Tekken: The Straight2DVD Review

When first asked to review Tekken (2010), I thought this is going to suck because:

1. I have never played any of the actual Tekken video games, either in the arcade or on the console;

2. I have only played a few hours of Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive on my Xbox, and never really enjoyed them because I am a button-masher with no patience to memorize combos;

3. I don’t care for mixed martial arts as from what I’ve seen, it is mostly two dudes rolling around on the floor, kidney-punching one another; and

4. Given that this was a straight-to-DVD release here in America, it was going to be low budget, poorly written, and poorly produced.

After all, the other movies based on fighting video games which I had seen that made it to actual movie theaters were pretty bad: 1995′s Mortal Kombat starring Christopher Lambert as Raiden the Wacky God of Thunder, and poor Raul Julia’s last film before his untimely demise, 1994′s Street Fighter, did not foretell an enjoyable experience in viewing Tekken.

Imagine my surprise then, after the opening credits (which unfortunately are marred by a horrible song with trite lyrics), when my genuine interest in the film’s story began to mount.

Am I actually enjoying this?

The first thing noticeable is the production value. Internet sources claim that the film had a budget of $35M, and that may be the most money spent on a S2DVD film reviewed on this website! Quickly, the writing quality becomes apparent too. This is no slap-dash job in terms of the characters and plot meant to serve up action scene after action scene. Now, they may be a little formulaic, but there are no real groaners in the dialogue, and combined with the strong acting performances, it’s all believable. You can feel that everyone is taking this seriously, and it benefits the film as a whole. If at any point, someone had phoned it in, the illusion would have shattered.

So why did this film fare so poorly, review-wise? Personally, I think it’s because the few reviewers who took the time to watch it either didn’t want to give it an honest attempt at entertaining them, or just aren’t used to seeing the dreck that comes across my desk here at S2DVD. Maybe it’s me though, strongly embracing something that’s made well and reasonably produced and written like a welcome breath of fresh air.

What else is good?

1. Luke Goss (in his second S2DVD review appearance!) gets to relax and speak in his native British accent. He’s good when he’s not playing a prequelized character!

2. Awesome actor Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa brings a much-needed gravitas to the movie. Another great performance!

3. Ian Anthony Dale = smoldering badass.

4. And of course, the lead, Jon Foo as Jin, brings to his role a fresh youthfulness for single-minded vengeance.

5. There’s a fight scene between two women, and at no point before, during, or after the fight does either woman call the other a bitch, which I find one of the most annoying and trite conventions in the writing of fight scenes between two females. Bravo, Mr. McElroy.

6.  The obvious attempt by the fictional Tekken Corporation to have the decor of the fighting ring change occasionally as it does in the actual games. Props to the set designer for that coolness.

7.  If you like good-looking girls, Kelly Overton is given every chance to look hot as fighter Christie Monteiro. She can act, too, though her part here is basically one-dimensional.

Screenwriter Alan McElroy’s established skills mean that this script is much more logical and thought-out than other S2DVD films, so I didn’t have many issues with the writing, except: 1) Jin’s girlfriend, Kara (Mircea Monroe), gets short shrift until she pops up at the very end to do nothing but cheer him on from the crowd, and 2) Where are the ring-side medics for this competition? The poor fighters get the snot kicked out of them, and then hardly get a band-aid for their troubles.

Should you watch it?

If you like the Tekken game series, you’ll probably appreciate a lot more of the inside baseball references to the games’ overall story that I did not catch (or you’ll get angry about changes to it and grouse about it on the Internet). If you like fighting movies, I think that it has enough to keep you interested. I can’t speak to the realism of the fighting techniques, but it looked like the actors did their own fight and stunt work. So if it sounds like your kind of thing, it would be a fun 90 minutes for you. It was for me.

Ballistica: The Straight2DVD Review

I may be losing my edge, but I don’t feel right laying into Ballistica today. I could also be tired, or just burnt out on bad movies. Yes, Ballistica is not really well written, produced, or performed (all with some exceptions here and there), but these people are making a living, and in these times, maybe that’s enough. For artists in any industry, film or otherwise, it is not easy when the economy is in the toilet, and maybe bad art is better than no art at all. So rather than running through the poor elements of the film and the sarcastic jokes that I could make about them, I’ll just focus on the most basic element of the movie, its title, and whether or not it delivers on its promise.

Ballistica, as explained by the film’s primary practitioner, CIA operative Damian Sloan (Paul Logan), is… well, actually I don’t remember if he ever really explains what it is, other than that it was invented by a Soviet defector in the 1980s and there are only a few people in the world who know how to do it. It is basically gun fu, the visually entertaining but realistically dangerous (to the practitioner) practice of gunplay where exaggerated and sweeping body movements and trick-shots (behind the back, etc.) are blended together to form a shooting style reminiscent of the more traditional martial arts. If you’ve never seen it, imagine the lightsaber battles from the horrible Star Wars prequels fought instead with guns (and minus the telekinesis and lightning). All fast spinning and jumping around, but with guns. Done well, it’s very cool looking (more on that in a bit).

So Ballistica must have a lot of gun fu in it, right? I mean they named the movie after the concept, so there must be plenty of discussion about its origin, the traditions of its practitioners, what is important for proper ballistica technique, and the philosophy behind it all. Plus, the producers even took the chance that people might confuse this film with 2002′s Ballistic, considered the worst movie ever by Rottentomatoes.com.

But no. Other than Damian’s terse history and a later character’s off-hand remark that there are “1,000 lessons” of ballistica, that’s it for any deeper sense of what this fighting style is about. So fine, no rich history. Then they must make it up with tons of actual gunfights, right? Our hero mowing down dozens of nameless goons to get to the main villain?

Nope, not really. Other than the practice demonstration by Damian 19 minutes in, there are only four other (what I consider “true”) uses of gun fu through the film: at the 11 minute mark, the 63 minute mark, a few minutes after that, and a few minutes from the end of the film. And it seems that out of all the terrorist organizations in the world, Damian is pitted against the one with two fellow ballistica practitioners. And these gunfights don’t last very long, so for 90 minutes of a film, you get maybe three minutes tops of actual ballistica fighting. And compared to the gun fu films that have come before, these fights are not the greatest examples of gun fu.

Seriously, read the Wikipedia gun fu entry and watch those movies instead, particularly John Woo’s A Better Tomorrow from 1986, 1999‘s The Matrix, and 2002‘s Equilibrium to get a better understanding of how cool gun fu can be, because you can’t find it here.

I mean, there are only two situations where gun fu shines: 1) when one person is pitted against a roomful of guys, and 2) when two trained gun fu-ers go at it. Otherwise, what’s the point? So a very basic screenwriting strategy would be to have your hero continually run into groups of baddie goons as he tracks down the villain who is trained like the hero. That way, you get a balance between mowing down guys in creative ways and one-on-one set pieces. But sadly, Ballistica doesn’t do much of that, instead focusing on more generic action subplots to take up time between the first and third acts. Like love, people quitting jobs, and dead relatives.

Tired of hearing about gun fu? Okay, I’ll talk about a few other things.

1. Screen veteran Robert Davi mumbles his way through his scenes, which would have been fine (that’s kinda his thing) if the audio was a little louder, and Martin Kove is tasked with little to do except deliver basic dialogue about getting satellites in position and taking out tangos as Damian’s controller back at HQ (though why the goofy Southwestern-inspired vest, Wardrobe Department?). It’s the 1980s kid in me that wanted inside references to either The Goonies or The Karate Kid whenever one of them was onscreen, but alas, I missed them if they were there.

2. Production designers, you don’t need to coat every flat surface with the CIA seal to let the viewer know that a scene takes place in a CIA building or office, or that the computer user is using a CIA computer. Sheesh.

And finally…

At the beginning of this review, I said that I wouldn’t be too rough on the film because of the hardworking people involved (Lord knows some people take what I say personally), but in the end, this film is ready for the guys at Rifftrax to take a swing at it. I don’t blame 99 percent of the cast and crew for this (well, maybe 97 percent).

See, as a writer trained in screenwriting (among other forms) and having shot, edited, and acted in student films and other small efforts (and no, you haven’t seen me (2:08) in anything), I know how hard writing a story can be. But that early time, before producers find funding, before carpenters build sets, before craft services lays out all the food, when it’s just a writer and the page, is when almost all of the problems with a film’s story can be fixed. Yes, film is collaborative, and shit happens over time, but it is up to the writer, as the architect drawing up the plans for the entire plot, to make sure everything is logical (to the best of their ability) before any scenes are shot. Everything that comes after is dependent on that story making sense in its very basic form.

That is why I focus so much on the writing in these movies, because revising a script is much cheaper than reshooting half of a film because it doesn’t work (or just shrugging one’s shoulders and putting out a bad film). And I know that sometimes even a great script can turn into a turd of a film because of what happens after the writer hands it over. I’m not saying every script has to be The Usual Suspects, but if S2DVD filmmakers want return customers, I feel that the screenwriters need to be the first to step it up.

Glorious 39: The Straight2DVD Review

Remember that Friends episode where Rachel tried to bake something, but the two pages of the cookbook stuck together so she made something that was half a meat dish and half a dessert? And while Joey liked it (“I mean, what’s not to like? Custard, good. Jam, good. Meat, good!”), Ross summed it up best with, “It tastes like feet!”

Glorious 39 tastes like feet. The ingredients are wonderful. Actors, locations, costumes, makeup. All good. But the two recipes, one for a murder thriller and the other for a period drama, got merged together and made a big mess.

I can’t find any issue with the film’s raw materials. The BAFTA-winning writer/director Stephen Poliakoff is not well-known here in the States, but has a long career of writing and directing stage plays, television dramas and films, and feature films in Great Britain. There is amazing power both in the acting and production talent. For actors, you’ve got Romola Garai, Bill Nighy, Julie Christie, Eddie Redmayne, David Tennant, Charlie Cox, Jeremy Northam, Christopher Lee, and Jenny Agutter. The locations in Norfolk and London draw you in with their beauty, and the cinematography, makeup, and costumes are superb thanks to DP Danny Cohen, Jenny Shircore, and Annie Symons, respectively.

But it’s those stuck pages, first in the screenwriting process, and then in the editing, that lead to a marred final product. Subplots meant either to 1) illustrate what had to be done in Britain before the war by the populace to survive or 2) show Garai’s lead character of Anne to be an outsider in her own family both only slow down the overall pace of the murder mystery. Tension, which should increase as a thriller plays out, is deflated by these subplots. Now, don’t get me wrong. I appreciate a good, slow burn in a film, if it’s interesting. But here, the end is not all that interesting enough to be shocking.

In the end, you’re asking why Anne was put through it all. Her tormentors don’t have a really good reason, other than they’re evil, I guess, which most of the time can be enough, but given the level of planning and thought involved in what they do to her, it is hard to see them simply as evil people playing with her like a toy, especially when they have something larger at stake that they’re trying to accomplish. Why not just kill her at the start? They don’t even try to recruit her to their cause, so why screw with her? And in the final 10-15 minutes of the film, logic continues to break down, and it all ends in an overly-dramatic way for no real reason.

If you’re a big fan of Garai or Nighy, then you’ll want to see the film for their performances. If you love British period pieces of the 30s, then you’ll want to see the film for the locations and the costumes. Just don’t expect a tight, well-paced thriller.

Death Race 2: The Straight2DVD Review

In 1975, Death Race 2000 was released. It starred David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone (pre-Rocky), and it is a dark, fun film full of political satire in that way that only dystopian movies from the 1970s can be. 2008′s Death Race (DR1) was basically a remake, and Peter Hartlaub in the San Francisco Chronicle wrote a great review comparing it to the original. Basically, the remake was nowhere near as creative.

This week saw the straight-to-DVD release of Death Race 2 (the unrated version) (DR2), and I watched the previous two films to prepare myself.

Where I get confused is why director Paul W.S. Anderson says in his DVD commentary of DR1 (according to Wikipedia) that DR1 is a prequel to the original Death Race 2000. Does he foresee a string of Death Race movies? What’s more confusing about this week’s release of DR2 is that it is a prequel to DR1. Therefore, it’s a prequel to a prequel. Is that like if George Lucas had released Attack of the Clones before The Phantom Menace? I  guess the idea is that after two films where the Death Race is confined to a prison, the third film can introduce the original film’s idea of a cross-country race. Why they took this long to return to the original film’s idea, I don’t know.

DR2 is the origin story of the Death Race racer known as Frankenstein, though originally his name was Carl “Luke” Lucas (played by Luke Goss)… because apparently in today’s cinema, we require origin stories of our heroes and villains. I actually don’t know who the heroes or villains are in this film as everyone seems to be either a convicted criminal or just a terrible person. In DR1, Jason Statham’s character was framed for his wife’s murder, incorrectly imprisoned, and just wanted to get back to his daughter. In this movie, well, you’ll see.

In the pre-credit titles (0:47 seconds in), we are told that the “Weyland Corporation” owns the Terminal Island Penitentiary. Okay, I’m just going to stop you right there. I am really tired of screenwriters mining the Weyland-Yutani Corporation name from the Alien franchise as some sort of in-joke in their screenplays. Stop it. No one thinks you’re clever.

ANYWAY, DR2 starts like DR1 with a riot and a brutal police response. Except in the first film, it was a bunch of upset factory workers who weren’t being paid enough for being overworked, and in DR2, it’s just a bunch of prisoners fighting in the prison yard. So right there, you’ve got a much different feeling to the start of the film.

Sean “I’m-just-here-for-a-paycheck” Bean plays crime boss Markus Kane who wants henchman Luke to rob a bank. There’s a moment where Kane is an ass to his girlfriend/wife and Luke just looks away, which might have been saying something about our aversion to confronting the poor treatment of women or something, but that idea never really carries forward. I guess Luke thinks Kane is too powerful. The girl just smiles and leaves the table anyway, so I guess no harm was done.

Kane gives Luke a brand-new Ford Mustang (known as the hero’s car from the first film) to use as the getaway car. Did Ford pay for the product placement? Just wondering.

ANYWAY, The bank robbery goes poorly and Luke kills a cop. Now, there is a moment here that’s basically Luke realizing what he did was wrong. Time slows down and the camera catches his “oooooooh ffffuuuuuuddddggggeee” expression, but through the rest of the film, his feelings of guilt (if he has any) are never explored. It’s basically just a way to get him to Terminal Island.

Meanwhile, Ving “I’m-also-just-here-for-a-paycheck” Rhames plays Mr. Weyland, the head of the corporation that runs Terminal Island, and all he cares about are the ratings of the precursor to Death Race, called Death Match, which is hosted by Ms. Jones (Lauren Cohan), a former Miss Universe (who lost her crown when it was revealed that she slept with all five judges). I am not making this up. The obvious joke would have been “All at once?” but no one seems to find it funny. The point is, she’s got no conscience.

So we’re on the island. And Lists (Frederick Koehler) is back! Oh how I liked him from DR1. Not really. In DR1, we didn’t learn what his crime was to end up in a maximum security prison, and considering how mousy he is, I was a little scared that he was some sort of serial killer. But in DR2, at 38:38, an onscreen graphic identifies his Criminal History as “matricide.” So he killed his mom. So that’s not so bad, right? OMG, is this film having an effect on me?! Did he kill just his mom, or many moms?

We find out that Death Match is basically the same as Death Race with its power-up pads (think Mario-Kart. No, seriously.) and need for contestants to kill one another. But there’s no racing. Or cars (except a bus in the middle of the ring that contains the power-up weapons). And if you don’t kill your opponent or get them to submit, then you both die. What kind of crap rule is that? What if you simultaneously knock each other out? Do you both wake up and see Saint Peter?

The warden is a kind, old fart who is afraid to put (our hero) Luke on the Death Match show because he’s afraid that once Kane knows where Luke is incarcerated, then he will have people kill Luke, and the warden wants his inmates safe (except for those that are put in the Death Match by Ms. Jones). See, Luke didn’t snitch on Kane when he was caught, but Kane is worried that after a month or so of prison life, Luke will sing like a canary.

Script-wise, the issue is that we already know that Kane knows that Luke is on Terminal Island from an earlier scene, so there’s no tension in putting Luke in a Death Match. All it does when Luke appears on the television is make Kane realize that Luke hasn’t been killed yet because his henchmen have enacted a plan that won’t take effect unless Ms. Jones and Mr. Weyland turn Death Match into Death Race… oh… I see now. Those two henchmen could see into the future when (SPOILER) their psychopathic killer on the inside would just happen to be on Luke’s pit crew for the Death Races and thus able to sabotage his car during the second race. Yeah, that makes perfectly no sense. It’s made clear that Luke can handle himself in hand-to-hand combat, so in the end, what harm would the rotund inside man have accomplished if the Death Race had never been conceived? He was no match for Luke. (END SPOILER)

ANYWAY, getting back to narrative tension, as with any prequel, you run the risk of having characters (who were in the first film that takes place after this film) in life threatening situations that you know they’ll survive, so the audience gets bored because they already know the outcome! List and 14K obviously survive to see the next film, so any scene with them in peril is a waste. (SPOILER) On the flip side, Goldberg (played by everyone’s favorite, Danny Trejo) survives the entire film, but in the next film appears to be replaced by Ian McShane as pit crew leader with no explanation. (END SPOILER)

And finally…

Should you see it? See, if this film were more like Death Race 2000 with a political satire bend, then yes. Or, if this film had amazing racing sequences, then maybe. But this film has neither and just plods along until the last 10 minutes which are basically the only scenes that this entire movie exists for: how Frankenstein was disfigured and then created. And if you saw the end of Revenge of the Sith, there you go.

Rent Death Race 2000 instead of either DR1 or DR2. You’ll have a much better time.

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse: The Straight2DVD Review

In case you didn’t know, Supergirl is back. Actually, she’s been back since 2004. See, prior to that, she was dead in the DC Comics Universe because she was killed in 1985′s Crisis On Infinite Earths storyline after 26 years of faithful hero service since 1959 (Sheesh, so that’s how those DC editors reward a life of sacrifice).

Anyway, last month saw the release of yet another DC Universe Animated Original Movies direct-to-DVD with Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (seriously, they are pumping these out faster and faster). This is an adaptation of “The Supergirl From Krypton” storyline from issues #8-13 of the Superman/Batman comic series. And unlike those comics written by the great Jeph Loeb, this DVD is instantly forgettable due to poor screenwriting choices and so-so animation.

Loeb’s storyline spoke to the importance of family, with Superman having found an actual relative from Krypton alive and wanting to keep her safe, no matter the cost. The DVD version, while following the comic’s storyline and touching on the family theme, focuses more on the old Spider-Man theme of “with great power, comes great responsibility.”

The voice cast is strong, with Tim Daly as Superman, Summer Glau as Supergirl, Andre Braugher as the villain, Darkseid, and in a really strange casting decision, Ed Asner as Granny Goodness. Yes, that Ed Asner… playing a woman. I guess he needed the money?

The quality of the art is touch-and-go. Sometimes it looks very close to Michael Turner’s (of Witchblade fame) original artwork, and sometimes it looks like 1980s cheap Saturday morning cartoon. One thing that drove me a little crazy was the occasional odd proportion in the faces, in particular, Batman’s and Superman’s. Sometimes the chin would be huge, and other times, the space between the nose and mouth would be way too big.

In terms of what else is different between the comic and DVD, there’s an added shopping montage, a short flashback of Krypton, and some of the action sequences have been lengthened and/or simplified (i.e., characters removed). Some minor enemies have changed form for no reason, but it’s not a big deal. A final battle that moved from Earth into space has been kept on Earth, and the outcome of that battle simplified from one that I admit was a little odd in the comic.

Given the amount of girl-on-girl battle in this story, I would have thought the screenwriter would try to impart some greater message about female empowerment (you know, for kids), but there isn’t one. Maybe the added shopping montage was a (lame) way to reach out to the female audience. Whatever the case, it all fell apart for me when the line “surrender now or the bitch dies” was uttered.

Yeah, I know it’s 2010 and this is a PG-13 animated flick, but still, this one line really threw me off. I went back and looked in the comic book. There, the line is simply “Surrender now. Or Barda [the character] dies.” That means this was a change that Tab Murphy, the screenwriter (seriously? Tab?), made when adapting the comic. Sorry, but in my mind, the word “bitch” has become way too common in our media. It’s a cheap, go-to pejorative term used (mostly) between females in combat, and frankly, it has no place in an animated DC Comics movie. Seriously, DC, what the hell? Shame on you for thinking this was okay because I’m sure there are girls (and boys) younger than 13 watching this and while some of you might be thinking “oh relax, it’s just a word,” it was a really unnecessary change that does no one any good.

So skip this one. Read the comic instead; it’s cheaper, the artwork is better, and it doesn’t insult anyone.

Batman: Under the Red Hood: The Straight2DVD Review

Batman: Under the Red Hood is a direct-to-DVD adaptation of the Batman: Under the Hood story arc that ran in 2005-2006 in the Batman monthly comic book series. The DVD was released on July 27, 2010 probably to coincide with the comic book mini-series Red Hood: The Lost Days that began June 3 of this year.

The production values of this S2DVD are very good. This is the eighth DC Universe Animated Original Movie, so they have had enough practice in getting the formula right (the first was Superman: Doomsday, which I did not care for as it simplifies The Death of Superman story arc too much, even though that arc was not much more than a PR grab by DC back in the 1990s, but I digress….)

In Under the Red Hood, the voice cast is strong (for you NPH fans, Neil Patrick Harris portrays Nightwing — Batman’s first sidekick, Robin, now an adult), the music is stirring, and the animation is well-done. Even the obvious CG animation is not obtrusive.

At this point I would start to talk about how poor the writing is, especially considering the seemingly Herculean task of adapting two trade paperbacks (14 individual issues) into a coherent 75 minute film. Luckily, Judd Winick, the original writer of the comic series, returned to adapt the story for the film. As a cinephile, the fact that the original writer had something to do with the adaptation always fills me with hope that the story’s original vision will be maintained in its new form. And I believe it has.

As a fan of the original story, I was eager to see how Winick did it, and indeed, he cut out some characters and subplots entirely, simplified others, and shifted around scenes to create a compelling story that is approachable to those not familiar with the background of the characters, yet steeped deep enough in their history that fans are not bored. And being an animated film versus a comic book, there is an extra level of sanitation needed to make sure any kids who watch this will not be traumatized, so some static images of blood and body parts in the original comic have been adapted to omit the nastiness.

There are some other interesting changes too: Black Mask’s assistant is for no reason made female in the film; a subplot about kryptonite and Superman has been completely omitted (understandably; it was nice in the comic, but here it would slow the overall plot down); the Joker is surprisingly dull (maybe to not distract from the main plot); and a rag-tag bunch of mercenary villains in the comic that included Count Vertigo, the Hyena, and Captain Nazi (seriously?) were sanitized into a nondescript foursome of armored ninjas with Tron-inspired weaponry called the The Fearsome Hand of Four.

I guess my biggest complaint about what has changed is with the character Black Mask. When I first read this comic in trade paperback, Winick’s writing of the Black Mask really was what made the writing memorable. At this point in Batman’s endless quest to save Gotham City, the Black Mask has united all crime in the city. In the comic book, he is a business-minded kingpin who wears conservative suits, doesn’t really get upset when frustrated by the Red Hood’s initial attempts at upsetting the applecart, and actually has some really funny comedic lines and beats that made me chuckle. However, in the film, he’s sadly reduced to “the exasperated gangster” cliche and wears loud suits, has bright red eyes for no reason, and frequently loses his temper.

And finally…

Otherwise, I think this film is a terrific adaptation of the original comic, but if you are a Batman fan and like comics, the two volumes of Batman: Under the Hood are worth your time and money more so than the film. This film is worth a rental, but not a purchase.

The Stranger: The Straight2DVD Review

The Stranger is basically a rip-off of the Jason Bourne franchise. A U.S. Government agent with amnesia (Steve Austin) is being hunted by various groups (both official and otherwise) for stuff he did or knows but can’t remember. There are obligatory action set-pieces, but as this film had a much smaller budget than the Bourne films (and maybe because of Steve Austin’s neck and knee injuries that caused him to retire from wrestling), they are very short and not nearly as explosive in their physicality as those in the Bourne films. The fighting at times looks very similar to impromptu wrestling matches.

There are so many things wrong with this film:

• The writing is awful. Can you guess the name of Austin’s character? Trust me, it’s not a spoiler. It’s Tom… Tomashevsky. Seriously, it’s like he’s a Stan Lee creation. Peter Parker. Reed Richards. Bruce Banner. Tom Tomashevsky. But in the credits and the subtitles, he’s referred to only as The Stranger. I believe the intent was that the Stranger franchise (as the end of the film is left quite open for a sequel) would carry on and, in a Fugitive or Hulk television series kind of way, the Stranger would travel from place to place, righting wrongs according to his own moral code. And when he left town trailing bodies full of lead, someone would ask his name and the townspeople would only whisper, “he was just The Stranger.” Cue end credits.
• The cinematography is too… immature. There’s a lot of shakycam work, especially in the nausea-inducing opening credit sequence where Tom, oh sorry, The Stranger, is chased through back alleys by SWAT team members who can’t hit the side of a barn. Maybe it was done to cloud the fact that all those back alleys were the same alley on a studio backlot. I wish filmmakers these days would use the simple and direct beauty of the static camera shot more. It seems a lost art. Everyone thinks the camera has to be this living (read: frenetic), head-level companion to the characters, and it really, really doesn’t.
• If you have been taught proper firearm handling, you know you are to keep your finger off the trigger until the moment you are ready to shoot. Well, it’s obvious Steve Austin was never given the firearm training that action movie actors commonly are afforded. Okay, if you want to argue the point from a story point of view, maybe because of his character’s amnesia, he forgot his F.B.I. Special Agent firearm training. Fine, I’ll allow it, but still, if Austin is going to make a go of this genre, he needs proper training.
• There are two known actors in this film wasted because of the script: Erica Cerra (Eureka, BSG, The L Word), also known as the poor man’s Claudia Black, is Tom’s psychologist attempting to help him remember his traumatic past; and Adam Beach (Windtalkers, Flags of Our Fathers, Big Love) is FBI Agent Mason Reese (Wait, whaaat? Really, screenwriter? Mason Reese? Were you trying to be cute? Because you failed) is trying to bring Tom into custody.

Okay, so what’s good:

• Well, Cerra delivers a believable performance as the concerned doctor. Beach does too early on, but then the script fails him later for spoiler reasons I won’t go into. I feel this may have been a paycheck role for him as he really isn’t given any range to explore and/or strut his acting skills.
• Steve Austin, the actor. There’s a scene maybe 35 minutes in where Austin and Cerra have a conversation on a boat dock, and you can see Austin really, really doing his best to actually emote. It’s heartbreaking because he’s really trying, and I give him credit for it, but I think some acting classes might do him some real good if he’s going to give this acting thing a real try. And then a fight scene occurs. It’s a strange problem: Steve Austin wants to act, but these actors just want to wrestle with him.

Assorted Odds and Ends

• There’s a moment where Cerra is watching a grainy video of Tom talking and then a flashback occurs (“three months earlier” says the subtitle), and apparently it’s a flashback of Tom’s. Through the video. I didn’t know you could do that kind of thing in film. I was confused momentarily: Was the flashback three months earlier than when the video of Tom talking was recorded or when Cerra watches it? I mean, it’s Tom’s flashback, so it should be three months prior to him talking, right? Right?
• I hate when people fail at making the put-your-finger-to-your-lips “be quiet” gesture. Austin can’t do it. He hits the middle of his nose instead, which looks weird.
• There’s a flashback to a birthday party, and everyone sings “Happy Birthday” after the candles are blown out. Do people do that? I’ve only seen/experienced the opposite: where the candles are blown out at the end of the song.

And finally…

So should you watch this movie? If you followed “Stone Cold” Steve Austin’s wrestling career, then you probably have already watched it, so why are you reading this review?

I do look forward to The Expendables this summer, but I doubt Austin’s role in that film will have the depth of character that The Stranger attempted. That’s not Austin’s fault, but with some work on his acting skills, I think Austin could pull off the wrestling-to-acting transition just as well as his former wrestling competitor, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, did. Will he have Johnson’s charisma? No, but Austin still could be a reasonably successful action star if he really hunkered down and studied both acting and fighting.

For the rest of us, stick to the original: Jason Bourne.

Day of Vengeance: The Straight2DVD Review

At the start of Day of Vengeance, Jake Reid (Tony Kitchin) comes to Covelo, CA (a real town about a 3.5 hour drive north of San Francisco) to find some answers about his outlaw father’s death in a shootout there 15 years ago. But where is Jake from? What is his background? We never really find out. Jake is like Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name, but more of a Doof With No Name. I never understood if his father was from Covelo or just passing through? And where did Jake grow up?

These are questions you would never ask the Man With No Name, because you knew right away he was a badass and you wanted to see him do what badasses do best, chew bubble-gum and kick ass (especially when they are all out of bubble-gum).

But when we first meet Jake, he is clad in a bright green polo shirt, khaki cargo shorts, and brown shoes with white tube socks. And a backpack. I would have given him some badass props for leaving the backpack slung on only one shoulder, but he quickly goes with the dual-shoulder look, just like his mother would have told him to do to prevent scoliosis.

And how does he get into town? Horseback would have been too obvious, but I would have been happy with a motorcycle. Hell, even a ten speed. But Jake arrives in town by thumbing it. The ol’ Bruce Banner (a real man who one-shouldered his backpack, I might add), but with Jake’s attire, it just looks like mommy forgot to pick up Junior after school today. But that’s okay, because Jake isn’t the hero anyway.

Though he is plastered all over the poster, DVD, and DVD menu artwork, and while he may be the catalyst for the plot, Laura (Alycia Tumlin), the daughter of a man connected to Jake’s father, is the true hero.

It’s an interesting role reversal, though it isn’t fully explored if it was really intended. Jake is the plucky reporter-type (complete with notebook) who comes to town to investigate a cold case, and Laura is the, at first, reluctant local who is comfortable with the past remaining in the past, but in the end, must save the day.

In fact, Laura is pretty tough. After a brief introduction, Jake and Laura’s first real scene and discussion takes place in the middle of a field plinking glass bottles with Laura’s own .357 revolver. She is a good shot and Jake is not. I even think Laura recognizes Jake’s lameness. She thwarts his romantic advances twice, punching him the first time, and walking out on him the second time. Sorry, soldier, no luck here.

It is during that target practice scene that Jake explains why he is in town. His crook dad was part of a botched robbery and no stolen loot was recovered after the the final shootout which left almost everyone dead. Jake believes the loot (i.e., MacGuffin Bucks) is hidden nearby and wants to split the cash with Laura because, wait for it, her father was killed by his father during the shootout (her father was an innocent casualty). Oh, and her father was killed right in front of her (as a kid), so chew on all that for a second.

“Hey, um, my dad killed your dad, but he hid some money beforehand, so if you help me find it, we should split it.” Huh? Jake’s motivation does not endear him to the audience at all, but he isn’t played slimy enough either, so you are left confused. You want to feel for Laura, but she isn’t given enough screen time to evolve as a character. Maybe she was supposed to be a femme fatale, but there wasn’t even femme in the mix, so she just came across as blah.

I won’t reveal any more of the plot (that was all in the first 20-30 minutes), but a subplot about stolen water really made me miss Chinatown. I know in these thrillers everyone is supposed to be a suspect because everyone is supposed to be greedy and desperate, but no one appeared to be at all. Sure, there was money, and a few people wanted it, but when I finally saw the stash of MacGuffin Bucks, I thought, “That’s it? Where’s the rest?” Motivation was lacking on a lot of levels.

So yes, I had some issues with the story… and the performances. Kitchin as Jake has almost zero screen presence. I’d have to say David Fine as Sheriff Masters was my favorite. Much of the rest of the cast (not all) appear to be local talent, which is fine as this was an independent picture.

There are technical issues with the production too, but I’m willing to give the filmmakers some slack on those (rather than on the script) since this was done in Robert Rodriguez’s “Mariachi-style” (i.e., fast and cheap) as the director Isaac Pingree noted in an interview this past May. He also discusses how they bought a (used?) DAT recorder on eBay that constantly malfunctioned, which explains the poor audio quality in the film.

I believe it was a mistake to film DOV in Super 16mm as they did (instead of digital), because as Pingree also states, most of the budget was eaten up by the film development. Sure the exterior day shots look nice, but haven’t we all seen plenty of the California hills already? It’s like M.A.S.H. all over again, or most films shot in California. Still, the Director of Photography did a good job with the tools he had.

And finally…

This is where I tell you whether or not DOV is worth 98 minutes of your time. I say no. There is nothing inventive or imaginative here done with the camera, the sound, the story, or any other part of the production. Nor do the sum of the parts equal something greater.

This is, however, a terrific first “calling-card” film for the movie’s young crew that demonstrates their technical capabilities. Many film school graduates cannot claim this same level of accomplishment. It’s a testament to their hard work and knowledge that DOV is as good as it is.