Sons of Liberty (UK release title: Black Ops Assault) was a DVD i picked up in Poundland four years ago, watched once, but my interest was won over to Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance i was playing on the PS2, slid back on my shelf and forgot i owned, until this very moment.
Somehow, i still vividly remember what drew me to purchase this clunker from everyone's favourite high street staple. The ultra generic case and slipcover art already sent my psychotronic senses a tingling, but it was the insane blurb on the back that sealed the deal. Promises swirled my head of "stolen nuclear materials", "a serial killer" who is "torturing women, leaving their bodies a mangled mess of scars and symbols", "a top secret unit, known as SOL" struggling to "find the balance between duty and their personal lives" and "a deadly cadre of mercenaries, an arms dealer, a rouge IRA soldier, an assassin, and a mastermind whose motivations blur the line between terrorist and revolutionary".
What i find now upon my second barely memorised viewing of Sons of Liberty is that i am watching a collage of serialised tv mediocrity. We have The Unit, CSI and Homeland minus the necessary runtime to build substance around these basic set ups. Three concepts don't make a diverse script and i am aware of the too many cooks situation of the screenplay, however credits are not needed to suss this problem out in the first place.
Sons of Liberty is irritating for me because Drew Hall knows where to place the camera (excluding some hideous Go Pro P.O.V's, but hey, early days) and max optimise his budget. This DOES look like a $2,000,000 film, i'd be glad to say even more. His assured style is painful to watch when covering material that is so boring, so bafflingly sub-par. How does a film featuring nuclear weapons, an elite assassin, a serial killing terrorist mastermind, black ops and the ***damn illuminati be so thoroughly un-engaging? The acting i guess is below average, but not bad, just unremarkable, auto-pilot. The disjointed editing is obviously trying to seal up the cracks in both plot and lack of coverage (i said Hall knew where to put the camera, not how often) and the music is just there. Sound design is good, had to be, otherwise the cuts would really be jarring.
That's another irritating thing. This film just barely balances out. Nowhere near bad, but far from good either. The serial killing sequences were the best staged and acted out of the entire film and gave Sons of Liberty some fleeting character, so i can't even say that the whole thing was just meh.
Think Undefeatable (1994), in fact, think all of Godfrey Ho's 90's work, only without the gaudy fashion and over acting. Yep, that'll do it.
Sons of Liberty is a thoroughly average product of creative gridlock, less Alien vs Predator and more Predator '18.
Somehow, i still vividly remember what drew me to purchase this clunker from everyone's favourite high street staple. The ultra generic case and slipcover art already sent my psychotronic senses a tingling, but it was the insane blurb on the back that sealed the deal. Promises swirled my head of "stolen nuclear materials", "a serial killer" who is "torturing women, leaving their bodies a mangled mess of scars and symbols", "a top secret unit, known as SOL" struggling to "find the balance between duty and their personal lives" and "a deadly cadre of mercenaries, an arms dealer, a rouge IRA soldier, an assassin, and a mastermind whose motivations blur the line between terrorist and revolutionary".
What i find now upon my second barely memorised viewing of Sons of Liberty is that i am watching a collage of serialised tv mediocrity. We have The Unit, CSI and Homeland minus the necessary runtime to build substance around these basic set ups. Three concepts don't make a diverse script and i am aware of the too many cooks situation of the screenplay, however credits are not needed to suss this problem out in the first place.
Sons of Liberty is irritating for me because Drew Hall knows where to place the camera (excluding some hideous Go Pro P.O.V's, but hey, early days) and max optimise his budget. This DOES look like a $2,000,000 film, i'd be glad to say even more. His assured style is painful to watch when covering material that is so boring, so bafflingly sub-par. How does a film featuring nuclear weapons, an elite assassin, a serial killing terrorist mastermind, black ops and the ***damn illuminati be so thoroughly un-engaging? The acting i guess is below average, but not bad, just unremarkable, auto-pilot. The disjointed editing is obviously trying to seal up the cracks in both plot and lack of coverage (i said Hall knew where to put the camera, not how often) and the music is just there. Sound design is good, had to be, otherwise the cuts would really be jarring.
That's another irritating thing. This film just barely balances out. Nowhere near bad, but far from good either. The serial killing sequences were the best staged and acted out of the entire film and gave Sons of Liberty some fleeting character, so i can't even say that the whole thing was just meh.
Think Undefeatable (1994), in fact, think all of Godfrey Ho's 90's work, only without the gaudy fashion and over acting. Yep, that'll do it.
Sons of Liberty is a thoroughly average product of creative gridlock, less Alien vs Predator and more Predator '18.
