Month: May 2019

Released: May 2019

Director: Jesse V. Johnson

Not Rated

Run Time: 90 Minutes

Genre: Action/Crime

Cast:
Scott Adkins: Cain Burgess
Craig Fairbrass: Lincoln Burgess
Thomas Turgoose: Tune
Nick Moran: Hyde
Kiersten Wareing: Bez
Louis Mandylor: Detective O’Hara

Can someone explain something to me?  How is it that modern big-budget action films are no where near as good as their low-budget indie brethren?  Has Hollywood lost touch with the genre?  I think it has.  Back in the days before CGI took over everything, the only way you could stunts and fights to really work on screen was to actually do them.  Indiana Jones, Star Wars(original trilogy pre-Special Edition), Aliens, Commando.  These films had to rely on tried and true methods that involved blood, sweat and tears, often literally.  The difference between action films of today and yesteryear is literally night and day.  These days, studios and film-makers rely on computers and digital trickery to do the work of folks who literally put their lives on the line for our entertainment.  The indie film scene, however, has taken a…mostly old-school approach to action, almost by necessity as it were.  Film-makers like Jino Kang, Isaac Florentine, and Jesse V. Johnson often rely on a what-you-see-is-what-you get tactic.  Basically, if it can be done in camera, then that’s exactly what you will see.  CGI is kept to a very bare minimum.  Speaking of Jesse V. Johnson, he just released a new action thriller called Avengement.  Let’s have a gander, shall we?

Cain Burgess is a low-level thug trying get back in the good graces of the crime organization that hired him.  He had botched a job earlier and he has one more chance to prove himself, only to end up spending 7 years in prison, being attacked by inmates left and right.  Forced to adopt a form of savagery in order to survive, Cain escapes from prison to hunt down the people who screwed him over.  That’s pretty much the gist of the story.  As I have said before, sometimes the simple approach is the best option.  You don’t have any major twists or turns to get in the way of what you’re seeing, so any surprises you might have feel natural and earned.  Like Accident Man, The Debt Collector, and Savage Dog, Avengement tells a simple, yet very compelling story that focuses on the characters.  Most big-budget action movies seem to forget this aspect and it tends to stand out like a sore thumb.  Here, though, the story hinges on the characters and the choices they make, and it sets up a very intense and bone-crunching thrill-ride.  I really have to give Jesse V. Johnson some serious credit.  Not only has he managed to deliver several really good action movies with substance in the last couple of years, he does it with style.

The acting in this film is fantastic, but it is Scott Adkins that steals the show.  I’ve always been a big fan of Scott’s.  Usually it’s because of his incredible physicality and his ability to do crazy flips and wild martial arts moves.  He’s an amazing martial artist, but what I really like about the work he does for Mr. Johnson, is the fact that he’s given more room to expand as an actor.  In Accident Man and The Debt Collector, we got to see a more humorous side to the actor that we usually don’t see.  Even his turn as Boyka in the Undisputed films had more nuance and intensity than we see out of most martial arts actors.  Scott’s turn as Cain may just be a career best.  Cain is one scary dude, and Johnson basically lets Scott off the leash and as a result, Mr. Adkins delivers one of the most insane and frenetic performances I’ve ever seen.  Yet, despite the absolute savagery that Scott delivers, there are smaller and more emotional moments that Scott has when his character talks to his mother.  These are wonderful moments that give Cain a more human touch.  Craig Fairbrass plays Cain’s older brother, Lincoln, the head of the crime organization.  Craig’s character doesn’t come across as your typical slimy villain.  This is a 3-dimensional character that while not a good guy, is still human.  So, overall, the acting is pretty good.

When it comes to action in films like Avengement, it’s important for everyone involved to understand how a film like this should be framed, shot and edited.  You really get a grasp of how a film like this should be made when you watch movies from directors like Chad Stahelski(The John Wick films), Isaac Florentine(Ninja, Undisputed sequels), and Jesse V. Johnson.  These guys basically started out in the stunt side of the industry.  Because of that experience, they have a much better grasp of how fight sequences and stunts are coordinated, as well as camera placement and lighting.  They want the audience to get the best possible view, so when a stunt man/coordinator gets in the director’s chair, they know how to make it work from a visual standpoint.  Jesse V. Johnson’s approach to action is far more grounded in reality than most.  You don’t see wires or CGI squibs, but you do get to see people actually get thrown through walls and windows.  Avengement has some of the most vicious and brutal action I’ve seen in years.  Instead of seeing Scott display acrobatic skills, the fights are far more meaty and more like brawls.  It’s wonderfully chaotic, and Johnson doesn’t shy away from the violence.  People get wrecked in this movie, including Cain.  The fight choreography also comes courtesy of one Luke LaFontaine.  It’s not flashy, it’s brutal, messy, and the film’s all the better for it.

I don’t know how Jesse V. Johnson does it.  He’s managed to release more than 5 movies in the last two years and they’re all good.  There aren’t a whole lot of big-budget triple-A film-makers that can say that.  Obviously, he’s doing something right, because I’ve been a fan of his films since Savage Dog.  Johnson’s got two more movies on the way, although I expect that number to increase as the year goes on, he’s so busy.  Scott Adkins has become one of my all-time favorite martial arts actors.  Not only does he have amazing screen-presence, he’s become a much better actor in the past few years.  On the one hand, I would love to see him get a big break in Hollywood, but at the same time, I don’t think it would feel right.  Same thing goes for Jesse V. Johnson, I feel that he would be constrained by the Hollywood system.  I’m absolutely okay with with supporting these guys as indie film-makers.  That’s why, along with Scott, I want people to watch these films legally and not pirate them.  We should be so lucky to get movies like Avengement in spite of a system that screams for bigger and louder movies, when the best ones are smaller and pack more of a punch.  Are there any negatives with Avengement?  Not that I can see.  It’s well-paced and it’s well-written.  Is it better than Triple Threat?  I honestly wouldn’t compare the two.  They’re two very different kinds of action films.  Why not love both?  So, do I recommend Avengment?  Hell, yes, I do!  This is a savage, bone-crunching thrill ride that won’t let you down.

My Final Recommendation:  Somebody give Cain a Snickers, maybe he’s just hungry.  10/10.

Released: August 1991

Director: Lucas Lowe

Rated R

Run Time: 99 Minutes

Distributor: Imperial Entertainment

Genre: Action/Martial Arts

Cast:
Loren Avedon: Jake Donahue
Richard Jaeckal: Captain O’Day
Don Stroud: Anderson
Billy Blanks: Khan
Sherrie Rose: Molly
Keith Cooke: Prang

Anybody who knows me will know that I love an awesome action flick.  Whether it’s Terminator, Enter The Dragon, or Die Hard, I’m a sucker for hard-hitting action.  Action movies have changed and evolved over the years.  Martial arts movies in particular have gotten progressively more impressive in terms of fight choreography, acting, and story-telling.  The 90s was a particularly interesting decade for the genre, though.  There were a lot of great big-budget action flicks throughout the decade, but some of the more memorable films either got smaller releases or managed to not get theatrically released at all.  Now, some of the lesser known action movies that were released during the 90s included films like Perfect Weapon, Double Impact, and Showdown in Little Tokyo.  There was a very little known action flick during that time called The King of the Kickboxers that I thought I liked when I was a kid, but as an adult, not so much.

The film begins as a kickboxing champion and his brother, Jake, are brutally attacked by a ruthless martial artist named Khan(KHAAAAAN!…..sorry, I had to.), leaving Jake’s brother dead.  Ten years later, Jake is an undercover cop when he’s given an assignment in Thailand to investigate a slew of illegal movies being that involve actual people being killed.  Reluctant to take on the assignment, Jake discovers that one of the “actors” is the guy who murdered his brother(KHAAAAAN!!).  Discovering that he is out of his league when it comes to….Khan(yeah, not doing it again.), he is pointed in the direction of Prang, an expert fighter who survived his encounter with Khan.  This kind of story is part and parcel for this kind of low-budget action flick during the early 90s.  In the hands of better film-makers, it could have worked better, but it really didn’t work here.  This is about as “by-the-numbers” martial arts flick as you can get: Hero loses loved one at an early age.  Hero grows up to be a gruff and gritty cop.  Hero discovers Villain who killed said loved one is still alive.  Hero goes to train.  Damsel is captured and is in distress.  Mentor is killed.  Hero fights Villain.  Hero wins.  Villain dies.  Things blow up.  The end.  That might sound cynical, but that’s really how it was in a lot of films that came out during that decade.  Again, had it been directed by somebody like say…Sheldon Lettich or Mark DiSalle at the time, The King of the Kickboxers might have been better than it actually was.

The acting.  Oh, god, the acting.  It’s bad.  Really, really, bad.  I mean, look at that clip.  I’m not placing the entire blame on the cast here, but they went so overboard with the acting, it’s hilarious.  Loren Avedon is a fantastic martial artist and he’s done some decent action flicks, but an Oscar-winner he is not.  Nobody in the cast is.  I will say this for Billy Blanks, though.  He’s got some serious presence and is also an excellent martial artist.  If you don’t know who Billy Blanks is, think Tae-Bo.  I’ve seen his stuff before and he was very impressive during the 90s.  Keith Cooke is the only who seems to be in on the joke as Prang, but he’s clearly having a blast.  Sherrie Rose plays Molly, but is nothing more than eye-candy and a love interest for Loren’s character.  What about the fight scenes?  They aren’t terrible, but the camera-work is awful.  Prang’s fight with the thugs at his hut is one of the highlights of the film.  The fight between Jake and Khan at the end of the film is also pretty decent, but it isn’t helped by the atrocious acting and direction.

The writing by Keith W. Strandberg is awful, as you can imagine.  The dialogue is unbelievable.  Not only that, the dubbing is painfully obvious and horrendous.  I love B movies as much as the next guy, but King of the Kickboxers is just too awful for me to handle.  I think the only way you could really enjoy this movie is by turning it into a drinking game.  Seriously, grab your buddies and have a drink every time one of the actors screams or makes ridiculous faces……on second thought, don’t.  I don’t want to think that I would be responsible for one of my readers getting alcohol poisoning because I suggested such a thing.  The cinematography is garbage and the sets and costume designs are ludicrous.  Aside from some of the fight scenes, is there really anything good about this movie?  No.  I can’t even imagine why I loved this movie as a kid.  I hadn’t seen it in over 25 years, but that was because I couldn’t find it anywhere.  I think there’s a reason for that.  It’s not worth finding.  It’s on Amazon Prime Video right now, but watch the credits.  There’s a subtitle basically describing it as a DVD rip.  Basically, they are playing a pirated copy of the film, which has been out of print, so legally speaking, it’s a bit of a gray area.  Still, I would avoid it.  There are better Billy Blanks and Loren Avedon movies out there, if you happen to be a fan of those actors.

My Final Recommendation: KHAAAAAAAANNN! 4/10.

The last 20 or so years have seen an amazing advancement in home video technology.  I grew up in the VHS cassette era, but I got to see home video grow and expand into the digital realm with DVD and subsequently HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.  Now, digital streaming using platforms like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are almost commonplace now.  In fact, a lot of people and industry insiders believe that digital streaming is the future of home video.  That may be, but there are still people like me who are kind of old-fashioned in that we still prefer to have physical copies of movies.  I like having a hard copy of a movie, because I can hold it in my hands.  I’ve got myself a pretty large collection of films on various formats.  While I don’t think that Blu-Ray will be going anywhere anytime soon, I’ve been hearing rumors about another high-definition format that isn’t 4k.  Starting with DVD, home video releases have seen extra content in addition to the movie itself.  Behind-the-scenes footage, movie trailers and other marketing materials.  It’s really spectacular.  This trend has continued with Blu-Ray.  I’ve seen some really spectacular packages released in the past two decades.  That being said, there have also been releases that were not so good.  Quality of the films aside, I’m going to specifically target home video releases that were pretty awful.  There was one movie that I picked up over the weekend that inspired this post:

I Spit on Your Grave: Deja Vu

This isn’t a good movie at all, even when compared to the original, but that’s not why this on this list.  When I ordered the film on Amazon, I read a review that said the film was put on a BD-R disc.  BD-R is a recordable Blu-Ray disc that’s generally available to the public.  I didn’t believe it at first until I actually got the movie.  They were right, the movie is on a BD-R.  The distributors were so cheap they couldn’t even bother to get the release professionally done.  Basically, they took the film that was on somebody’s computer and burned onto a disc.  Usually, the production of a Blu-Ray disc takes a while and uses equipment and material that makes it look good.  Not here.  While the film quality isn’t awful, there are no special features here.  In fact, there are no menus whatsoever, no previews, nothing.  They don’t even bother putting in audio and subtitle options for people who might have hearing issues.  Nope.  All you get is a main screen showing clips from the film and an option that says “play movie.”  That’s it.  I thought the film was amateurish at best, but the actual disc release is one of the most unprofessional things I’ve seen in years.  It would’ve been just better to have the movie automatically play when you put it in the player.  I knew I was going to have to buy the film to see it, because it wasn’t available on Redbox or most digital platforms.  Fine, but it absolutely wasn’t worth the 22 bucks I paid for it.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

The early days of DVD were fairly experimental.  Movie studios were trying to adapt to the new format for a new age of home video. While some early discs were decent enough to be demo disc-worthy, others really weren’t.  Perfect example?  The initial DVD release of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.  The film would get a proper DVD release some years later with an extended version of the film, but the original release was a disaster.  This was one of the first double-sided discs to come out.  For some movies, the film was on one side and the special features on the other.  It made sense.  But where Robin Hood failed was putting one half of the film on one side and the second half on the other, meaning you had to flip the disc to see the rest of the movie.  For VHS tapes, having two tapes to contain a three-to-four hour film was standard.  You really couldn’t put all that one tape without sacrificing visual quality.  I believe that Warner Bros. thought that was the case here.  The movie wasn’t even 2.5 hours long, but they split it up so they could add SOME special features, which is okay, I guess, but still.  Honestly, having a double-sided disc was risky anyway, because you could inadvertently get your finger oils on the disc that would possibly keep it from functioning properly.

Star Wars Trilogy 2006 DVD Re-release

While the original Star Wars Trilogy has seen subsequent releases on DVD and Blu-Ray, the DVD releases piss me off the most, specifically the 2006 re-release.  When George Lucas did the Special Editions of the original films in 1997, people were mixed about the results.  While some of the redone visual effects were good, others weren’t.  When the films were released on DVD in 2004, people were excited, except to find out the original versions of the films were nowhere to be found and that Lucas had continued to tinker with his movies.  It wouldn’t be until 2006 that audiences would finally get the original versions of the trilogy on DVD with the re-release.  There’s just one problem:  The visual quality sucked.  They took the transfer from the 1994 VHS wide-screen versions and slapped them on a DVD, with barely any effort.  Not only that, it was for a limited time only.  It’s great that we finally got the original theatrical versions on DVD, but we will never see them on Blu-Ray, even though Fox was bought out by Disney, so while there is a possibility it could happen, Disney has no plans to.  This one hurt a lot of people, myself included.

DiVX and Self-Destructing DVDs

This clip belongs to Oddity Archive, so all credit goes to him for the video and the information presented within.  When DVD first came out, some geniuses came up with a new way of renting out DVDs without having audiences return the discs.  The format that I had heard of was DiVX, even though FlexPlay came out afterwards, but both of these formats operated in similar ways:  Rent a movie and you have 48 hours to watch the movie before the disc becomes unusable.  The main difference between the two was the DiVX required a specific player for those discs to work while FlexPlay could be used in any standard DVD player.  It was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to buying and renting discs from a store.  Part of the problem was that DiVX required a phone line to operate so it could verify the disc, FlexPlay actually used a specific dye that would render the disc unusable within 48 hours of opening the package.  The discs had an expiration date.  Renting videos was commonplace already, but movie studios wanted to try and do something better: Planned obsolescence.  DiVX died within months of rolling out and Flexplay finally closed up shop by 2013.  I never bought into these ideas, because it sounded incredibly stupid and remarkably redundant.  The fact that you had to have a specific player for DiVX was astoundingly short-sided.  Not everybody had DVD at the time and players were fairly expensive.  So, yeah, disposable DVDs were a very bad idea.

It’s not a whole lot, but those are what I consider to be some of the worst home video releases when it comes to DVDs and Blu-Rays.  This last entry with DiVX was more about a trend that movie studios were trying to get started, but it still counts.  Those are some of the worst releases that I’VE encountered, and they really had nothing to with the actual film.  So, yeah.