesn't mean that said movie is going to be any good, such as "Hunt to Kill", starring former professional wrestler Steve Austin. Jim Rhodes (Austin) is a former border agent mourning the loss of his partner Lee Davis (Eric Roberts, whose something of a guardian angel for those of us that frequent Direct to DVD movies) and having to raise his rebellious daughter Kim (Marie Avgeropoulos) in the Montana mountains. That is, until a gang of trigger happy fugitives, led by the clearly off his rocker Banks (Gil Bellows) take them hostage in the wilderness. Well, Banks screws Jim over, and you can guess where that leads... If "Hunt to Kill" has anything going for it, it's the over the top performance from Bellows and the third act. Bellows chews scenery like there's no tomorrow, and is clearly having the time of his life playing a villain, thus making the proceedings occasionally tolerable. Also, the last third of the movie is when it finally becomes what it wants to be, and that's a fun, 80's style action movie with enjoyable action scenes and dumb but campy one liners. Hell, the best one, and the main reason this isn't getting less than four stars, is because of Jim saying near the end "When I hunt, I hunt to kill!" It's one of the few moments in which the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and decides to play it up. I honestly applauded that line. Sadly, the fun is too far and in between. Apart from the third act and the Banks character, this is mostly just boring. All of the other performances are too bland, with Austin having three main emotional responses: glare, scowl, and talk in a low voice. To say he lacks emotional range is like saying the 1976 Buccaneers sucked. It also doesn't help that the whole thing feels like it was written by a High School drop out, with characters making dumber than usual decisions (people yelling just so Rhodes can kill them with a crossbow, villains that spend most of their time fighting amongst each other, the daughter not escaping when she has so many clear opportunities to do so) and most of what happens before the third act being boring as sin. Plus, it clearly wants to be an action flick in the vein of "Commando" and "Cliffhanger", but as I mentioned earlier, it takes a while to get their, and until then, you have to sit through tedium. It's a shame, because in the right hands, this could have been the kind of dumb-but-fun action flick it was aiming to be. Instead, it's just dumb. Still, at least that last one liner was great.

Oh dear. I don't expect much from an "action" flick starring Steve Austen, but this managed to tick all the bad film boxes. Poor script, poor acting and terrible direction, but worst of all was the plot, if it's not an insult to plots to call it that. There were so many holes and improbable coincidences, it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll point out a few which will make sense if you have had the misfortune to see the film: Why did Lawson leave the bomb in the place most likely to be found by the other baddies? Not very clever. Why did he wire the bomb so that the cutting of the only wire connecting the phone to the explosives deactivates it? Not very sophisticated. Why did he wait a good five minutes after making off with the loot before deciding to make the call, giving others plenty of time to find and deactivate the bomb? Getting really thin, now. When other baddies find the bomb, they all stand around it discussing what to do (putting their fingers in their ears in case it explodes). They are in a big warehouse (conveniently with only one exit - they couldn't shoot the lock?) full of equipment and stuff. It doesn't occur to any of them to barricade the bomb in one corner and barricade himself in the opposite one. Why did Lawson try to get to Canada through the woods when he could have just driven across the border? Geez this guy was stupid. The other end of the rope tying up the daughter was held in Dominika's hand. Ooo - very secure! Why did the baddies not tie Austin up at night to prevent him attempting to escape/kill them? How did the watch strap turn into so much climbing rope? Why did Austin retrieve the bag without getting Banks to let the girl go first? Rather dim. A bit convenient when Austin finds the bag with the bow in it? When did Austin get the time to build the hide beneath which he was camouflaged before attacking Jensen? Austin then shoots Jensen - in the backpack? Why not through the neck or head! Dominika finds Jensen's backpack, but not Jensen's body, a few feet away. Not much of a search! Why did Austin, having picked the baddies off one by one (Rambo-style), does he choose to run, completely exposed, across a rock face in full view of Banks? When Banks has Austin semi-conscious and totally at his mercy, why does he choose to run off and leave him to recover? Banks finds the scooters. He knows he can get away. He has already ruthlessly killed several of his fellow baddies, cops etc, but he chooses to merely punch Austin's daughter. Not very likely. And finally, and worst of all: - Banks finds three scooters. He is being chased by two goodies. Why, in heaven's name, doesn't he disable the other two? I don't mind a little bit of dramatic licence for plot development purposes, but this film just took it way too far. Don't waste your time.

This was broadcast on the Syfy channel for some strange reason . I say that because it has no science fiction angle to it whatsoever . Perhaps the nearest connection to sci-fi it has is the casting of Eric Roberts which DOCTOR WHO fans will remember as having played the Master in the rather disappointing American TVM from 1996 . In fact casting Roberts in itself seems rather tenuous and cynical in that he appears in the opening pre-credits sequence where he is killed off . It's certainly a shock to see his character die but you're also left thinking this is a play on the audience and he'll suddenly reappear in an important scene later on . This doesn't in fact happen which is a great shame because the surviving cast aren't really enough to carry the film The story plays out in a predictable manner . A bunch of desperate , violent crooks get doubled crossed and need to quickly cross the rural border in to Canada . Desperate crooks require desperate methods and who better to guide them to the border than a good family man who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time . The story is very similar to the 1993 Stallone film CLIFFHANGAR so much so that it even has a loud mouthed Brit as one of the baddies . The problem is that you're reminded of the big budget Stallone flick the more you realise how low budget and unthrilling HUNT TO KILL is which is standard straight to DVD fare . It also contains a streak of meaness to the way the characters interact and this is not a selling point

HUNT TO KILL is a routine action vehicle for wrestler-turned-actor Steve Austin, who plays the usual unstoppable hulking hero type in this story about a gang of bank robbers who abscond to the forests to make their escape by crossing the border into Canada. Along the way they pick up Austin's daughter, forcing him in turn to become their guide under the threat of violence. What follows is almost a scene by scene rip-off of Stallone's CLIFFHANGER, made on a much lower budget of course and without much of the finesse. Saying that, it's still a relatively entertaining B-picture, packing a plenitudes of action into the brief running time. It's certainly more entertaining than some of the rubbishy vehicles that director Keoni Waxman has made for Steven Seagal. The film has plenty of faults, with poor character motivations and a dearth of originality in the screenplay (I was surprised when Austin fell down the cliff-face for a second time), not to mention tons of unbelievable stuff with the star shrugging off bullet hits and the like. But there's at least one decent fight scene (featuring the great, under-utilised Gary Daniels), a fun hammy performance from chief bad guy Gil Bellowes, a cameo from Eric Roberts, and a pacing that's fast enough for you to generally ignore the various problems.

Steve Austin stars as U.S. Border Patrol agent Jim Rhodes, a tough divorce mourning the loss of his murdered partner while struggling to raise his rebellious daughter in the mountains of Montana. But when a crew of trigger-happy fugitives takes Rhodes and his daughter hostage, a rugged wilderness will explode in all-terrain vengeance. Is there any wounded animal more dangerous than a lawman left for dead great film to watch and the film its got a great story line and a lot of action to and really acted great to bye all the cast of the film bye steve Austin and the rest you all should watch it and it its 10 out of 10 for me and I would love to see a number 2 with me in it hahaha

A real stinker, albeit not without one or two gratuitous moments of untimely satisfaction. We open up with a scene, where Jim Rhodes (Steve Austin) from the Mexican border patrol police, just days before moving up North to the Canadian side, loses his partner Lee Davis (Eric Roberts) in a bust gone awry. Normally such an event is introduced to have some significant influence on future events, but in "Hunt to Kill" the death of Lee seems to be utterly inconsequential. No matter. Jump forward several years and Jim Rhodes is hiking it out on the Canadian border, a bona fide Rambo with a badge. After the best part of the movie: the opening credits, we suddenly get thrown into a money heist led by Banks (Gil Bellows), who has an odd case of on-and-off insanity. After being made over by one their own Lawson (Michael Hogan) they follow him up North to track him down in the wilderness. There they kill a random sheriff and then take Jim and his daughter hostage to initiate a chain of events, which gets multiple people killed for no good reason. Where to start? Characters are all over the place, lacking any sense of coherence to there actions. Save for one or two of the supporting cast motivations, personal traits and situational reactions are incoherent and change from scene to scene. Much has to do with the fact, that no plausible story is really created, hence situations are created at random to forward the story. From incredulous scene to abysmally moronic scene we wander with the plot into the US-Canadian forest areas, where Steve Austin ultimately goes postal. Jim Rhodes himself, however likable he may be, fails to ignite a strong lead, instead falls flat due to lack of proper exposure to his actions and reactions. One of special note is the ruthless skewing of two of the kidnappers, despite the fact that their only true crime was following around the mental Banks. Yes, they stole money, but you got the feeling that the punishment far outdid the actual crime and you honestly start thinking that Rhodes should be imprisoned for his wanton vigilantism. On the plus side the movie gives a good dosage of laughs thanks to some sixty-feet watch-rope (watch it to believe it), goodies like composite bows hanging randomly on a tree, appallingly hilarious one-liners and an end scene to die laughing for (when finally Rhodes declares that he hunts to kill!). The longer the movie goes the funnier it gets and I for one can say that those kinds of movies can be really entertaining. An additional bonus are some exquisite location shots of the foresty highlands areas.

Starring Steve Austin, Gary Daniels and Eric Roberts, the main villains in "The Expendables", here's another action flick for you. Except that it's a story you've probably seen before, or at least have seen enough elements of it. Who hasn't seen a cop or gun-toting man have his daughter kidnapped and then he is forced to either help the villains or kill them all? I mean, really... the least you could do is substitute a son. The best part of this film is towards the beginning after the heist. The interaction between the criminals is pretty awesome. Once Steve Austin shows up, it's kind of downhill. Not his fault, mind you -- Austin was terrific in his past work and is pretty decent here. The story just gets old quickly.

What a bad movie, how can the other reviewers be sooo wrong. I specifically signed up to write this message. Sure, the story reads like a Silvester Stallone movie and even though I think he is not a good actor, he is definitely a million miles better. The acting is SUPER wooden, VERY unnatural. And a lot of scenes don't even make sense, let me give a few, trying not to give too much spoilers: - in the trailer, the guy is lying NEXT to the door, easy to get him out - next scene, waking up in the cold forest, without a hat, which he only puts up AFTER getting up, stupid! I know, I am bald too... - and the worst of all (after that, I left the movie): when climbing the rock at the river, it looks soooo fake, he is clearly being pulled up! I will give it 2 points, just to show that I expected the storyline to be what it is, but after reading the other reviews I expected much better acting. And I was very disappointed in that.