Reviews

On the surface, this is like the hundreds of other movies I've seen. There's a psychotic killer who kills the partner/sibling/best friend/S.O. of the main hero who then avenges his/her death. But this is not one of those films. This is different.

Granted, the main plot is familiar. Julie and Don are living in the wilderness tracking bears when a poacher kills Don and almost does the same to Julie. With extraordinary luck, she survives but has lost her will to live. The poacher, however, is a well-paid professional hunter who has no plans to leave any witnesses alive so when Julie is sent to the city to recover, he follows her to finish what he started. Meanwhile, a suicidal Julie must find a will to live with some help from an alcoholic cop, Rollins.

So that's the setting. Sounds simple? It is. On paper. But surprisingly enough, not in the movie. You see, the film is NOT just a revenge action-thriller. It's more of a character study. In a "normal" film, the death of a friend would cause the hero to grieve for about 30 seconds (possibly accompanied later by a few flashback-scenes). In this film, the main thing is Julie's recovery - especially mentally. The objective is to show what Julie goes through after the death of the only person she cared about. Revenge is not a clear course of action. It's not something this film takes lightly. But as things move along, it comes apparent that the officials can't help and she can't start a new life until the nightmares of the old one has been taken care of.

It's important to notice that the setting and the characters really aren't as black and white as the basic plot would have you believe. Julie doesn't go from happy to sad to happy again at the flick of a switch. She knows that even if she gets her revenge, things will never be the same but has decided to cross that bridge once she gets there. For now, revenge provides her the strength to move on. Also, Rollins is a flawed character who has some skeletons in the closet but still has found a will to live – he's not a generic loose cannon.

Technically, the movie is very low-key. There are no explosions, no big chases, nothing like that. Still, the film was never boring to me. Everything was there for a purpose. The production values are flawless, rivalling those of big budget theatrical releases. Lots of beautiful scenery shots, nice editing, brilliant directing. The score by Ross Vannelli is excellent, including beautiful, atmospheric and aggressive moments. I'd buy it in an instant but of course it isn't available. And this is probably only the second film I've seen where you actually can randomly use freeze frame and at least 9 times out of 10 you'd see a beautifully composed shot which wouldn't look out of place in a lobby card (the other film is "American Dragons/Double Edge", a Michael Biehn-actioner directed by Ralph Hemecker which was also elevated above it's standard material because of some unique stylistic touches).

If you allow it, this movie raises some interesting questions. What would you do in a similar situation? Revenge won't bring your life back but could you ever find the balance if you knew that the man who ruined your life is out there? Is the character in a true no-win situation? If the only person you cared about would be murdered and you had the opportunity to either kill the murderer or to walk away knowing that the case would soon be forgotten by everyone but you and you'd never see the murderer brought to justice? After I had watched the film a few times, I realized that there really should be an instruction manual with films like these indicating who it's for and the best way to watch the film. I don't know if the filmmakers would agree with me, but in my opinion if you just keep it in the background or watch it with some friends over pop corn, it'll never work. You only want to see action? Forget it. You're the type of person who always watches films with friends, talking while watching them and making fun of them in MST3K-style? Don't see this one. But if you like reading dark novels, staying up late at night listening to the rain while doing nothing but thinking, this is the one to watch. Open-minded, emotional people will like this.

I have to mention that I still adore those straightforward revenge-actioners where a flawless martial arts-hero kills everyone in sight in the most violent way imaginable without ever getting hurt himself and which you forget 5 seconds after the movie is over (coincidentally director Richard Martin has also directed `White Tiger' which is a great example of that kind of a film). But "Wounded" is a more ambitious film and one which succeeds in everything it sets out to do - and that's no small feat! Highly recommended.

For some reason "Eye See You" opened in Finland before the US premiere and even before most other European countries (which is extremely rare since we usually get movies months after their US-premiere and only a few action films get released theatrically here even though they always perform well on video) under the name D-Tox. I had followed the progress of this film quite carefully since I have long waited for Stallone to return to hard-core action and when I found out this film was rated R for strong violence/gore, my expectations were quite high. Of course some preview audiences were disappointed with the predictable plot etc. but come on, who's stupid enough to see these things expecting (or even wanting) something original?

The premise of the film is somewhat interesting. Stallone is an FBI-agent Jake Malloy after a serial killer killing cops when things get personal. His wife is killed and he becomes an alcoholic who doesn't care about anything. His friend drives him to a remote outpost where an ex-cop is helping other cops with their personal problems. Of course the idea of a cop who's wife is killed is nothing new ("Lethal Weapon" and "End of Days" are just two examples) but I consider Stallone's performance quite good and realistic. He doesn't become a hyperactive, reckless madman like Gibson's Martin Riggs. Instead, he seems to have trouble accepting what has happened and has turned all his emotions inside. He's like a ghost who has little interest to what's happening around him until he realizes that the serial killer has followed him to the outpost and he has to get himself together. It sounds corny and in a way it inevitably is but the dialogue is not nearly as horrible as I expected.

Not that I'd care about such needless things in an action-thriller as plot, dialogue or performances. Suffice to say that they are better than they have to be in a film like this but won't please the critics or the audience who prefer more meaningful films. The artistic merits of the film can always be debated since different people like different things on different times (even some Woody Allen-fans have times when they need some cliched, stupid pop corn-entertainment and vice versa) but the technical side is a different matter and can be studied more objectively. Living in Finland, I can say that the locations were well-chosen and if they filmed this in a studio, they did a great job. Finnish people know a lot about remote places and snowstorms and this film didn't have any scenes that looked fake. The music works well without being anything too special (although I did enjoy the opening theme a lot - in fact, the whole opening scene was very good although some people will write it off as just another rip-off of Seven). Surprisingly enough, director Jim Gillespie handles the suspense better here than in I Know What You Did Last Summer. This relies more on paranoia and good locations instead of numerous jump scenes which I have always felt are cheating. Of course you might say that there's no real suspense since there's never really any doubt of the outcome but this film still had scenes that kept me on the edge of my seat.

But enough with the praise, it isn't all good. First of all, this is definitely not an action movie. Far from it. There aren't any big action sequences in the film (in fact, there are hardly any small action sequences..), only a few gunshots are fired and there aren't even any chase scenes. So if you're looking for another Rambo (and I definitely wouldn't mind seeing a new all-action film in the tradition of Commando), this ain't it. Also, if you're looking for violence and gore, you're going to be disappointed. There are some afterviews of the victims but practically all violence is off-screen. I believe much of the violence was edited out since there are some scenes which definitely should run longer. There are interesting setups throughout the film but no payoff. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for an unrated director's cut on DVD.

After seeing this film, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be released theatrically in the US. It definitely isn't the worst movie around. Of course it'll get negative reviews (but since when has that bothered anyone?) and won't be the hit Stallone (who looks like he can still punch and shoot with the best of them) needs to resurrect his career but it is a fun way to spend 90 minutes and even if it isn't released theatrically, I'm sure this film will find it's audience on video. If you're a Stallone-fan looking for an effective (if somewhat generic) suspense thriller, you'll want to check this out. But if you want something with some originality and more substance and enjoy the films of, say, Steven Soderbergh more than Stallone's previous films or mindless slashers in general, pass. Personally, I didn't get everything I expected but I have no regrets about seeing this film. This one deserves a 7.

When making a film which focuses on a specific hobby/sport (whether it be computers, skydiving or - indeed - racing) it's always hard to come up with ways that makes the situations easy to understand and exciting to the "average viewer" while at the same time trying to be realistic enough to satisfy the people who know and follow the hobby/sport. Actually it's not even hard, it seems to be impossible. Considering that, Driven did a helluva job keeping my eyes glued to the screen even though I hate F1/Cart etc. I guess that means that there are numerous factual errors and the fans of Cart-racing will pick this film apart. So be it, I don't care.

Anyway, if you go and see this movie expecting a good plot, good acting and good dialogue, you obviously aren't very bright when it comes to movies and deserve what you're going to get. Of course, there are attempts to make the characters deep and make the audience care about whether they win or not but since there are no clear good and bad guys here, those attempts are largely unnecessary. Instead, you get racing scenes which are filmed so well that they literally take your breath away. The soundtrack is also extremely good with excellent score and songs almost always on the background.

The movie has excellent production values and with it's fast cutting it's style resembles something produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Nothing wrong with that. I love the frenetic pace, the way the camera is always moving and the way no shot lasts longer than two seconds. Some others don't so if you want to see something subtle, skip this. My favorite scene was a chase through the streets of Chicago (though filmed in Toronto) where the young rookie guided by Stallone steals a prototype race car and heads to the streets with Stallone chasing him. The atmosphere in this scene set during night was out of this world and the sheer irresponsibility of the act was extremely refreshing in this day and age when everything is so politically correct (and at least in Finland speeding seems to be the most serious crime anyone can ever commit) that it makes me sick. There are also numerous good-looking girls throughout the film. You want to see strong female characters? Well you ain't gonna find them here. You want to see some sexy babes showing cleavage? You came to the right place.

Now, I might not be the most objective guy around when it comes to this film. I'm from Finland so I'll probably like anything that Renny Harlin makes. Also, I like Stallone and I like fast cars (although, as I said, I'm not a fan of racing). Still, after the negative hype this movie received in the US, it came as a very positive surprise to me. It's not a total success but it's a fast and fun film if you don't take it too seriously. Fans of the sport might be disappointed but if you want to see fast cars, this just might be the ticket even if you don't like to watch racing on TV. I liked the film and I'll give it an 8. Just don't watch it without a good-quality sound system and a big screen - this is audio-visual entertainment all the way.

The first Crow-movie with Brandon Lee was great. Directed by Alex Proyas, it was stylish, entertaining and fun. However, although it had a good, sadistic villain (the excellent Richard Brooks who has an even better voice for a villain than Michael Wincott) and some fair action-scenes, the second movie was a disappointment to most people, including me.

It comes as no surprise that this third film wasn't that highly anticipated since the second one was a dud but it actually turned out to be much better than I had hoped for. Now, let me say this: I like the so-called "been there, done that"-films. When I see a good movie and I notice that it gets a sequel, I don't expect or want any new revelations to the theme of the first film. I simply want to see all the elements that made the first film great recycled in a different film. For example, I really liked "The Crow". It was fast-paced, it had a nice, brutal edge to it's violence which is rare these days, had a great hero and a great score. So when the second film came along, I didn't really want to see deep character development or some new original concept. I simply wanted to see another film about a guy who is killed and comes back to avenge his death. Unfortunately the second film was slow and boring and Vincent Perez wasn't a good hero for an action film.

So here we have the third installment to the series. Is it original? No. Does it offer any new insight to the Crow-myth? No. Should you see it if you didn't like the first Crow? No. Should you see it if you're looking for something more than a remake of the first Crow? Not really. However, if you liked the first Crow, are willing to see more or less the same story again and are a fan of violent action-films, this film will deliver.

Of course, Eric Mabius is no Brandon Lee but he is much better than Vincent Perez and he has the right look and voice for the part. He also delivers his dark oneliners effectively and while there aren't any scenes in this film that would make you laugh, there are some quite fun lines here and there.

As I already mentioned, much of the things offered here are the same as in the first Crow. So besides the cast, what has changed? The director, of course. This third film is directed by Bharat Nalluri who's visual style is somewhere between Alex Proyas and Tim Pope. The overall look of the film is still very dark and stylish and there are some scenes with a dark blue tone (which resembles the first Crow) while some other scenes are somewhat yellow (the second Crow comes to mind). There are also some nice camera angles and the action-scenes are directed quite well. The composer is also different. Graeme Revell (who's score for the first Crow is one of the best scores I've ever heard) has been replaced by Marco Beltrami (the Scream-movies). I wish they would have stayed with Revell but Beltrami does a fairly good job with the score and the songs also work well.

So overall this is a worthwhile addition to the series and I recommend it to everyone who enjoys a good action film. I wasn't expecting anything new or original, I just wanted to see a good action film and that's exactly what I got. Although far from the year's best film (it is slightly too long), this deserves an 8.

One final note, if you have a problem with violence, you probably should avoid this film. While it's nothing like Robocop, it does have a fair amount of strong violence in it and some of it might be seen as somewhat sadistic. I personally liked the brutal edge this film offered and I think it fitted the story and showed the anger and frustration the main character was experiencing. But if you don't like violence, this film probably won't be the best choice for you.

Although filled with special effects and sometimes advertised as a sci-fi film, "Velocity Trap" is really an action film. A "Die Hard"-clone set in space. But since I loved "Die Hard" and especially "Under Siege", I decided to buy the film and check it out. Now that I have, I'm not disappointed at all although there were a few flaws.

The hero of this film is Olivier Gruner. His most famous film is probably "Cyborg", directed by the legendary Albert Pyun, but he has been in several other films as well. My personal favorite of his films is "Automatic", a surprisingly inventive action film with great fight scenes. Gruner definitely has the right stuff to be an action hero. He has "the accent", his fight scenes are always great and he even has a sense of humor which is especially apparent in "Velocity Trap". Not only that, he even starred in a family film(!) "The White Pony" and didn't look out of place.

Now, the plot here is nothing special but I guess nobody expects or even wants it to be. This is after all an action film, not "Boys Don't Cry". However, there are some pretty interesting humorous details in a few scenes. For example, there's a scene where Olivier Gruner is dancing ballet by himself! I thought Mark Dacascos singing karaoke in "Drive" was something but I was wrong. _This_ scene is something! There are also some good bits of dialogue here and there ("Can't take a joke, Stokes?" "Actually, many people find me very funny" or something along those lines).

The director is Phillip Roth who's previous work includes "Digital Man" and "Darkdrive". Although his films usually have a pretty low budget, they have some quite good effects and that is the case in this film as well. The chase in the end of the film is surprisingly effective and there are no obvious "blue/green screen-effects". The sets also work pretty well but the music was a letdown. It lacked a good theme and the underscore wasn't that great either. This film would have benefited greatly from a futuristic and energetic synthesizer score.

Also, while this is one of the best films from Phillip Roth, it lacks one key element that I expected from it: fight scenes. There's a fair amount of gunplay, some good stunts and some pretty nice explosions but I think fans of Olivier Gruner (myself included) were expecting more fights. As it is, there's really only one fight scene in the beginning of the film and even that is quite short and unspectacular.

Anyway, this is an effective action film. It doesn't even try to re-invent the genre but it's never boring. All in all, a very good effort from Mr. Roth, but the next time, a better score and more fight scenes, please! This one gets a 7.

Oh, and by the way, the DVD includes a great commentary from Phillip Roth, special effects expert Andy Hoffman and Olivier Gruner himself. This is one of the best and most entertaining commentaries I've heard since the commentary of "Darkdrive", which also includes a commentary by these guys (except Gruner) although it isn't even listed as a feature on the DVD box cover. In case you've heard the commentary of "Velocity Trap", I can tell you that the name of the actor they couldn't remember in the beginning of the movie is Yannick Bisson (here credited as Yannock Bisson, a typo perhaps?) and his show that they refer to is, of course, "High Tide" (a great show, also starred Rick Springfield). I recommend renting the DVD just for the commentary.

There are a few effective concepts in action films which are used over and over again. "Surviving the Game" uses one which was over 60 years old when the movie was made and still works like a charm. Made in 1932, "The Most Dangerous Game" is a movie about a group of people who are hunted for sport. Over the years this concept has been successfully used in big films like John Woo's "Hard Target" (which premiered less than a year before this film) as well as in DTV-films like the Lorenzo Lamas-actioner "Final Round".

The formula works. Although these films rarely offer anything new (you pretty much know the ending before the film has even started), they are very entertaining if the hero is someone who you want to win and the villains are suitably evil. "Surviving the Game" fills this order and throws in some energetic action sequences directed by Ernest R. Dickerson (I also enjoyed his "Bulletproof" a lot).

Ice-T is the hero here. When the film starts, he has no money, no family, no friends and is ready to kill himself. But when he receives a job as a hunting guide from a wealthy businessman (played by Rutger Hauer), he wants to put his life in order again. But after a good meal where Ice meets the rest of the hunters (including Gary Busey and Charles Dutton), the hunt begins and he suddenly realizes that he's the prey. Now, he must use all his strength and wit to survive.

The cast is perfect. While there are no huge stars, these people know the genre and obviously had a great time filming this movie. And there isn't any fault in the production values either. There are beautiful sceneries, a good score by Stewart Copeland and some neat stunts. The script by Eric Bernt (Virtuosity, Romeo Must Die) creates some quite interesting villains and the dialogue, while not perfect, works reasonably well. Luckily Bernt knows that he's writing an action film and doesn't even try to include any deep relationships or hidden meanings in his script.

At the end of the day, this is a good action film which is guaranteed to entertain a fan of this genre for 90 minutes. It's not the best action film ever but it's definitely above-average. This one gets an 8.

In my opinion most blockbusters are watchable movies. Some are good, some are not so good. Some are even quite bad, but they try so hard to offer something for everyone that there usually are at least some things in the movie you like. But because they do offer something for everyone, they usually also have some things you don't like. However, once in a while a film comes along which focuses solely on it's own target audience. Sometimes the critics and fans of so-called 'quality cinema' are the target audience. In those cases we have films like "American Beauty". Sometimes fans of sex-related teen-comedies are the target audience and we have a film like "American Pie". And sometimes fans of pure action-entertainment are the target audience and we have a film like "Fair Game".

This is a film which most people have a strong opinion of. Others love it while others hate it. What's interesting is that the reasons for the opinion of the film are the same for both people. Others hate it because it's unbelievably dumb, excessively violent, has an unoriginal plot, stupid dialogue and has no good actors. However, others love it for the same reasons. And I'm one of those people.

The film is based on Paula Gosling's novel of the same name. It's interesting to notice that Sylvester Stallone's actioner "Cobra" was also based on the same novel but the films have very little in common. About the only thing they share is the hate of the critics and the love of action-fans. What's even more interesting is that Stallone was originally attached to this film as well.

Anyway, about this film.. While it's true that no-one has been able to make a good macho-actioner since the 80s (except Steven Seagal and even he is now making films like "The Patriot"), this is a quality effort if there ever was one. This has everything I want (a macho cop as the hero, a sexy woman as his sidekick, lots of action and gratuitous violence) and nothing I don't (a deep and original plot, Academy Award-winning actors, emotional scenes between mom and daughter...). Actually many scenes here are so stupid that they could be considered campy and even if you aren't a fan of the genre, you might enjoy laughing at the movie's unintentional humor.

One of the things which always means a lot to me in films is the score and "Fair Game" has one of the best scores I've ever heard. I liked Mark Mancina's score to "Speed" and "Bad Boys" but they're nothing compared to this. A brilliant main theme combined with excellent underscore. Full marks.

There is also the traditional "You killed my partner. Big mistake, you hear me? Wanna know why? Because I'm gonna come and get every last one of you!"-threat from Baldwin. I love those lines, I really do. "Cobra" was filled with them and the mid-80s was a good time for macho-actioners.

In fact, "Fair Game" is like a throwback to the 80s, when Joel Silver still made good actioners (Commando, Action Jackson, Die Hard, Road House - all brilliant). Of course it's not intelligent. Of course it's not original. Of course it's not a film which makes people think about their lives. It is pure action-entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. This will definitely appeal to fans of "Cobra", "Action Jackson" and the early Steven Seagal-films. However, if you don't like action, pure action and nothing but the action - skip it. Even if you liked films like "Speed" and "Face/Off", you might not like this.

Gunfights, explosions, gratuitous violence, gratuitous nudity (from Cindy Crawford, no less!), a brilliant score..what more could a guy who loves action ask? Definitely a 10.

While Steven Seagal is my favourite action hero, Jeff Speakman is a close second. He has a powerful screen presence, a good voice and suitably calm manners for a man of action. He has made some excellent actioners in the past. His first starring role was in "The Perfect Weapon" which almost lived up to it's title - it was indeed nearly perfect. Two years later he returned on screen in "Street Knight", another excellent action film. Since then, he has starred in numerous low-budget actioners.

Although his later films are not up to the standards of the first ones, I have liked many of them. I even liked "Land of the Free"! I had a pretty good idea what to expect from "Running Red" but unfortunately it disappointed me in a few key areas.

Speakman stars as Gregori, a Russian professional soldier who's brother is killed by the enemy. Because of this and his sadistic commander, he quits the army and starts a new life in the USA. Now calling himself Greg, he has a new job and a family. His life gets an unexpected turn when his former superior locates him and asks him to kill three men or his family would get hurt.

The plot is nothing special but it isn't embarrassingly bad either. It's pretty much what one expects from these films. And the film does have some good points. The first one is of course Speakman himself, he still has a strong screen presence. Also he handles the scenes with his family pretty well. His wife is played by the beautiful Angie Everhart. While Everhart has already been in several low-budget films (like "Executive Action"), she still brings a touch of class to any production she's in. Also there are some other familiar faces in the cast you might recognise.

And now for the bad news. For an action film, there's surprisingly little action here. PM Entertainment has done excellent car chases before and they continue that tradition here. But the gun fights unfortunately lack the budget to make them special and considering Speakman's skills, there's very little fighting here. The lack of martial arts-fights is especially disappointing since Speakman's fast and furious fight scenes are always fun to watch.

Also, there are some scenes which are taken from other films. For example, the entire bus chase uses footage from Arnold Schwarzenegger/James Belushi-film "Red Heat" (an excellent film, by the way) and in some scenes you can actually see the James Belushi-character in his grey suit in the bus which Speakman is supposedly driving alone. I wish they wouldn't have used that footage at all and instead would have replaced the bus chase with a good fight scene.

One of things which was a personal disappointment to me was the score. Speakman's first films had a terrific music score ("The Perfect Weapon" by Gary Chang and "Street Knight" by David Michael Frank.

Anyway, the lack of plot, acting or originality probably won't surprise anyone and won't disappoint the target audience. But this film desperately needed more energetic fights. Some might think that the low level of violence and lack of nudity are good things but I couldn't disagree more. If you're a fan of Speakman and this is on TV, feel free to watch it. It isn't -that- bad. But if you want to see a good action film, rent Speakman's "The Perfect Weapon" or "Street Knight". This one gets only a 5.

I've seen hundreds of these actioners and while they may all seem the same, I still love them more than anything. I don't look for a smart and original script, good acting or "a deep and emotional story that needs to be told". In fact, those are the things I _don't_ want in an action-film. What I look for is gratuitous violence with a little gratuitous nudity thrown in. I look for a good, strong hero who's goal is to make things right by any means necessary.

I was a fan of the first Substitute-film. Tom Berenger was a good hero, the story moved fast enough, the action-scenes were good and the music score was excellent. However, I was slightly disappointed with the second film. While Treat Williams might be a reasonably good actor, I didn't think he was a very good action hero. He looked kinda goofy with a gun. Also, the action-scenes were quite poor and the level of violence was surprisingly low. The music score wasn't good either.

Treat Williams is again the hero in The Substitute 3 so my expectations were a little low. However, I loved director Robert Radler's earlier work (especially Best of the Best 2) so of course I had to see it. And I'm happy to say that this film rocked! I think this is the best Substitute-film yet.

The Substitute 3 was filmed in just 16 days and the budget was probably quite modest. Still, this looks like a surprisingly big film. The technical details are excellent, the camera keeps moving and the editing is done very well. I also liked the score a lot.

Treat Williams still looks goofy with a gun but this time he's quite competent in the martial arts-fights. The fights are choreographed with skill and are really fun to watch. I liked the supporting characters. James Black as the sidekick with a sword could have a bright future in action-films, Claudia Christian looked good and handled her own action-scenes well and the fat surveillance guy had some good lines.

And speaking of dialogue, I liked the writing of this film. There's a relaxed atmosphere and Williams' oneliners work well. The only significant flaw with the film was that unlike the first film, this doesn't have a strong villain. Fortunately there's still a good, big action-scene in the end.

So, The Substitute 3 doesn't offer anything new (and thankfully it doesn't even try) but what it does, it does very, very well. It's of course apparent that this film isn't everyone's cup of tea. It doesn't give you anything to think about and it can be summarised as cardboard characters fighting each other. But then again, that's my precise definition of good entertainment, so this one gets a full 10. See it if you are a fan of the genre and like mindless violence. But if you didn't fall asleep during The English Patient or Shakespeare In Love and didn't like the first two Substitute-films, this one isn't worth watching either.

As a huge b-action fan, there are a number of things I expect and want from an action film. I expect a tough-guy actor who can't act but knows how to fight. I expect a predictable plot which has no real surprises since with these films, I know exactly what I want. I expect the film to have all the cliches of the genre which I know and love. I expect the film to have gratuitous nudity and a totally unnecessary female sidekick who falls in love with the hero in a second for no reason what so ever. And the most important thing I expect: Gratuitous, strong violence!

Universal Soldier: The Return fills this order quite nicely. Van Damme doesn't have the amazing screen presence of Steven Seagal but his fight scenes are fun to watch. And as we all know, he can't act. The plot is totally predictable and filled with cliches (although I prefer the "tough renegade cop kills the bad guys who murdered his partner"-plot, this will do). A scene in a strip bar is always welcome in a film like this. And there are a few fairly good fights. Especially the last fight between Van Damme and Jai White is surprisingly good.

So a 10 out of 10, then? Well, not quite. Given the director Mic Rodgers' background as stunt co-ordinator, the stunts here are surprisingly generic. Also, the fight scenes (with the exception of the Van Damme/Jai White-fight) are over way too quickly and are surprisingly tame for a film like this. There are no bone-breakings, no brutal moves, nothing that would make a teenager yell "Yeah!" (and an older fan like myself to think "Yeah!" although not yelling it out loud). Just the normal kicking and punching and while that's fun to watch, you are left waiting for the brutal "final move" and never get it. Also, the score by Don Davis is disappointing and the heavy-rock played during some action sequences is distracting. Blade, for example, had excellent techno during it's brilliant fights and I think the same approach would have worked here.

Universal Soldier: The Return is clearly a low-budget film. The sets look surprisingly cheap, some of the effects are pretty bad and even the prop guns look kinda goofy. And although this is one of the only martial arts-based actioners released theatrically (I want more!), this does have direct-to-video written all over it.

Make no mistakes about it, this is definitely one of the year's dumbest films. It has no artistic merit at all, almost no-one in it can act, it is filled with cliches and it even looks cheap. But these days when many people want to blame the movie violence for their own lack of parenting skills, it's refreshing to see a film which is based on action and violence and makes no apologies for it. Real-life violence is disgusting but well-choreographed over-the-top fights in movies are fun. And although Universal Soldier: The Return is way below the best actioners I've seen, I still enjoyed it a lot and I recommend it to people who enjoy mindless violence. Just don't look for anything even remotely original or intelligent.

I'll give this a 9 out of 10.

"Army of One" is an actioner obviously made by people who truly love the genre. It was directed and produced by Vic Armstrong, stunt co-ordinator and second unit director on films like Total Recall, Starship Troopers and the two latest Bond-films (Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough). This man is responsible for some of the best action sequences ever made so he obviously knows what he's doing.

The film was written by Steven Pressfield. He co-wrote Steven Seagal's first film, Above the Law, as well as Freejack. Based on this film, he might just be the perfect writer for tough action films. He successfully takes a basic concept (a man convicted of a murder he didn't commit sets out to find the true killers and get his revenge) and elevates it above similar films with his characters, scenes and dialogue. He takes the film and it's subject matter with just the right dose of self-irony but never lets it become a parody. The dialogue flows nicely and occasionally there are some truly classic lines (for example, Alfonso: "You're not a very nice person. You've hurt several people." Lundgren: "I never said I was running for pope").

This is quite a bit smarter than your average actioner. As I said, the plot is formulaic (and fans like myself want an action film to have a formulaic plot), but the characters and dialogue are interesting. Dolph Lundgren has the right stuff for an action hero. He's got the looks and the voice and he knows his way around action scenes. But it's George Segal and Beau Starr as the nagging duo, who really steal the show.

Of course, there's the beautiful woman (Kristian Alfonso) as Lundgren's sidekick but they don't portray her as a helpless victim. Instead, she's a cop and more than able to take care of herself. Luckily, she does still wear tight jeans (Lundgren even notices this and teases her about it!) and there's the obligatory love scene. The scene where Lundgren and Alfonso check in a hotel is a classic! Alfonso immediately takes a shower and even asks if she has enough time to wash her panties(!). Alfonso uses a body double who turns around and around for the camera to the extent that the scene is almost comical. This scene is so gratuitous that it's hard not to like it. Because the film shows so much class in other scenes, it becomes clear that this scene isn't just here to fill time and show T&A. It's here because an action movie like this _always_ has gratuitous nudity. It's one of the trademarks of this masculine genre and if you love the genre, you will include a scene like this.

All this is nice and well but what really counts is the action. And the action here is absolutely breathtaking! The action-scenes are choreographed so beautifully that I'm still impressed while watching them although I've seen the film for over 30 times. First, there's a major shoot-out during which Lundgren kills probably over 30 guys using his fists, a shotgun and two handguns (this ain't John Woo and it doesn't really try to be but the fans of his style will probably still like this). When he runs out of bullets, he just picks up another gun from the floor. Once again, this scene is _not_ a parody but it _is_ so over-the-top that it obviously isn't meant to be taken too seriously. Anyway, there are some great stunts here and Armstrong has directed the scene flawlessly. All this amounts to one of the coolest shoot-outs in recent history and one which has since been copied in countless b-actioners. Then there's the car chase with a red Ferrari and a black Lamborghini. Phenomenal!

The score by Joel Goldsmith is brilliant. There's a strong theme, atmospheric background music for the opening scenes and really energetic music during the action scenes. Also the cinematography by Daniel L. Turrett works well. And even the acting is pretty good. As I said, Dolph Lundgren makes a good hero, Alfonso has the looks and Segal and Starr are responsible for the film's class and laughs (there aren't that many laughs in the film but when there are, they work).

"Army of One" is a film which might seem like just another action movie but as a true fan of the genre, I recognize when the director is just filming something for money and when he's passionate about his work. And this is clearly a film made with passion for the genre. This isn't "a story that needs to be told" nor is this anything original or groundbreaking as far as the story goes but this is definitely one of the best action films made in the 90s and a must-see for fans of the genre. I can't recommend this highly enough. I give this a full 10. Kudos for everyone involved!

The film is available as R- and unrated-versions. The unrated-version adds one fight scene and has a slightly different ending. Otherwise they're the same.

Man, what a movie! I see well over a hundred films per year and although I enjoy many of them, there are only about four or five which really impress me and this one definitely did! Of course, one could say that this film is simply another rip-off of "Seven". And in fact, it is. But is that a bad thing? I liked "Seven" and want to see more films like that. And in my opinion, "Resurrection" has a better plot, better music and more atmosphere. It may borrow the elements (rain, darkness etc.) from David Fincher's thriller but it enhances them so well that if you watch "Resurrection" before "Seven", you might even be disappointed by the latter. I know I would.

I like Christopher Lambert. I think John Prudhomme could only have been played by him. He has the looks, the screen presence and the charisma. Some might say he's wooden but I think he's acting style really worked well with this film. Prudhomme has lost his only child a year ago and there is something in Lambert's performance which reflects that, something sad but hopeful, which really makes you care for his character. This is a man who's been through hell and now he's finding out that he's seen nothing yet. I also liked the performance of the actor who played his partner.

The script is clever. The dialogue works very well and everything moves at a perfect pace. But what really sets this film apart from it's competitors are the high production values. There are clearly very talented people behind the camera. The cinematography, the music, the lighting, everything works extremely well together. I would really have liked to see this film in a movie theater but unfortunately it came direct-to-video in Finland.

I'm sure some people will be complaining about the gore. This film is quite bloody but I believe a film like this must be. In here the gore really enhanced the mood and I think the film wouldn't have been as good if it had been less bloody. There are some films which work best when the details are left to the imagination but I'm glad the director knew that this wasn't one of them. If you don't have the stomach to see gory bodies, don't watch a film involving a serial killer.

Overall, "Resurrection" is a superb thriller which should appeal to anyone who wants to see more films like "Seven". I gave "Seven" an 8 but I'm giving this one a full 10.

Let me start by saying that I fully understand all the people who hate this film. After all, it is a violent, often extremely stupid macho-actioner which falls apart if you start to think it's contents for a second. Its characters are one-dimensional and there's really not much plot or dialogue. But while many others think of the above as a bad thing, I think I've just described the recipe for a perfect action film.

I recently watched "Vampires" on DVD and listened to John Carpenter's commentary and one comment amused me. When James Woods and his crew were outside a building supposedly filled with vampires, everyone was wearing vests and neckpieces which protected them from being bitten except James Woods and Carpenter said about this something like "You can see how everyone is wearing vests except James Woods because he's so tough". Such is the case with Cobra also. All the other cops are dressed like...well, cops, but Stallone, he really stands out from the crowd in a positive way with his tight jeans, T-shirts, a pair of really cool (and very 80s) sunglasses and a match in his mouth (which I thought was a very nice touch). And why does he look like this? You guessed it - because he's so tough.

As I said before, there's not much plot and what there is, is pretty stupid and generic. We have seen it many times before and we will (I hope!) see it many times in the future but hey, if it ain't broken, why fix it? Of course there are several people who think it has always been broken.. There are some sequences and dialogue in Cobra which are almost embarrassingly stupid such as the opening shot where the team of killers are weaving axes to the air and then there are the legendary lines "The court is civilized, isn't it...pig?" "But I'm not.. This is where the law stops..and I start..sucker!" but I'm just so glad that they included these scenes (even though they probably knew that the critics wouldn't like them) because they are my favorite scenes in the movie.

This is a movie which has a very, very specific target audience and the reason for all the bad reviews is probably the fact that unlike other movies like this, this was for some reason targeted to a wider audience and of course, many people didn't like it. Not because Cobra is a bad movie but because they just don't like films like this. Surprisingly the other movie which was also based on Paula Gosling's novel, the William Baldwin-Cindy Crawford -actioner "Fair Game" suffered the same fate. Needless to say, I also liked that film a lot.

I know most people don't like the movies that I like and that's OK but I want others to know that I personally have seen probably over a thousand action movies and this is one of my all-time favorites and that there are many, many others who have truly enjoyed Cobra and it has become a cult classic to action fans worldwide. And when everyone starts to really think about it, Cobra may just be the perfect movie. There are so many films made in the 90s which are OK. They are not great but they don't suck either. Cobra, however, has all the ingredients that action fans love and others hate. It doesn't leave anyone cold, you either love it or you hate it. But I'll say this: If you like films like "Schindler's List" or "Shakespeare in Love" and you rent a film with a tagline "Crime is a disease. Meet the cure. COBRA", you truly deserve what you see!

Cobra is an excellent action movie because of a great macho performance (I loved the deep voice!) and screenplay from Stallone, a truly phenomenal score from my favorite composer Sylvester Levay, tight editing by Don Zimmerman and good cinematography by Ric Waite (who was also the director of photography in my other favorite, "Marked for Death" starring Steven Seagal). I also praise the director, George P. Cosmatos, although I haven't liked his other movies as much as this.

Anyway, the name and the tagline really says it all. You're either going to love or hate this and all I can say is, if you look for any intelligence in a movie, don't see it. I do, but not in an action movie. Actually, I don't even want action films to be smart or sophisticated. For me, Cobra delivers! I give it a full 10/10.