jeremyfredrikson Reviews

6 Bullets (2012)

Gritty, tough, and one of JCVD's all-time best!

[9/10 · 20 November 2012]

Wow! This movie kicks some major backside from start to finish! There are always going to be mental midgets who will dismiss straight to DVD films as "lesser" works not to be taken seriously since they didn't have a theatrical run, and dipsticks who will say "Van Damme looks like hell" since he no longer resembles the clean cut "Muscle & Fitness" flex model or the mullet haired winking ladies' man that he was in some of his earlier films, but those boxed in clowns are missing out on some great action flicks. Unlike Steven Seagal, Van Damme is still hungry as an artist and his enthusiasm for making better, more serious films is extremely commendable. I'll give a brief synopsis of 6 BULLETS followed by why it's a major success for both JCVD and a must-see for his fans. Van Damme plays "The Butcher", a mercenary for hire. His current mission is to find and rescue a young boy who's been kidnapped and held captive in an underage sex slavery operation in Moldova, an Eastern European nation not unknown for major underground criminal activities. The butcher analyzes, infiltrates, annihilates, and obliterates everyone he meets who is involved in this industry with no mercy. Unfortunately, this particular rescue operation will come back to haunt him, forcing him into retirement, the bottle, and a bitter, empty shell of his former self. Shortly after these incidents, an American family of three checks into a nearby hotel. The father is a former MMA champion looking to make a comeback in a bout taking place in Moldova. That fight never occurs as he and his wife tragically discover that their daughter has gone missing, believed to have been abducted from the hotel. They look everywhere for her and are told by good authority to look for the butcher to help. Despite their pleas, the butcher refuses to help, his personal demons having turned him into a prisoner of inaction. The father tries to find the girl by himself and gets into one hell of a fight at a seedy strip club. The butcher finds himself unable to sit idly by and he eventually consents to help the couple locate their daughter. What follows are some very realistic and brutal scenes that would fit perfectly into any higher budget theatrical suspense release. There are vicious crime bosses, hard headed police chiefs, sexy strippers, frightened underage captive girls, a tough as nails mother willing to do anything to get her little girl back, clever surveillance methods and trickery, savage knife fights, knock down use anything bar style brawls, pulse pounding gun play, motorcycles, car explosions, gross out gore, and massive firepower. Van Damme is no longer just a guy who flexes his muscles and shouts "come on" after getting knocked down and then becoming a HeMan for no reason. He's a real human being, filled with emotional flaws and complexity...not to mention an on screen fighting presence and skills that induce yelps of awe from excited viewers. 6 BULLETS' villains are heinous, the heroic couple is wholeheartedly worth rooting for, and the daughter portrays the innocence of these victims with brilliant courage. This movie looks like (and is) a high quality action/suspense film that can be thoroughly enjoyed by those who don't even like martial arts and/or who have a negative preconceived notion of Van Damme. This is a film on a par with TAKEN, SKYFALL, and EXPENDABLES 2 in terms of sheer audience involvement/enjoyment if not in terms of gloss and money (heck, I enjoyed 6 BULLETS better than SKYFALL in totality and it's much more serious in tone than EXPENDABLES 2 was which may make it a better night's pick depending on viewer mood). Straight to DVD is no longer a term that applies to films that weren't good enough for theaters. It is a genre unto itself, made for expressly such a purpose, and is brimming with more than just a few "better than theater title" gems out there just waiting to be seen. Most of these movies simply would not rake in huge profits at the theater which is why the direct to DVD market exists...and that's not a bad thing. The majority of people nowadays only pay big bucks in mass for things like the TWILIGHT, HARRY POTTER, and TRANSFORMERS series and all-star cast films, and the same number of folks will simply never show up to the movie theater to watch a 50 plus year old Van Damme solo vehicle no matter the film. Martial arts film stars' big box office lives are simply short run. Heck, many people just don't go for that kind of movie. Still, that very fact allows these kinds of movies to survive and thrive (many times even more so...except for Steven Seagal who's straight to DVD fare has been wildly uneven which has been extremely frustrating for his fans) via straight to DVD which is a very good thing since Hollywood has a way of stinking up good things fast. I honestly think that 6 BULLETS is every bit as good if not better than many current big budget blockbuster action flicks. If you liked JCVD in EXPENDABLES 2, you owe it to yourself to check this out. There's less star power, less tongue in cheek camaraderie, less things blowing up on a grand scale, but much more emotional involvement and much more Van Damme. I loved it! (PS: This has nothing to do with Van Damme, but THE TOURNAMENT co-starring Kelly Hu is another rip-roaring straight to DVD martial arts/action/suspense film that is absolutely fantastic and definitely worth a rental.)

Skyfall (2012)

Real middle of the pack Bond.

[6/10 · 18 November 2012]

When I saw all the hype from "pro critics", I went into IMDb to see what the general audience members were saying. While the film currently rates a 7.8 (which ranks it as the 2nd best Bond on IMDb tied with Goldfinger and only beaten by Casino Royale... rubbish), this does not reflect what people have written about it. I've read tons of 1 star reviews claiming it to be the worst Bond ever made. Then there are the Craig era knob slobbers who pop up to state how it's the best Bond ever (usually saying that it's as good or better than the bar they have set which is Casino Royale... however, anybody over 30 knows that there are over 20 fantastic other series entries to measure it against if compare/contrast reviewing is your bag). I can easily say that SKYFALL is neither the best nor worst James Bond entry. I'd put it in the lower middle of the canon. The Good: An overly choreographed, drawn out, and over hyped video game like opening extended chase scene morphs into one of the most colorful title sequences in the entire series, which set to Adele's extremely well sung title theme song makes it the highlight of the film. The Aston Martin is back (although, for no logical reason other than nostalgia; it ain't exactly the vehicle of choice for the moors of Scotland). The phrase, "Bond, James Bond" is back and so are a couple of welcome one liners (although Craig is nowhere near as adept at saying them as, well, any of the other Bonds). The villain's kept woman is a very sexy Bond girl. The villain's island was a nice change of pace locale. A male M returns! Maybe we'll see some of the good old M vs Bond one ups again instead of the feminist mother complex trash we've been subjected to since the 90s. The Bad: CGI Komodo dragons? Pathetic! A potentially suspenseful moment where Bond hangs from a bar beneath a moving elevator was totally blown by having Craig simply pop off with no difficulty; the "how's he gonna get out of this one" suspense question was answered like a Z grade serial cliffhanger cheat. There were only two Bond girls, one of which turns out to be Moneypenny (in yet another blatantly PC affirmative action pandering bit of horrible token casting) and the other was a sex slave who Bond takes advantage of despite her tragic history and then lets her die with no remorse as if she were a mosquito. The chases all seemed like forward movement video games with no sense of "where am I" and "what do I do next" decision making. The villain's overblown plans were ridiculously unnecessary and implausible. The best was that this brilliant genius of a villain planned and plotted for years and was foiled by a fire extinguisher. Bond dies at the beginning which was obviously going to be explained but NOOOOO. He just pops up drinking a Heinekin with some hooker in a seedy hotel room with no explanation. M and an old geezer use flashlights outdoors while sneaking away from baddies? Really dumb move by all involved in making that scene. Way too much psycho babble drama. Nobody gives a rat's backside about non Fleming, newly fabricated reasons for why this modern day Bond impersonator acts the way he does (it's because the producers are fools and Craig's proving himself to be a one note stone faced actor). There were no stand out action/escape set pieces that will remain etched in your brain years from now other than maybe those lame CGI Komodos or a Home Alone "defend the castle" style bit of twaddle. I mean, right after the heroes stop a phase one attack, they're ammo's been spent and a phase 2 helicopter armed with missiles destroys everything they just worked so hard to defend. It was a joke of a defense plan! And that's the climactic highlight to an action film that contains an awful lot of non-action. Oh, and the backlash Q casting was abominable. A young mop hair hipster Q with cosmetic only glasses and a complete dislike of gadgets? WTF! Way to whiz on one of the most beloved characters of the franchise, Ms. Broccoli. Overall: a so-so Bond, not a "best" Bond (there are WAAAAY too many other great contenders to choose from that blow this one out of the ice filled waters) and not a "worst" Bond (that honor goes easily to Quantum). Still, with the ending resembling classic Bond (Moneypenny, M's office, and a gruff male M), there's still possible (maybe?) hope for better, more "classis" style Bond films to come in the future. The producers really need to learn to embrace what made Bond what it is instead of fighting against that formula to square peg it into today's action junk genre that focuses more on "feelings" and pouting looks instead of quick thinking reactive action and cleverness. Witty and well executed action/escape set pieces and stunts that make you squirm in anticipation and excitement at "how on Earth can he escape that!" was what made Bond appealing in the first place, that and the fact that they were spy movies that felt like authentic pulp spy movies. Bond was and should be a classy, suave, womanizing gentleman again instead of a hulking, sulking, "whoa is me, mommy" sensitive jock. The Craig era started off great with Casino Royale (in HUGE part thanks to Fleming's story), but he's (sky)fallen so quickly that I can't wait for a new actor to play Bond. I've never said that about any of the other actors and wanted all of them to continue making more Bonds.

Piranha 3DD (2012)

Now THIS is what we mean by an Exploitation Cult Classic!

[9/10 · 20 July 2012]

This movie is NOT going to appeal to everyone which is a very good thing. Heck, most people in all honesty are below average dullards that will review a totally gratuitous schlock fest like this in the same way they would review a serious horror movie like JAWS. If you ever write "none of the actors will receive any Oscars for their performance in this", do the world a favor and don't write any more reviews. Why anybody would expect a movie with a title like PIRANHA 3DD to be nominated for any Oscars is beyond me. It's a movie about giant prehistoric killer fish attacking people at a water park and the title is a play on breast size for Pete's sake! Oscars... man! Gimme a break. However, if you like gory horror exploitation flicks filled with T&A, blood and guts, and characters that make you bust a rib in disbelief at their stupidity in tight situations then this is an absolute gem, even better than the first in terms of sheer exploitation and low brow humor. If you don't want any spoilers, stop reading here and enjoy the film. If you want to know some highlights to help determine if you think you'd have a ball watching stuff like this, then read on (and congratulations for not being a humorless waste of space). Highlights: the casting of Gary Busey and David Hasselhoff, both of whom have a blast with their deserved cult status/personas (fans of "Baywatch" will especially have a riot watching the Hoff poke fun at his alter ego, Mitch the lifeguard); gratuitous boobies (and lots of them!); a decapitated head flying through the air and landing on a pair of giant fun bags in post-mortem motorboat fashion; reeling in "oh no" fashion as a piranha spawns inside a bikini babe's stomach and exits via her nether region during coitus interruptus, clamping onto her lover's reproductive unit which gives him the bright idea to pull a Bobbit on himself right then and there; very cool (and nasty) looking fish and over the top but still honest to goodness gag inducing special effects; Ving Rhames getting over his fear of water and lack of legs which were chewed off in the first film; a completely out of the blue shot of a Piranha in a fat pervert's plummer's crack; a fast pace and perfect running time of under 90 minutes as all movies like this should be (there's no padding here... which is very good considering the DDs in the title). I watched this movie with 2 other people who were horrified and disgusted by the goings on AND who laughed their butts off the entire time. That's exactly what this movie was supposed to do and it succeeded in all departments. Definitely not for everybody, but a GREAT time for those who have a twisted sense of humor. 8.5 stars for what it is (fast paced jump and shout scares, gross-out gore, consciously clever sleazy perverted fun). It's an Exploitation Cult Classic!

Thor (2011)

Pretty average at best.

[6/10 · 11 May 2011]

Boy, was THOR average. Absolutely nothing on screen surprised me (other than a scene I apparently missed which I guess appears after the entire end credits). Basically, Thor is a hotheaded warrior who just smacks ice monster men with his hammer and/or tackles them and later humans who are guarding his hammer on Earth where it lands in a desert and becomes like Excalibur's sword where no one can pull it out. The actor who plays Thor looks great and is very likable, but the rest of the cast just walks through the paces. Natalie Portman's character could have been played by anyone, Anthony Hopkins seems bored and tired, and the cute Amanda Sefreid is completely wasted and adds absolutely nothing to the proceedings as Portman's pal. The story is: Thor's about to become King but the ceremony is interrupted by a few ice monster creatures who are Thor's people's sworn enemies. Thor and a few of his buddies attack that race's world without a plan which causes the King to banish Thor to Earth without powers as his hammer is stuck in a desert a la Excalibur. Meantime, Thor's brother takes over as King and (no) surprise turns out to be kind of a traitor. Boring. A giant Iron Man looking thing is sent to Earth by Thor's brother, Thor asks it to spare the Earthlings and kill him, which it apparently does with one smack to the face. Then Anthony Hopkins' sleeping king sheds a tear as he telepathically hears how kind Thor is now (he has transformed from hotheaded to understanding in no time) and frees Thor's hammer which flies into Thor's hand, waking him up and allowing him to beat the tar of of the Iron Man robot thing in seconds flat. His buddies came to visit him for a few seconds before this, couldn't fight the monster for squat, and then they all return home so Thor can beat up his brother. The end. Until the post credit scene nobody stayed for. Too bad. I really like the concept of Thor and Nordic legend type warriors/gods. This story was really simple and offered absolutely nothing new to filmdom. Where IRON MAN rocked in a half humorous/half serious super hero way, the Tim Burton BATMAN movies were visual masterpieces, the Toby MacGuire SPIDERMAN movies were fun and colorful comic books come to life, and the newer BATMAN movies were dark and serious, THOR doesn't really make much of its own mark (although lots of the CGI bridge scenes make the characters look like tiny sized ants instead of big warriors when they walk upon them if that's a visual distinction albeit not a very good one). Not enough humor, not enough pathos, and not enough action to make it stand out (the coolest and most memorable action moment comes when Thor uses his hammer to fly through a monster's mouth and comes out the back of its head; the other fighting is pretty uninspired and consists of a lot of punching, basic kicks, and tackling which is fine and fairly realistic but not anything that stands out as extraordinarily memorable). THOR misses the potential to cash in on both the fish out of water and the Men In Black/CIA being a hindrence story lines. Hope Thor's next movie tops this one which should be an easy task. It doesn't stink, but it's just nothing to hoot about. Oh, and see it in 2-D. The 3-D scenes are really few and far between. All they added to the experience was a foil greater than Thor's brother as they made it hard to see when walking down the stairs at the hour twenty mark on the way to the can after a 20 dollar movie drink.

Inception (2010)

An average rating of 9+? Gimme a break!

[6/10 · 26 July 2010]

Alright, here's a review from an Average Joe to the Average Joes and Janes. INCEPTION, at its core, is a crime caper. It's a simple crime caper filled with made-up as you go along layers of complexity. If you look past the fantastic visual effects and the neat ideas about entering dreams, there's really not much too it. Or should I say, there's TOO MUCH too it. If you took away the dream masters element, you have a guy who hires a small team of criminals to try and convince an heir to a business empire to not follow in his father's footsteps. How do they do this? By going into his dreams and trying to brainwash him in a way that he won't know he was influenced by others and that the idea of him "doing his own thing" was his and his father's idea. In the meantime, you have an un-set up beginning meant to confuse the viewer and make him/her use their brains to figure out what's going on. Then when (or if) the viewer gets the gist of things, the plot throws around new sets of rules that pertain to dreams within dreams within dreams. Since there are characters inhabiting various levels or parallel worlds of dreams and reality, the camera is constantly jumping back and forth between the worlds. Can the dream tamperers succeed in their schemes? Well, you'll just have to sit for an excruciatingly long time while holding in your urine to find out. You'll see some really great visuals that look absolutely flawless (the film's best asset) and a few clever ideas and twists. You'll also see way too much jumping back and forth, gratuitous gunfire, and slow motion that reminded me of bad bomb timer scenes where the clock should have hit zero long ago had it not been for manipulated editing. You may also wonder when this movie is set and why this little band of "geniuses" can enter dreams with just a needle and a big button. If you're not that complicated, you'll probably just find yourself wondering what the heck's going on and never really be able to catch up or know what you just watched (that's what most of the people I know who actually saw the movie thought)! I really don't know how this movie (or any!) can get an above 9 star rating on here. It's really just a simple story at heart made way too confusing and complex for its own (and the audience's own) good. As I said earlier, it looks great, but feels really long, over-important, and not very well set-up at the start for most to really catch on and feel they have a hold on it. It also makes up its own rules as it goes along (falling chairs will make people wake up, but falling from other things won't; gunshots will wake you up on this level but not this one; you'll fry your mind on this level, but then some don't). Had this movie been set up quicker and shorn by about 45 minutes (get rid of all the slow mo in the final third!), you might have a nifty little Dreamscape successor. As it is, it's just a lot of hoopla over special effects and people thinking it's cool how there's dream stuff. Look at it closer, and it's just a small crime caper filled with visual effects and sci-fi fluff. Visually a 9 out of 10. Story-telling wise a 6-7 at best. So far, everyone I know personally who's seen it has absolutely hated it. I was the most generous of the bunch. See for yourself via a rental where you can pause, think, rewind, etc. Don't buy the hype of a 9+ IMDb rating.

The Spy Next Door (2010)

Cute, fun family film a la Uncle Buck!

[10/10 · 1 June 2010]

What a pleasant surprise! THE SPY NEXT DOOR turned out to be a very family friendly action comedy featuring an adorable cast of kids and a perfect role for Jackie Chan. In the tradition of UNCLE BUCK, the story involves 3 kids who don't exactly warm to a misunderstood adult who's a bit of a well-meaning sap. It doesn't help that he's dating the kids' divorcée mom. While I love almost all of Jackie's action comedies and thrillers as well as his period kung fu pieces that are not aimed specifically at family audiences, the character type he plays in this film is one I would also encourage him to continue and one I personally would love to see more of. He makes a great Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Jerry Lewis style slapstick comedian and a pretty good all around nerd. While there aren't any really death defying stunts or mind-blowingly fast-paced kung fu fights in this one, there ARE plenty of clever, inventive, and humorous comedy set-pieces and situational/grab-what's-there-and-use-it fight sequences as well as some nice pathos and warm-hearted character development and chemistry between Jackie and the kids. The 4 year old in this movie is cute as a button and an absolute riot who anybody who's had children or been a relative or pre-school teacher will immediately relate to. She practically steals every scene she's in which isn't easy considering her partner is the great Mr. Chan. The actors who play the rebellious teenage daughter and the intellectual only son who wants to be a little cooler than he knows he is are also perfectly cast. As Jackie ages (and as we all do along with him...not necessarily a bad thing when I see the younger crowds of today), some of Jackie's longtime fans and/or those who are and always will consider themselves above kiddie and family fare, may stick their noses high in the air at this type of film, but for those of us who have matured in life as Jackie has, it's great to see him venturing off into a variety of genres. The snooty can go right on ahead and harp on and on about how they feel Jackie's speed, agility, or choreography is not on par with his films of the 1980s or that he looks older now (duh...go look in a mirror and then at a 10 year old photograph and see if you notice any differences in yourself...should you just go away because a select few others who are of no importance in this matter think you looked better or were younger or more agile then?). It's your loss in viewing fun and life. I for one welcome this new Jackie Chan who realizes that his talents are broader than what some of his hardcore albeit snobbier fans may or may not want to see him do. Some fans of martial arts actors are a little odd. They think the actors are the characters they play or are only about fighting. Bruce Lee has many fans who take him way too seriously. In fact, Bruce would probably be disgusted with those idol worshiping droolers. He was an actor, and would have been a great comedic actor too (remember his bumbling phone repairman disguise?). Having a full life is a good thing. I think it's great that Jackie feels it's okay to drive more than one road. Some are bumpy in places, some lead to dead ends, but some lead to wonderful places with great things along the way when you take time to look out the windows.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

So tired of subjective "best ever" reviews

[7/10 · 11 January 2010]

I am so very tired of people reviewing movies, which are subjective by nature, as blanketly "best ever" this and "best ever" that. That's simply a case of small minds and big egos at work. There are so many great Holmes films and portrayals out there, that it's asinine to declare any one film or one actor as "the best". Most reviewers who rave about this film claim how it finally got "it" right. Got what right? Your personal interpretation of Sherlock Holmes in your mind? What about Jack's mind? What about Sally's? Some go so far as to claim this film merits something extra because it debunks the very debatable myth that Holmes never wore the famous deerstalker cap. For the record, Holmes was described as wearing a hat made of "cloth" that was an "ear-flapped traveling cap" in the story Silver Blaze. Original illustrator Sidney Paget saw that as meaning a deerstalker in his mind and an image even more famous than the writing on the page was born. Sounds like Paget made a pretty sound deduction too if you ask me. Regardless, if you personally don't think Holmes ever wore a deerstalker in the stories would facts like that alone or in combo boost a film so much as to make its interpretation "the best". Equally valid claims can be made that Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Arthur Wontner, Douglas Wilmer, Peter Cushing, Clive Merrison, and others depending on your taste are the best. The question is, was the movie any good on its own and were the performances fun. I don't give a hoot if it was exactly how you pictured Holmes in your mind or if you thought it was better/worse than other Holmes' films or that it somehow isn't as authentic because it wasn't a verbatim dramatization of a Conan Doyle tale, etc (Jeremy Brett fans, you know what I'm talking about). If you liked the movie, great. If you like other Holmes' a lot better, more power to you. I personally think the new Sherlock Holmes film took a lot of hinted at bits of Holmes' personality and skills from the canon and gave those characteristics the spotlight. That's fine. Those aren't the qualities that took reign when I read the stories, but who cares? Why would I want to see the exact same thing I saw when I read the books? That would make for a monotonous world. Hurray for everybody's various interpretations and subjective and wonderfully different tastes! There are no gospel truths about movies or books or art, so please just say you "liked it a lot" instead of it was "the best". That's so unhelpful. Just tell me what you liked about it as a film on its own without comparing it to any books, or other versions/interpretations. That's like saying one food item is "the best". It's ridiculous. On a final note, this new interpretation is a welcome addition to the world of Sherlock Holmes. It doesn't diminish any of the older films or television series. It stands on its own as another fun ride for fans of mystery, action, and those who love many things Sherlock.

Friday the 13th (2009)

Hot chicks, but this retread really just runs thru the expected paces.

[4/10 · 14 February 2009]

Okay, here's a review by someone who's not going to love every Friday The 13th movie just because it's a Friday The 13th movie. Some people are really obsessed with these films and will like them no matter what. And that's fine. In fact, that's good for them, because this one sure treads steady, familiar waters. The rest of us who want a genuinely scary horror movie and were hoping for some new plot elements, will more than likely be asking ourselves what was the point of making this film? It's definitely nothing new or original (unless you think a different weapon or killing method is enough to be called new and original, because the plot sure isn't). It's a recycling. Here it is in a nutshell. The film opens in 1980 with quick snippets of Jason's mother yelling at a girl, lumping her in with the counselors who let Jason drown on their watch. If you haven't seen earlier entries or read about the other films, you may not know what's going on, and even if you have you still might ask yourself what a young Jason is doing lurking around in the background during this opening scene. So did he drown or didn't he? Just when you start to ask yourself what's going on, the film cuts to the present day and a bunch of horny, annoying, beer and/or pot loving guys and gals on their way to find weed in the woods. Jason pops up and quickly eliminates these cartoony kids. This first 20 minutes is pretty fast once Jason appears, not good, just fast. Even Jason himself is fast, unfortunately. He's actually more like Leatherface here than the Jason we grew up to love. After he slaughters the teens in various ways (some predictably so, some freshly done, and one not even shown!), the title pops up which may invoke laughter since it comes so far in. Next...more dumb teens, but at least some in this next group improvise funny little lines here and there. The pacing is really off on this flick. It's fast, slow, fast, fast, sloooow, fast, fast, seen it before, dumb, done. There are scenes of talking which drag, and then Jason just popping up out of the blue to kill. No suspenseful build ups, just whammo! Stalker type scares? Forget about it. It's as if the filmmakers think the audience knows what's going to happen anyway so they skip the sweating, waiting, false-start moments that in earlier entries were the reasons behind any feelings of fear and shock. Some of the killings here invoke "ewww" responses, others have been done better before (in Silent Night, Deadly Night, earlier Friday entries, and even a kung fu flick called Warriors Two!). The goings on are so familiar that the entire effort comes across as really unnecessary. The main change is a very bad one, too. Jason's fast! Possibly for today's text messaging "I need it now" teen crowd? A fast Jason? Might as well make Aquaman a land lubber. Why not show the dumb teens at least trying to fight back before failing? Some different ideas are started but not carried through (ex. Jason has a nifty alarm system that tips him off that people are on his property, but he doesn't even go see who's there...although that was in See No Evil). Some dialog feels purposely corny and forced, other bits are genuinely funny and come off as possible improv, while some is just meaningless filler. The Good: great looking girls (especially one who has a prolonged sex scene and is the object of very funny dialog like, "Your #@#s are so juicy, dude." Dude!), some funny improv "yeah, fix the chair cuz my dad used to beat me in it", great looking girls, some unexpectedly timed kills and sounds (arrow, dog), great looking girls, a guy licking a centerfold magazine (the best part of the whole movie next to the extended sex scene), and did I mention great looking girls? The Bad: same old story, a fast and even thinking man Jason (we want our walk-and-kill Jason Voorhees back!), contrived bits (a completely forced and ridiculous homage to the original film's ending happens about 10 lousy seconds after the "heroes" dump a dead(?) Jason into Crystal Lake...not scary at all this time, just a joke laughed at by most in the theater), a real lack of suspense and build up, scenes that aren't filmed quite right (a camper's looking down at pot plants, next has gotta be a shot of Jason's shoes and a slow camera tilt up to him, right? wrong, just more pot plants and then a wide shot cut to a standing Jason...ho hum), and no legitimate, real scares (although the gore might gross some people out...and that dog bark!). A horror movie should be scary at least somewhere for Pete's sake unless it's a spoof. Sitting through this was like watching a rerun of a rerun where you almost always know what to expect. Except that instead of the victims walking...then listening...then walking...then stopping...oh, just a false start...then BOO!, this one's sped up to just talking then BOO, BOO, talking, BOO, etc. Fine effects, boobies, and some silly improv sure, but this one's really just more of the same. At least Jason X, Freddy VS Jason, Jason Goes To Hell, Part V, and the original tried to shake things up a little (which I guess is why die-hard Jason fans rank some of those lower on the scale, I guess). This one's really for those just wanting an assembly line product of what they've seen and liked in the past. I'd give it a 9 for boobies, a 2 for story originality, a 2 for genuine scares, an 8 for the well done but less than inspired gore effects, and an overall 4-5 as a passable entry that really just goes through the expected paces. Die-hard Friday fans rejoice! Horror fans, eh. It's got some moments...and boobies!

Eagle Eye (2008)

Horrible chases and train wrecks in a Trainwreck of a film.

[2/10 · 13 January 2009]

It's very rare that I think a film's such a waste of time at the halfway mark that I don't even feel like finishing it. This is one of those rare films. There's an unfortunate trend to make chase movies with quick cut editing, interlaced with CGI, lit very darkly to hide the fact that what you are watching is as unreal as most of it looks. Take away enough reality and you take away emotional involvement from the audience. There's no sense of danger and no feeling of wanting to shout, "Look out! Go there!" Car chases can be very exciting. It doesn't take a big budget to make a great car chase either. Look at any low budget action flick directed by Joseph Mehri (Executive Target, Land Of The Free) and you'll see that real cars, driven by real stunt people, shown in broad daylight, and in wide shots are far more exciting than close-ups of "stars" sitting in a studio in front of a blue screen mixed with quick cuts of darkly lit cars and/or CGI cars. When you can't tell which cars are which or where the cars are in relation to each other, you don't get too excited when the inevitable crashes and explosions occur. Apart from the horribly choreographed and edited car chases, train wrecks (man, that looked fake!), and running scenes is the fact that what is going on is impossible. When I saw cranes moving on their own in a junkyard picking up what I assume were high speed cop cars (again, you can't tell what's going on in the action scenes since they're so dark and individual camera shots last one second at times), I almost puked. Cranes are clunky, awkward machines. Yet they can pluck cop cars up from a 90 mph chase? Gimme a break. If this was The Transformers, fine, but it's supposed to be a real world suspense thriller. It's tough to care about any of what's going on since it's all just too unbelievable, cliché ridden, poorly lit, and quickly edited. Plus, the CGI looks awful. I read somebody's comment about the CGI being very good. Are people getting so used to putting up with fake looking CGI that they are used to it as just the way it is? That's sad. Give me real cars, real stunt people, lighting, and a story that's believable enough to be somewhat emotionally involving. Give me leading characters that I would want to have a beer with instead of wanting to punch in the face for being a sarcastic little know-it-all jerk. If that's what kids today consider a characteristic to aspire to, they're going to meet an awful lot of people in the real world who aren't going to put up with it for very long. Thumbs way down for this train wreck of a "film".

Cloverfield (2008)

Hand-held camera passes inferior Godzilla rip-off as art.

[6/10 · 29 January 2008]

When the trailer for this came out, I heard somebody in the audience say, "What is that? Another Godzilla movie?" Kind of. Unfortunately, kind of like the Matthew Broderick Godzilla box office disaster. In fact, I always thought that particular film would have received better reviews had it not been called a Godzilla film. Afterall, the monster didn't look at all like the traditional Godzilla, and the film took itself very seriously. It could have been called Cloverfield 1. The current Cloverfield film is very short, clocking in well under the standard hour and a half. Despite this, the first part of the film seems like an eternity. Half hour number one introduces us to the film's one dimensional...no, make that non-dimensional characters at a going away party. It also introduces us to a hand-held camera that is used throughout the entire film, generating more wooziness than the most avid Blair Witch hater could ever imagine. I wouldn't advise forking out 16 bucks on some stale popcorn/week old hot dog/flat soft drink combo for this one! Your stomach will want immediate pay back. I will give that awful hand-held camera credit for one thing, though. It sure is a tough little gizmo. It's outer casing survives monsters, falling bricks, explosions, the army, and an air raid that levels Manhattan. But that camera keeps going and going and going. So do the characters. That's all they do. They run and scream and shout and run and scream and shout. People are dying all around them, but all that matters to the film's "hero" and his pals is going back to save a girlfriend he got into an argument with at the beginning of the film. His friends don't take too much persuading to accompany him in this futile quest either, but then again, who wouldn't blindly follow an unfleshed out character on a collision course with a giant monster that's been killing everyone in sight? Not surprisingly, the friends get picked off one by one...yawn. Too bad you see so much of these disposable characters and not very much of the monster which is barely glimpsed at for the most part. When it is seen, the big guy looks like CGI. Night Of The Demon had it right, less is more when an on screen monster doesn't do justice to the off-screen fright it is supposed to evoke. There are a couple of "whoah!" moments in Cloverfield involving smaller insects which spew off of the big one for no reason other than to have something to chase the kids indoors and add some gross out moments. (Come to think of it, weren't there little Godzilla monsters in the Matthew Broderick Godzilla movie as well? Hmmmm.) Toho's Godzilla films are for the most part fun and campy. Cloverfield is basically a serious attempt at a giant monster flick. It's really just an artsy fartsy Godzilla film with 80% of it's time taken up by annoying college aged blank canvases either saying nothing much (that going away party, which was filmed as if you were there, was so dull that if I was an invite I would have left long before any monster ever showed up!) or huffing and puffing while running, screaming, and orally implying vague happenings that aren't shown on camera. I can't believe this nothingness has gotten such great reviews on this site. It has a few scares and moments of "what's going on!", but far too many lulls, repetitions, and nothing actually going on a whole lot of the time, a fact you'll realize if you close your eyes and actually stop letting the hand-held motion camera trickery fool you for a few seconds while trying not to vomit from dizziness. If you do see this one, grab some motion sickness meds and leave all analytical thinking out the door. Questions as to why there's a monster, why college educated people would go up on a roof during an earthquake, why little monsters are falling off the big one, why cell phone batteries die so easily and camera batteries do not, (etc.) have no place during this frill ride. If you think too much, sorry to say but you'll fall into a plot hole, not a hole caused by an inferior CGI Godzilla wannabe. Despite all the negativity I've stated, I give this one 5.5 out of 10, meaning, like most films, it's just a middling time waster to be seen once and never again. There are a few genuine critter jolts and some very nice building disaster special effects. It just isn't worth the raves on this site. I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed after hearing so many overly positive reviews. (As time has passed, it's obvious that IMDb is no longer a place to go to base your decision on whether to see a new movie or not. A bulk of first reviews here are written by hired guns to get people to show up at the box office. The other vast majority of reviews on here are by people who love certain movies almost with an obsession. Trust only the ones that briefly describe the plot and tell you a few pros and cons so that you can decide if such a movie will appeal to you or turn you off. Only you can truly decide in the end, but at least the latter kind of reviews can help determine a rental versus spending a fortune at the theater.)

Until Death (2007)

Excellent Cop Thriller Drama

[9/10 · 9 May 2007]

I was very pleased to see the many positive comments posted about this movie. Hopefully, some of these reviews will help those who have any reservations about seeing Van Damme's films give it a look. Yesterday, when I rented it, even the Blockbuster manager quipped, "Let me know if that one's any good. I used to like Van Damme, but have been disappointed in a lot of his films." I am happy to say that this movie is definitely not a disappointment.

UNTIL DEATH is not a modern day chop-socky muscle man movie. It is an intense, violent, character driven cop/crime thriller. Van Damme is no longer the pretty boy muscle head of Bloodsport. In fact, the first time his character appeared on screen in this one, the person sitting next to me blurted out, "He looks like sh*t!" Yes, he does. His complexion is pasty, pale, haggard and sweaty, but if you watch the movie, there's a reason for this "make-up". His character is not your typical television show narcotics agent. This officer is a drug addict, a womanizer, and a turncoat. He's hated alike by pushers, dealers, prostitutes, his estranged wife, and even his fellow officers. His life is a mess, and his face and behavior show it. Still, he was a good cop at one time, and as the film progresses, he is given numerous chances at redemption.

Van Damme is moving more and more away from making dumb action hero movies where his muscle man persona gets beat up and then miraculously wins fights later simply by yelling, "Come on!," and making mad faces. Even though his recent movies are dismissed by some immediately because they are straight to DVD fare, this is exactly why his movies have been progressing. He has a strong fan base and can still guarantee certain returns for his producers. At the same time, since less money is on the line as far as box office returns, he can experiment with movies that have more depth and artistic merit. If you liked WAKE OF DEATH, then UNTIL DEATH will be right up your alley. I personally think, it's his best film since that one. To give you a gage on the types of Van Damme movies I like, I rank UNTIL DEATH, WAKE OF DEATH, MAXIMUM RISK, UNIVERSAL SOLDIER and DEATH WARRANT up at the top.

Employee of the Month (2006)

Fast-paced Pleasant Surprise!

[9/10 · 22 January 2007]

Wow! I thought this one was just going to be a guilty pleasure rental giving me a chance to check out some more of Jessica Simpson's curves in action, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that Employee Of The Month was a very fun little flick. Filled with a cast of terrific character actors, the movie succeeds in honestly nailing the sort of personalities you find in such a workplace (in any workplace, for that matter!). The egomaniacs, the under-achievers, the kiss-ups, the hotties, the dim-witted, the overbearing, the cliques (etc.) are all there, and spot on. Special mention goes to Dax Sheperd who steals the show as the obnoxious, over-achieving, ego-maniacal, and lecherous antagonist, Vince. His rivalry with the film's hero for the affections of Jessica Simpson (as well as his over-the-top cashier antics) push the movie into the above average category. Highlights of the film include: cashier cirque-du-soleil shenanigans to impress the ladies, box-boy only poker games held in a secret clubhouse, Vince trying to finish Jessica Simpson's sentences when he hears this may impress her, an classy in-store date, Andy Dick's nearsightedness, and terrific comic chemistry between the villain and his protégé and the store manager and his assistant. Oh, and I wasn't disappointed in seeing Jessica Simpson's curves in action either. She looks great in this film, and makes a great nice girl next door type of leading lady. Highly recommended to fans of Jessica Simpson and boys after the same girl raunchy type comedy.

American Kickboxer 2 (1993)

Fast-paced, hilariously over-the-top fun!

[9/10 · 16 October 2006]

The people who have reviewed this film definitely didn't get it. In a genre filled with garbage, American Kickboxer 2 kicks the lid off the can.

The story involves the kidnapping of a little girl. Afraid of what will happen if she calls the police, the girl's mother calls upon her ex-husband and ex-boyfriend (both highly skilled martial artists), to help. The catch, the two men absolutely DESPISE each other! They get into almost as many fights with each other as they do with the bad guys! For those who like fast-paced, tongue in cheek (but NOT a spoof) action movies that don't take themselves too seriously, then American KICKBOXER 2 is for you. The fantastic fights are the pudding on the cake, and this cake is filled with Snack Pack!

Dale Cook, as the ex-husband (a cop with martial arts skills) is the highlight. Standing head and shoulders above most performers in this genre of films, his over-the-top enthusiasm fits this somewhat silly genre to a tee. He knows that martial arts movies aren't suited to everybody's taste. They're made mostly for guys who like to see guys skillfully kicking each other's backsides in! His acting style, therefore, also not for everybody's taste. It would, however, fit right into the bigger than life world of the WWE.

In almost all of his films, Dale Cook's character has a chip on his shoulder, swears up a storm (get a load of his first few lines in the great sci-fi post apocalyptic martial arts action flick, FIST OF STEEL!), and fights like a mule (there is NO doubt that this guy was a real life world kick boxing champion!). He induces belly laugh after belly laugh playing a poor angry loser who can't seem to get ahead. Dale Cook is actually a first rate comedic actor. Sure, he hams it up, with facial grimaces, loud vocals, and universally understood body language, but this is exactly as intended. Like the performers in the world of professional wrestling, this kind of acting is aimed at a specific audience that "gets it". Think about it, movies about guys going around kicking each other in the face every few minutes? That kind of world is just a little goofy and unreal to begin with. Acting in a manner that is equally goofy and unreal, while still not mocking and making everything a joke, can help the audience buy into such a world, not examining it too seriously and just enjoying the ride. (If the shoe fits the face...) Dale "Apollo" Cook chooses to fill his film's worlds with a martial arts version of Butch, The Bully and/or Moe from the 3 Stooges! He gets mad as a hornet when upset, and sweet as honey when pleased. His acting makes you smile because he is so BIG in everything he does. This, however, is NOT bad acting. It is perfectly appropriate when placed in a film that is equally over the top, and the films he appears in are just that. There are serious martial arts action dramas (most of which are complete bores), and then there are films like American Kickboxer 2, popcorn movies set at a lightning pace, offering comedy, situational suspense, and crackerjack fighting along the way! Fans of serious deadpan martial arts actors like Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal, and Jean Claude Van Damme, get ready for a surprise. Martial artists can be tough, technically skilled, and dirt humor funny as well!

I rank Dale "Apollo" Cook up there with the following less popular (but better than many popular) charismatic martial arts/action stars: George Chung (Fight To Win, Karate Cops), Jerry Trimble (Live By The Fist, One Man Army), Loren Avedon (King Of The Kickboxers, No Retreat No Surrender 2-3), and "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (Back In Action, Tough And Deadly, They Live). If you like any of those guys, check out the works of Dale "Apollo" Cook (Blood Ring, Raw Target, Triple Impact, Fist Of Steel). You're in for a treat!

American Kickboxer (1991)

Very well done little American martial arts movie!!!

[10/10 · 16 October 2006]

American KICKBOXER stars 3 terrific martial artists: John Barrett (Tang Soo Do black belt and star of TO THE DEATH), Keith Vitali (ranked by Black Belt Magazine as one of the 10 best Karate fighters of all time, and star of NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER 3), and Brad Morris (former bouncer, boxer, and professional kick boxer). All 3 do an excellent job in this fine martial arts action drama.

The story is your basic Rocky 3 type of film (a mean bad guy, a comeback hero, training scenes, and great fights). Simple as it sounds, it's a formula that works. This one has John Barrett playing a kick boxing champ named BJ Quinn, who accidentally kills a guy while drunk at a party. He is sent to prison for 12 months, and banned from fighting in a championship match for 5 years. (This is based on a real life standard. If a person knows martial arts and injures or kills someone who does not have prior training, the judges may rule it as excessive force.) When BJ returns from prison, the new champ (Brad Morris) taunts him into a non-sanctioned fight.

John Barrett (who also came up with the idea for this story) is completely competent, both dramatically and physically, as the kick boxer hero. His character is an anti-hero with flaws. He is a cocky win-by-any-means fighter at the beginning. He drinks, is jealous and quick to start a fight, and has severe anger management problems. He doesn't like who he is, and is mad at the world, for no real reason other than he isn't happy and doesn't know how to change that. Keith Vitali is a natural, as the nice guy who plays by the rules. His character is a great fighter, but doesn't understand that you can't play fair if the other guy doesn't. Vitali's squeaky clean looks and voice fit the part to a tee. The highlight performance comes from Brad Morris. He is absolutely brilliant as the obnoxious, mentally immature villain of the piece. Cocky, arrogant, stupid, loud, and one hell of a fighter, his character will no doubt remind you of more than one real life jerk you have seen or met, which makes his hidden mockery of those types all the more fun.

Looking at the negative reviews posted about this movie on IMDb, I felt the urge to post a positive one, as this truly is a film worth seeing for those who enjoy martial arts movies. I saw quite unhelpful comments being posted about spandex, poor fight choreography, bad acting, unintentional comedy, the age of John Barrett, and corny music. The only one of those that I can slightly agree with is the music. There are indeed a couple of cheesy rock ballads unnecessarily put in to emphasize moments of drama, which do make you roll your eyes, because this movie "ain't no Shakespeare", and never intended to be. The other comments though are ridiculous. The fighters wear spandex. Big deal! That was what they wore back then. Even today, many wrestlers, kick boxers, and UFC fighters wear it. (All of the guys are in shape, too, which may even motivate guys who watch the movie to hit the gym, while also providing reverse eye candy for girls who are actually nice enough to sit through this type of genre flick with their boyfriends!) Poor fight choreography? Ever watched a real kick boxing or UFC match? The guys in this movie are razor sharp and technically perfect in their kicking and punching. By comparison, most real matches look like garbage. The last match in American KICKBOXER is an absolute must-see! Bad acting? Not at all. The acting is BIG, but that's perfectly in tune with the characters being portrayed. (Ever see some of the idiots in the world of professional fighting today, especially mixed martial arts? Some of those guys act like apes!) Brad Morris does a perfect job playing a musclebound moron of a villain (his character is one you just love to hate!), and the comedy, again provided mostly by Morris as the dumb jock, is a laugh riot, and intentional as such, based on his pitch perfect psycho sports athlete personification. John Barrett is too old? He was only 37-38 when this movie was filmed(!), and is in great shape! His kicks are absolutely flawless.

I have never understood why there is such a prejudice against people in movies and sports who are over 30. I know that kids today must think that 30 is ancient, (I remember thinking 25 was old when I was 21), but there have been tons of great fighters over the age of 30. This movie is not off base in that respect. Here are some champs and their ages when fighting: Archie Moore (47), Sonny Liston (32), Jersey Joe Walcott (39), George Foreman (45), Evander Holyfield (38), James Toney (38), Don "The Dragon" Wilson (45), Chuck Norris (34), Branco Cicatik (38), Ernesto Hoost (37), Ken Shamrock (41), etc.

I highly recommend American KICKBOXER for fans of martial arts movies. It's on my top 100 American martial arts films list. It's not one of those goofy so-bad-it's-funny kind of movies (although ANY movie can be turned into one of those if desired). It's a solid action drama with great (and motivational) training and fight scenes, and touches of pathos and comedy that work very well as they are driven by character. Everybody in the cast does an above average job, and Brad Morris delivers a break-through performance.

If you like American KICKBOXER, I also recommend TO THE DEATH (John Barrett), SUPERFIGHTERS (Keith Vitali), and American KICKBOXER 2 (Dale "Apollo" Cook). American KICKBOXER 2 bears no relation to this one other than the title, but is extremely entertaining in its own right, thanks to a fast pace and an enthusiastically over-the-top performance by Dale Cook (truly, one of the best performers in the genre).

The Cutter (2005)

Chuck's back! In a fast-paced, actioner worthy of support.

[7/10 · 6 June 2006]

Geeze, with all the negative reviews I see on IMDb for the films of Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and Don "The Dragon" Wilson, I have to wonder just what is the point of some of those reviews. Do those reviewers simply want people to stop renting these guys' films so they stop making money and movies altogether? I am on the other end of the spectrum. I want to see these guys star in MORE films (and in continually BETTER films). With that being said, here's a review from one of the "good guys in black".

THE CUTTER is definitely worth a rental. It's a fast-paced little actioner with touches of drama and mystery thrown in.

The film opens with a bang involving a hang-glider, a mummy excavation, and one mean villain played by Daniel Bernhardt. Then Chuck makes his first appearance. He's a private eye out to rescue a hostage being held for ransom. After he dispatches the criminals, an investigating detective asks Chuck, "Did you have to throw him out of the window?" In classic deadpan form, Chuck responds, "I needed some air." Nobody can deliver a line like that as well as Chuck Norris!

The rest of the story involves the kidnapping of an expert jewel cutter (Bernie Kopell, "Doc" from THE LOVE BOAT) and Chuck's attempts to find and rescue him. There are several show-stopping fights including Daniel Bernhardt's confrontation with an unknown grey haired agent whose fighting style resembles Jeff Speakman's kenpo moves, and a great close quarter fight between Bernhardt and Norris inside a passenger bus! Both of those are real doozies that should please any serious martial arts action fan. Overall, the fights in THE CUTTER are a little more reality based in style, and therefore shorter and sloppier than those found in many kung fu films, but hey, that's what real fighting looks like!

To add to the film's charm are a couple of lovely co-stars, Joanna Pacula (GORKY PARK) and Tracy Scoggins (BABYLON 5, DEAD ON). Both ladies are very pleasing on the eyes, and both have excellent chemistry with Mr. Norris.

It's great to see Chuck back in form as the star of a non-Walker movie (Although, I still can't wait for that next Walker reunion flick that will hopefully tie up the loose ends that were left in the last one!), and I hope he continues to make films on a more regular basis. His sons and brothers continue to show interest in working behind the scenes, and are lucky to have a great showcase to work with in their more famous relative. Here's to continued success for and from the Norris family!

Here's a quick list of other must-see Chuck Norris films for new fans: A FORCE OF ONE, CODE OF SILENCE, THE OCTAGON, AN EYE FOR AN EYE, WAY OF THE DRAGON (aka RETURN OF THE DRAGON), and SLAUGHTER IN SAN FRANSISCO.

Oh, and while I'm at it, here are a couple of other fairly recent martial arts movies that are well worth a watch, WAKE OF DEATH (Jean-Claude Van Damme), REDEMPTION, MOVING TARGET (Don "The Dragon" Wilson), UNDER THE GUN (Richard Norton), and INTO THE SUN (Steven Seagal).

Wake of Death (2004)

One of Van Damme's Best Movies!

[10/10 · 3 June 2006]

Van Damme fans who have been hoping for another BLOODSPORT will not find it in WAKE OF DEATH. However, those who have been hoping that Van Damme will appear in another high quality film of actual artistic merit (not just in the martial sense, but also in action, direction, and storytelling) will be very happy to see this film!

Van Damme turns in one of his finest acting performances in this one. He does a great job handling awkward silences (you'll smile when he is introduced to a little girl), pent up rage (you'll sweat along with one of the villains as Van Damme interrogates him), and moments of tragedy (I won't give anything away, but Van Damme is completely believable in these very difficult to perform scenes). The film also delivers the goods when it comes to the action. Sure there are the usual (and perfectly performed!) high kicks and punches, but there are also surprisingly effective (and surprising in general!) moments of gun-play, and knock down drag 'em out violence (mafia style!). There is also a terrific car chase (great sound effects!) and one dynamite motorcycle chase (inside a shopping mall!). For those of you who prefer Hong Kong action, one of the henchmen is played by a champion wushu performer. For those who prefer more reality based methods of combat, there are plenty of punches, low kicks, guns, and even...gulp...drills!

The director also does a fine job, and definitely knows how to deliver shock and suspense, in the same way that the better horror directors do. Sometimes you are taken completely by surprise at things that happen, and other times you know things are coming, and you still can't take your eyes off the screen to see how the character who doesn't know what's coming will react.

All in all, this is definitely one of JC's best works. To be fair, I'm not really a big fan of BLOODSPORT. Sure, it was Van Damme's big breakthrough film (and he did a great job in it, there's no denying!), and Bolo made a great villain (you absolutely HATE his character in that movie which is exactly what you are supposed to do!), but the storyline was very basic (a bunch of fighters fight in a tournament, woo hoo!), the dialogue was pretty embarrassing ("Look...he's fighting like a...such and such kind of an animal!" No, really? I never would have known had you not told me. Thanks a lot. Jeeze!), and there was no real lesson, moral, emotional content, or...point?...to the story, other than, I guess, that you are supposed to want Van Damme's character to win because he's the good guy, and he does win because...he's the good guy, and...it was written in the script. The point of me bashing BLOODSPORT (and again, even I will admit it does have some merit) is to give a little clue to reasons why some people hate JC's newer movies. There are those that love BLOODSPORT, KICKBOXER, LIONHEART, and maybe THE QUEST which are his purest fighting films (the ones where he loves yelling, "Come, on!" to his opponents...even sometimes when it seems like they're beating him!). These people have good reason for not liking his newer flicks, as they are just not like those classics, and will probably not please most who are looking for that kind of film.

Then there are those who, like me, prefer MAXIMUM RISK, HARD TARGET, DEATH WARRANT, UNIVERSAL SODIER (1 not 2!), TIMECOP, REPLICANT, IN HELL, and...uh, hum...NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER (Okay, I admit it! That is a VERY fun little flick, and no Van Damme fan should go without seeing it!). For those of you who like ALL of his films (I kind of fall into this category as well as I seem to only REALLY hate STREETFIGHTER...P...U...!!!), or those who like the ones I listed (the ones with a little less martial and a little more art), you should definitely give WAKE OF DEATH a chance. I wouldn't be surprised if you, too, find yourself adding it to your list of favorites.

Keep heading in this direction Van Damme, combining the martial (don't abandon that aspect, in fact, you can still add more!) with the art!

Hawkeye (1988)

Fun With Chung!

[8/10 · 14 March 2006]

Another little gem in the all too brief filmography of martial arts movie star/writer/producer/director George Chung (Fight To Win, Kindergarden Ninjas).

Structurally and technically a little crude (and not quite up to par with Chung's earlier masterpiece, FIGHT TO WIN), KARATE COPS (aka HAWKEYE) nonetheless remains a very enjoyable modern day martial arts film.

Decidedly tongue-in-cheek, this extremely low budgeter (the editing especially has a homemade look to it) contains superb martial arts, snappy one-liners, and a knockout performance by co-star Chuck Jeffreys (Bloodmoon, Deathfight, Fight To Win), who, like Chung, warrants much more merit than he has ever received.

Chung plays a cop from Texas who, against his will, is assigned a new partner, played by Jeffreys. Together the two crack down on a Japanese mobster and his henchmen. Years before RUSH HOUR, Chung and Jeffreys demonstrated a great rapport and talent for bicker and banter.

Filled with situational comedy, fantastic martial arts, and even some surprisingly well done dramatic acting (from BOTH leads), KARATE COPS also features a first rate villain, the legendary Leo Fong (Blind Rage, Blood Street, Fight To Win).

Memorable bits include Chung foiling a bank robbery by knocking out a female bystander and shooting around many hostages, Jeffreys taking a game of good cop/bad cop a little too seriously, Chung explaining that his martial arts instructor was just a fat guy at the Y, and a climactic game of high stakes roulette.

A must-see for fans of American martial arts movies.

Very fun!

Fight to Win (1987)

Talent + A Sense of Fun = A Good Time Had By All!

[9/10 · 14 March 2005]

I bought this movie for $1.50 at a VHS blowout sale after seeing that Cynthia Rothrock, Richard Norton, Bill Wallace, and Hee Il Cho were among the cast. I figured it would be pretty cheap and dull with a few good moves by each of the three. Boy, was I wrong! Fortunately! I had never heard of the star George Chung before, but that guy has athleticism and charisma to spare! He's funny, sarcastic, and kicks like a whirlwind! Then there's Leo Fong (BLIND RAGE, BLOOD STREET). This guy's a true living legend of the martial arts, and deserves an honorary black belt in comedy as well! Chuck Jeffreys (BLOODMOON, SUPERFIGHTS) adds to the fun with Eddie Murphy type lip-offs and dynamic martial artistry. Even the supporting players get into the action with witty dialog, ("Man, this is bull$@#& that we gotta work every Sunday!) and goofy gun-toting action. Football great Ronnie Lott even stops by to make a gratuitous cameo on an ATV telling how he "got cut" from the team before he casually guns down a henchman. This movie is tongue-in-cheek all the way, and it's too bad that more American martial arts movies didn't go down this same road. FIGHT TO WIN can be summed up as: great martial artists having a good time while poking a little fun at the sometimes all too serious martial art/action film genre. HIGHLY recommended to those who like martial arts, and cheesy low budget 80s movies that entertain not because they are so bad, but because they are so good!

Everything works in this film! A great gathering of talent!