Close Range (2015) User Reviews

Continuing the trend of decent action marred with sloppy production

[quincytheodore · 5/10 · 22 November 2015]

The most casting role Scott Adkins has nowadays is either supporting or antagonist character where he would only do a couple of fight scenes but plastered on the poster nonetheless for more draw. Luckily, Close Range has given him more freedom to deliver his trademark action sequences, although it's plagued with an alarmingly sketchy presentation of gangster genre with cheesy Cinemax vibe and awful soundtracks.

Plot is actually good, at least for the first act, as MacReady (Scott Adkins) opens the movie trying to save his niece from mafia. It's a nice setup as it wastes no time to push the action, and continuous shot fighting scene definitely helps. However, it soon becomes the tedious cat-and-mouse between MacReady, the Mexican mafia and unsavory cop.

The pacing loses steam fast, repeating the same angle of corrupt police officer or gang member chasing the hero. It lacks structure aside from the primordial rush of periodic fisticuffs and gun-totting scenes, even these are simplified. As expected, there's not much in term of acting, it's not utterly terrible but it does appear jarring at times. The characters are either stereotypical damsel-in-distress, overly vilified or straight up gangster extras.

Most of the presentation revolves around old corny action flick ambiance, a bit like binge night on Cinemax with the music department playing the same Desperado inspired tunes over and over again. Fortunately, the action is admittedly decent. Scott Adkins has more plenty of chances on creating brutal beatdown, some of which are pretty creative. Even though this can get over-the-top, the high octane action would definitely please genre fans, or those wanting for more Undisputed action.

Close Range tries to spice the bland drama with misguided style. It's a good thing that the combat looks visceral enough, but it still might not attract viewer beyond action buff.

They spent all of the money on action choreography...ALL OF IT

[skantea-155-113487 · 6/10 · 22 November 2015]

...And it kind of works out. The acting, wooden. The writing, juvenile. The directing, well, he stuck to a detailed storyboard so it's not too terrible. But what is actually watch worthy is the action sequences. Fantastic fight scenes, creative shoot outs. Complex single shot stunt takes that wow. I was impressed from the beginning (except for one accidental camera angle where a bad guy clearly waits to jump into the fight-my peeve). This is not a thinking persons film at all. In fact I suggest you crack a twelve pack with your bros and sit back to cheer for some brutal MMA action. P.S. There really should have been some gratuitous nudity. It's just that kind of flick.

Excellent martial arts scenes, lousy gunplay, flimsy plot

[ginocox-206-336968 · 6/10 · 26 December 2015]

"Close Range" boasts excellent martial arts choreography. The hand-to-hand fights earn solid A grades, while the knife fights earn middling Bs. Production values are adequate for the budget and genre, although far too much reliance is placed on jiggly-cam shots. Make-up effects are of uneven quality. The script is a mishmash of overused tropes with just enough clever one-liners to consider a clemency plea when they go to lynch the writer. A climatic paean to Sergio Leone is fairly good – until they inexplicably shift POV from third-person to first with a memory flash. With no character arcs, moral or coherent theme, the actors don't have much to do except try to kill one another. Several characters are dispatched for no particular reason other than dramatic effect. Scott Adkins does an adequate job as the taciturn loner antihero and handles the action scenes admirably, but deserves a better script.

Where the movie fails is in the gunfights, which comprise a large portion of the running time. We should establish some basic rules for gunfight choreographers and movie characters who find themselves in gunfights.

1. If you have a limited amount of ammunition, you might not want to use it all laying down suppressive fire. Save your bullets until you have a target in sight.

2. If you've taken cover in a dimly lit house and the heavily armed bad guys are outside in the bright sunlight, you have a huge tactical advantage because you can see them much more easily than they can see you. However, you sacrifice that advantage if you stand by the window and stick the barrel of your weapon outside, because now they can see you and you may also have the sun in your eyes. A better strategy is to stand back away from the window and fire. If the bad guy is fifty yards away, you don't gain much advantage by moving to where he's only forty-nine yards away, but you sacrifice a considerable advantage.

3. If your weapon fires really big bullets that are the length of a man's finger and have tapered casings, they probably pack a bit of a punch and go through things like walls and the sheet metal used in automobile bodies. You're probably better off trying to fire through whatever the bad guy is hiding behind than firing overhead and hoping the bullet changes course directly above him.

4. Those little metal things over the barrel and above the breech are called sights. You stand a much better chance of hitting your target if you use them.

5. If you've seen "Zombieland," you know the advantage to a double-tap, but the incremental advantage drops dramatically. When you have a limited amount of ammunition, there isn't much advantage to putting five high-power rifle rounds through somebody's chest, as opposed to only one or two.

Other than the climatic scene, the gunfight choreography was painfully amateurish and largely nonsensical. The only purpose seemed to be to empty the weapons so the characters would need to engage in hand-to-hand combat. Initially, the characters seemed oblivious to the notion that bullets can go through things, even after a character is hit. Later, they did little except fire through walls, floors and protective gear.

The movie is a series of well choreographed fight scenes admirably executed by Scott Adkins and his opponents, linked together by a flimsy excuse for a plot. Fortunately, the fight scenes are worth the price of admission.

I tried to warn everyone

[A_Different_Drummer · 5/10 · 21 November 2015]

Let me be clear about this once again so there is no misunderstanding.

Adkins has potential. He can deliver. His work as Boyka in the Undisputed franchise was stellar and Undisputed 3 in particular is actually one of the best MMA films of all time.

In my various and sundry reviews for the IMDb, I pointed out that Adkin's film roles subsequent to Boyka were reflecting a downward career path.

For this observation I received the usual monkey-hammering of the NOT USEFUL key.

But this film says it all. Even the opening credits, done in the retro feel of the 1960s Italian Westerns (and you have to be of a certain age to know that!) tells you IN ADVANCE this is a B-movie, DTV production, done to generate cash flow and little else.

Adkins really deserves better.

The good news? There is another UNDISPUTED in the works, with the same production team.

We can only hope...

Close Range

[phubbs · 3/10 · 23 January 2016]

Cementing his place as the new JCVD? well Adkins is certainly churning out the movies, alas none of them are nowhere near as good as JCVD's earlier offerings. This movie seems to follow the same kind of themes as JCVD's 'Nowhere to Run' if you ask me, to a degree...OK visually maybe. The plot is breathtakingly basic and revolves around MacReady, a soldier gone A.W.O.L. who must protect his sister and niece from a drug cartel. The reason being his sister is married to some low life fool who gets caught up with the drug cartel and the corrupt local sheriff over merchandise and a flashcard containing important information. MacReady was serving overseas but assaulted his commanding officer apparently, he then ran off, as you do. Yet somehow he pops up back in the USA ready to take on the bad guys (how did he manage this?).

K so lets get down to the nitty gritty here, we're all gonna watch this for one reason alone and that's Adkins kicking ass. Does he do this in satisfactory form? meh...kinda, I guess, why you asking me? no wait scratch that. So what we get is Adkins taking on Mexican drug dealers with haircuts of varying degrees of stupidity, and amazingly all of them know martial arts. The formula is simple enough, Adkins creeps around a bit, surprises a couple guys, gets into a rowdy mixed martial arts fest, eventually winning. Wash rinse and repeat this scenario all the way through the movie as he takes down the small team of bad guys. Even though the location changes from the great outdoors of California to within the confines of a small ranch, its all still the same. What's even more disappointing is the fact that the fights all look the same too, literately the same choreography for every bloody fight, same moves, same camera angles etc...

Its not all fisticuffs though, there is quite a bit of gun action thrown in there too. Alas that's even more ridiculous than the repetitive fights because you can clearly tell everyone is using blanks. Why you ask? well because at numerous times the characters cross paths and shoot at each other at near point blank range, yet everyone seemingly misses each other and there are no bullet holes or destruction. Quite often I was thinking to myself, why aren't you hit? how are you missing? this is like watching a glitch ridden game of 'Call of Duty'. There is some car chase action too but that's pretty naff frankly, again you can clearly tell the vehicles are travelling quite slowly.

The movie really tries its best to be ultra cool and grown-up, but it fails miserably in my opinion. The bad guys role call sequence near the start was a hilariously bad idea for starters. Firstly who cares, we don't know these guys and you won't care about any of them further on down the line, they're all meat for Adkins to beat. Secondly why would we need this information, why do we need to know their stereotypically stupid names? like I said they're all mere fodder. Thirdly, it just looks so f*cking stupid, each one looks towards the camera with a stern, I'm well 'ard glance. Stop it! you're all so tough and scary I'm starting to sweat through my pants.

But the most amusing and daft moment of all, the real clincher was at the very end. Adkins shaven headed anti-hero stands directly opposite the corrupt sheriff (Nick Chinlund), a shotgun and set of handcuffs lie before the sheriff. MacReady had given the sheriff an ultimatum, cuff yourself or go for the gun, your choice. What follows is the most dreadful laughable cloning or homage, of the classic finale scene in 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' between Eastwood, Wallach and Cleef. Its not even remotely intense, it doesn't have any of the scope and the two helpless females watching on from the sidelines makes it feel so hokey. Oh and I should mention that the beginning credits sequence actually has little snippets of the actual movie in it! Yeah so you're actually seeing key moments of action in the title sequence before seeing the film, great decision! A title sequence that harks back to Sergio Leone classics I might add. Adkins and director Florentine have definitely got a thing for Leone classics.

Yep so its another pile of crap from Adkins I'm afraid. Yes I'm sure if you enjoy his work then you'll enjoy this. Yes I realise he's making a certain type of movie that some people demand, and in that sense it delivers exactly what some people want. Yet despite all that, and the fact I am partial to a good fight/action romp, this simply looks and plays exactly like what it is...a cheap, lazy, dull, boring, pointless movie. Yes you can argue that Adkins is only doing what previous stars like JCVD did back in the day, but the difference in quality and the fact that it was more original back then, always trumps that call.

3.5/10

Pretty poor action flick, and I am tolerant with action flicks! Sometimes.

[latinfineart · 3/10 · 1 May 2016]

This film was fairly hard to sit through. The characters were all out of a cartoon. All cardboard. The corrupt sheriff. The Mexican gangsters. The ex-husband of his sister. All poorly written. There was not much to hold my attention. Not ever much satisfaction derived from the bad guys going down, as there was nothing invested in any of the characters. Adkins is capable of so much more. Unfortunately, his stunts were kind of wasted on this turkey. I cannot recommend it, with any degree of sincerity.

Hollywood, it seems, is running out of action stories. How anyone green lighted this film, is beyond my comprehension. It could not have looked good on paper.

"Ain't nobody getting' killed here today but them!"

[The_Phantom_Projectionist · 6/10 · 11 December 2015]

In between filming scenes of the upcoming UNDISPUTED IV, it seems as though director Isaac Florentine and karate torchbearer Scott Adkins decided to crank out an additional movie while they had the time. Shot on a low budget in only a couple of locations with a limited cast, CLOSE RANGE may be the most compact action film of 2015, but it's a pretty good one at that. While not the best work of either the director or the star, this is high quality time-wasting material that supplies all the thrills that action junkies and Adkins fans could want. Potentially the best DTV action title of the year.

The story: Following a rescue mission, a mercenary (Adkins) and his family are besieged on a rural homestead by the minions of a dangerous drug lord (Tony Perez).

For the most part, the film looks like something that Florentine would have filmed 15 years ago, before he achieved major cult fame. He's virtually exploiting himself here, from the pseudo-western vibe and corny dialogue to the condensed nature of the script. Running at a slim 85 minutes, CLOSE RANGE sticks pretty close to its adrenaline agenda and doesn't bother with things like character development, focusing instead on physical tension. It's the type of movie that drama snobs will hate, though it's also a step down from the level of storytelling that Florentine's become adept at. It's disappointing that the film's premise boils down to a white guy almost exclusively killing evil Latinos, and overall, I conclude that this one leaves less of an impression than almost any other picture the star and director have made together.

…Unless, of course, we're talking about the action scenes, for which the auteurs remain in top form. These scenes are an even balance of fights and shootouts, and both are exhilarating. The best of the gunfights take place within a home, at close quarters, with the shooters blazing at each other across furniture and through walls. The fights, though, are in a league of their own. Adkins has so many stellar matches under his belt that how these ones rank among the rest is a matter of opinion, but know that onwards from the very first fight – wherein Scott lays waste to seven thugs within a single extended camera shot – top effort has been made. These fights are potential star-makers, as Adkins finds some choice opponents in relatively unknown performers like Jimmy Chhiu, Craig Henningsen, and especially fight choreographer Jeremy Marinas. Occasional slow motion marginally taints some of the brawls, though their overall quality is strong enough to withstand this fault.

In a movie wherein the characters are stock, the setups are old hat, and the lines are recycled, what can still make it worth watching? In this one's case, the answer is gusto and talent. I emphasize how much this seems like something the filmmakers threw together as a side project, but the fact that it's Isaac Florentine doing the throwing means a lot. CLOSE RANGE is a short, fun trip to Actionville that I encourage all fans to take.

please don't go see this in cinemas...for your own sake.

[karam-22496 · 3/10 · 20 November 2015]

let me start with saying that Scott Adkins has the potential to continue the line of great fighters in the world of Hollywood like van Dame, Steven Segal etc.To be honest he is the only reason i watched this movie int he first place (wasn't worth it at all).

Going into the movie, which the least to say as a beginning is that it had the worst dialogue, actors and story i have seen in a long,long time.It is such a shame to see an actor with good potential in such a bad picture where the least i can say is that it isn't worth neither the money , nor the time to see it. To be just, the fighting scenes where incredibly well executed and performed. But that doesn't compensate the completely horrible acting,dialogue, story. Just go watch undisputed 3 if you in the mood for a better fighting movie.

Scott Adkins Plays a Badass, and We Have Fun Again

[DareDevilKid · 7/10 · 5 December 2015]

Reviewed by: Dare Devil Kid (DDK)

Rating: 3.2/5 stars

Scott Adkins is cinema's reigning B-movie badass, and he again teams with his frequent director Isaac Florentine ("Undisputed II" and "Undisputed III", "Ninja", and "Ninja: Shadow of a Tear") for "Close Range", a neo-western in which the star displays his gifts for leaping in slow motion, roundhouse-kicking bad guys in the face, and stabbing crotches with belt-buckle blades.

Adkins plays an ex-military loner named Colt McCready (because, you know, he's ready for action) who rescues his kidnapped niece from Mexican drug lords and then must re-save her when those cartel villains show up in Arizona looking for an invaluable flash drive inadvertently taken by Colt.

That flimsy plot isn't enough to sustain even the film's fleeting 85 minutes, something Florentine had done admirably well in the aforementioned B-movie classics. Fortunately, Florentine pads his material with one combative set piece after another involving anonymous adversaries (who are pointlessly but hilariously given actual names), all of them marked by Adkins's use of lethal martial- arts moves and by hand-held camera-work that captures mayhem in lucid, up-close-and-personal long takes.

Like its star, whose facial expressions range from grimaces to scowls, "Close Range" is a one-note throwback infused with the spirit of Bronson's, Stallone's, Schwarzenegger's, Seagal's, Norris', and Van Damme's most brutal 70s and 80s kill-'em-all sagas. It's as unsubtle as a boot to the head, but its dour-and-campy lo-fi style is far preferable to the spastic flash of its big-budget genre compatriots.

For Fans of Shootings and Fightings Only

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 5 December 2021]

In Mexico, the former decorated and now rogue soldier Colton "Colt" MacReady (Scott Adkins) rescues his niece Hailey (Madison Lawlor), who was kidnapped by a dangerous cartel. During his operation, he kills the son of the druglord Fernando Garcia (Tony Perez) and brings a flash drive with the handcuff key of Hailey that Garcia's son had on his necklace. Garcia contacts the dirty Sheriff Jasper Calloway (Nick Chinlund) that goes to the ranch of Colton's sister, Angela Reynolds (Caitlin Keats), with two deputies. Angela is married to the scum Walt Reynolds (Jake La Botz) that stole drugs from Garcia's shipment, the reason why Hailey was abducted. While Calloway holds Angela and Hailey in the ranch, Garcia heads to the spot with eleven "soldiers" from his cartel to retrieve the flash drive.

"Close Range" is an action film for fans of shootings and fightings cnly since the choreography is very well made. However, the storyline and specially the acting is awful, full of clichés and wooden faces. It is difficult to point out who is the worst, but at least Madison Lawlor and Nick Chinlund are funny to see their faces. I am not sure whether Hailey last name is Reynolds, since Walt is her stepfather; therefore does not make sense his last name for her, only for Angela. Last but not the least, who would keep vital information in a flashdrive without any back-up? The USB flash drive is the same vulnerable as the hard disk drive. In other words, it can fail at any time without any omens. Once it gets broken or become inoperative, without any doubts, your data will get lost likewise. Hence, it is prudent and advisable to back up your flash drive data. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Perigo Extremo" ("Extreme Danger")

Close Range- Scott Adkins back in Action as an main actor

[Maestrodovic · 8/10 · 22 November 2015]

Scott Adkins is better than ever. A lot of new Martial Arts and Action Projects like Hard target 2 or the new Undisputed IV movie. He is one of the best action actors of this time. ( my personal opinion) Back to Close Range. Scott delivers again.

Positive + Scott as main actor in Western Actioner Close Range + Effective Fights, well choreographed + A lot of well directed gun shots + Creative Action Scene in the middle of the movie + fast paced, no slow downs + Good atmosphere music

Negative - Too short (79 Minutes without Credits) - End was disappointing, i was hoping for a final fight - Not so much spectacular Martial Arts ( Jumping Backkick and that's it)

All in one it was a very entertaining Actioner with the Action Maestro Scott Adkins himself. Waiting for the Home Video Release in Germany. Hard Target 2 and Undisputed IV will come soon.Sorry for my unprofessional English. :)

Interesting camera work

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 6 February 2016]

Something you might not expect of reading, with a low budget movie like this, but I really liked the stunt and camera work, which go hand in hand in this one. I won't waste too much time on "story". In this case this has nothing to do with spoiling it, because the story itself is not really exciting or anything extraordinary. But you wouldn't expect that anyway.

Still very low and some of the acting to say the least does not help the movie either. But the stunt scenes are really well thought of, as are the camera angles and moves. I especially love the longer takes or the in your face (or hand) approach it takes. Again, this is small/low budget, so it's not like there is other things that are amazing (like locations, set design, even some of the "blood" effects seem more than cheap), but it can still work - and I think it does in some ways

Only reason I gave 2, because I have seen worse.

[altersaege · 2/10 · 25 December 2015]

I always feel "there cannot be anything worse than this" when I watch something like this. But then I remember that I have actually seen some worse things. So I want to be generous and I give 2 stars. The guy is actually not thaaaaaaat bad. Looks a bit like Ben Affleck with more muscles. But all the rest is as pathetic as it can be. I really cannot imagine which kind of people can really enjoy and like this film. I am sure that there must be somebody. And I am sure that's not me, and not anybody who is used to at least mid level of quality. Here you will not find any level of quality at all. Quoting Kung Fu Panda "there is now a level 0".

It was not worth the electricity used to watch it

[andreasbohlin · 1/10 · 9 December 2015]

Enough have been said already. Had to create a user here just to warn people. Actors and story had at least a Van Damme potential. The main character knows his moves. With the right manuscript, director he could make good movies. The director however, should start a bakery instead of wasting resources on film makes and people time. The shooting scenes in the house became boring indeed. Hire an expert on shooting sprees next time. Unrealistic. The director could try Google "directing a movie." The cutting of the drama in the end, with the bad cop... Might become a school example of how to suck the water out of a stone. Did not know they still made films like this...

Who's Father is Scott Adkins dad ---- I've seen him in about 8 Awful films

[mikevonbach · 3/10 · 14 December 2015]

This is rare for me To see an Actors name on the Title and say This is going to be a bad film . But with Scott Adkins that's the way it is Really he must know someone very big to keep putting this guy in films. He has not had one big winner yet . HERCULES 3D was a total flop . I just dint buy this guy in movies

Cheap video games are better choreographed than this movie. Unless you are 10 years old, don't even bother. I had to force myself to finish it. I'm racking my brain trying to come up with the minimum of 10 lines of text required for this review and all that I can think of is to beg you not to waste your time. Even the worse Steven Seagal movie ranks better. The plot is juvenile and the acting is as bad as in a low production, two o'clock in the morning SyFy Chanel flick. And the whistling at key action scenes is just annoying. Thumbs down all the way. If this is the kind of roles that Adkins is being cast on, I can only advise him to fire his agent.

what do you expect??

[vampiri · 4/10 · 23 November 2015]

I have said it before...reviews/votes on quite a large bunch of films are odd at best. Some are over the top, some way too low to be taken seriously, a fact even if you account for personal taste.

Plot: ex soldier frees niece only to be hunted down because of missing piece of data.

Close Range is a "fighting film", - I choose not too call it a martial arts film because, to me, films belonging to that genre/sub genre are movies like Undisputed and Blood Sport who centers on, most often anyway, martial arts on a stage of sorts, whereas "fighting films" contain/focus on martial arts skills, but also mixed with ordinary brawls depending on setting and often set in an "open world" i.e. a city, crime, war etc. I also argue that movies like Blood Sport most often have no focus on plot at all, and "fighting films", more often any way, put a little more effort into creating something you could call a plot.

Reviewers complain about bad acting, bad script, stupid gang bangers, lack of plot. Come on!! What do you expect? Neither martial arts movies, nor "fighting films" are known for these things, sure a few have good acting or plot. However, there is a reason they are called martial arts movies, they focus on fighting. If they, the writers/producers, wanted excitement, Oscar nominations etc, they would not be doing martial arts movies.

Now, Close Range won't go down in history as a particularly good movie in any regard. It is not very good. As one reviewer pointed out, all the money seems to be spent on the fighting scenes.

But I always try to be fair and objective. Sure the acting is not good, but not worse that most other "fighting films". If focus is on fighting, why spend money and valuable time on explosions and writing the script?

Also, if you consider, for example, the fact that movies are categorized as this or that on websites and media of all sorts and you study the cast you should understand what quality the movie will have. Close Range is categorized as "action" and "crime", the star is Scott Adkins and the only other "well known" is Nick Chinlund. I praise Adkins for his fighting skills and charisma, not his acting. I like Chinlund because of his skills in portraying bad guys, but he is not Oscar material either.

The bad guys are stupid some say, well, can't argue there. But so are teens in horror movies.

Close Range works as entertainment for the moment. The fighting scenes ARE good, however not memorable.

I hope Adkins will get the recognition he deserves. He is a very good martial artist and a decent actor who deserves better roles/movies. But he will never reach cult status like van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, on the other hand, these two actors are "products" of their time like Stallone and Scwarzenegger.

Finally, Close Range is similar in quality like The Night Crew, 4got10, so if you like those movies you will like this one. But if you like The One, Universal Soldier and Skin Trade - which all have better cast, acting, script, fighting scenes, you will be more or less disappointed.

I give it 4/10, watch if you have nothing better to do for the moment.

Craving Some Adkins Action? Watch Close Range !

[ActionFan-Reviews · 6/10 · 21 December 2015]

Close Range is the latest featuring action star Scott Adkins and as a fan of his films and other bone breaking martial arts action films, I was entertained. An action movie in many ways is as good as it's star, Adkins further proves he is one of the top actors in the genre today by delivering on what he does best - kick ass. Close range contains solid action from beginning to end with a solid opening fight sequence, plenty of bloody gun play throughout and a climax with hard hitting hand-to-hand combat that will definitely please fans of such films.The main character also has a bad ass name like any true action hero should - Colt Macready. The movie is not without it's flaws though, acting certainly isn't the strength of the movie and neither is the story. Overall, a good direct to VOD action film and I look forward to more from Scott Adkins including Undisputed IV and Hard Target II. If your someone who wants a fast paced, pure action film served rated R, done with no CGI and real stunts, your thirst for some real action will be satisfied.

6-6.5 / 10

Damn waste of resources, while they had everything going for them

[john-monne · 3/10 · 22 February 2016]

The only reason I give it a 3 is because there are moments things are acceptable. Those are the moment the camera work and angles are on par and the scenery and colors are actually quite nice! Chunks of the fighting action can even be called decent as well.

What ruins a movie for me is when things that shouldn't cost additional (or much more) budget money to make it much better. Things such bad scripting in which things are added in (at cost!!) that just puts down any form of IQ higher then 85..

When a movie starts zooming in on the faces with a 'shaky' effect added, it is time to start the 'i give this 2 minutes to get better' timer. Whom ever invented the notion that 'shaky' cam effect adds to a shot should actually be SHOT and so should the people who keep it going.

Then you get (again at cost!) a completely USELESS intro of the Mexican cartel driving in three cars. I think like 8 people are being introduced, by very original nicknames i must add (sigh), as if we are about to watch a Quintin Tarantino master piece in which we need to get to know the characters...while in fact by the time you see the fourth face and name you already forgot about the previous ones.

Bad scripting, dumb story, bad framing, bad directing and producing.

I will stop my review here as it simply is not worth more effort. This is simply yet another movie of SO MANY nowadays that is just ruined by poor management of resources and by assuming the general population has the development of a 12 year old and the IQ of 85 or lower. They had the budget, they had decent actors, they had GORGEOUS scenery and they had GREAT equipment / camera / sound. You must simply suck at what you do to end up with a production such as this.

It rises above its limitations . . .

[DeltaForceChung · 7/10 · 30 November 2015]

Scott Adkins have been making a definite name and reputation for himself over the past few years with primarily direct to DVD action films with appearances in a few mainstream action feature films in a background and secondary role.

He frequently collaborates with director Isaac Florentine who also has an established reputation for directing primarily direct to DVD action films.

CLOSE RANGE is definitely a low budget action film, but it definitely rises above its limitations. It contains very tight and well-choreographed action fights scenes that are typical of such films, but the visual execution and presentation rises above the low budget stigma associated with such films.

The plot is the usual standard fare for such films, but what impressed me is the how the film firmly and quickly established the plot with the primary and secondary characters in terms of pacing without any "fluff" one may find in other such films.

The film clocks in right at 82 minutes, but it's above average action packed 82 minutes.

Scott Adkins is the primary notable actor in the film. Nick Chinlund delivers a tried and usual performance as a secondary character in a villainous role.

I confidently recommend this film for those who appreciate a good action film that manages to rise above its limitations of which there aren't many that is able to do so. CLOSE RANGE does.

Just for the fight scenes.

[jriv-90719 · 3/10 · 18 February 2019]

If you watch a movie purely for the hand to hand combat this ain't that bad. The gun play is horrific. Movie magic magazines for everyone, only a few reloads. The taint stab was awesome though.

Awesome movie you get what you pay for

[Whovian_DW · 10/10 · 31 October 2020]

Yes I'm giving this a 10. No this isn't a drama fueled movie with twists and turns and deep character moments...but come on who puts on a Scott Adkins for all that stuff. This is a brainless action movie that's a lot of fun to watch. Adkins is a great actor who plays the tough hero very well. The villains are your typical drug cartel cannon fodder for Adkins to shoot, stab and kick the hell out of. You also have your typical corrupt sherif. I'm reviewing this in 2020 and frankly we need more movies like this. Today when macho male heroes are getting pushed aside. This is the kind of movie I like. No it's nothing amazing it's not winning any oscars but I can't find any fault in it. That's why I'm giving it a 10. I delivered everything I expected.

It's a alright B movie

[KineticSeoul · 6/10 · 22 November 2015]

For a B movie, this one is alright. Mainly because it has Scott Adkins doing his hand to hand fight scenes. The story is below mediocre, even for a B movie and the acting can get annoying to watch from time to time. Especially when it comes to the crying parts, which seemed like they were trying so hard to give an impression of fear and sadness. The movie is about an hour and 20 minutes and there is very few moments where the movie slows down. It's basically non-stop action from beginning to end. Which is actually a good thing, because like I said, anytime the actresses try to do an emotional impression it was either amusing or annoying. Action is where it's at though, and when it comes to the action it is choreographed really well. The hand to hand combat scenes is fast-paced and entertaining. I can't say the same for the gun play though, it was kind of dull and dragged on a bit. With thousands of bullets going everywhere and not hitting the protagonist once. Overall if you want to watch a movie with kickass hand to hand combat action movie with some really cool choreography, this one just might be it for you.

6.8/10

Lots of action but....

[techmaniis-31282 · 4/10 · 22 November 2021]

This movie is non stop action but firing 60 rounds from one clip and hitting everything but the people you aim at is just pathetic. The lead is supposed to be some great ex soldier and can't hit two guys 10 ft away standing in a doorway but manages to completely shred the doorway. He takes a dead body to hide and places in plain sight. He has no weapons then proceeds to leave weapons of the people he killed behind. It's really quite pathetic. I give it a 4 because the fights are passable.

Almost instantly forgettable

[LordJiggy · 5/10 · 14 December 2015]

They had about 60 minutes worth of story, and padded it out with long shootouts.

And more long shootouts through what looked like drywall.

Which should have ended the "standoff" in about 3 minutes, with the folks on the other side of the drywall dead.

Then they padded some more, by (tiniest of SPOILER) giving us an interminable (and terribly acted) scene full of meaningful glares in a moving vehicle. Stretching the scene out, even more, with freeze frames and supplying us with the names of the disposable bad guys. Names that had no importance or meaning to the rest of the film. At all.

Which is too bad, really, as I have a suspicion that Scott Adkins might actually be able to pull off a good leading role if he had an actual script to work with. And perhaps an actual director who wasn't trying to channel Sergio Leone meets Shaw Brothers.

Had the potential to be a decent, gut-bucket B-movie, but the delusions of being better than it was defeated everyone involved.

Not worth the time

[haarryi · 2/10 · 21 November 2015]

The movie has nothing that deserves phrase. Bad direction, no screenplay, shoddy acting. A lot of shooting, but they are mostly ridiculous and hard to enjoy. Apart from a couple of hand to hand combat there is nothing in it that even deserves a mention.

The plot is so wafer-thin and implausible. Now, I am not saying implausibility is what makes it bad, no. It is just that most of what's happening in the movie is so ridiculously stupid that you will have a hard time digesting it. The bad guys are dumber than a box of rocks. Their actions or their methods make no sense to anyone with half a brain.

Now, if it was a comedy or a spoof it would have worked. But this one lacks the humor to be a spoof or the audacity to be an action flick. It's dumb, pale and boring.