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...

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

in a good mood today, I give it 2

[ladcrooks-26-192893 · 2/10 · 22 November 2015]

If your 18 and under or got the mentality of a brain in a jam jar, this film will please you. So sad that nearly all action films have Bruce Lees in them, no, they are even better than Bruce Lee. Why couldn't it be just the war trained veteran that had the fighting skills? Nearly every bad guy he fought was karate expert.

Shame that the producers have the same mentality - Want to make a good film? Think 'Leon, Heat... and so on, not these childish non believable films, where things explode, which never would and fights that would never happen,, how many bullets in this film? If the bullets were real, theirs where the budget went, ha! I get to the stage now where if there are more than 2 Bruce's in a film or a car explode when it hits brick wall, then I'm off.

Shame on these dipsticks that make these films

AWESOME OLD SKOOL KICK-ASS ACTION

[lukem-52760 · 7/10 · 11 October 2020]

Scott Adkins is the king of Action in my opinion!!! Adkins is grinding his way through the low-budget Grindhouse of the DTV market & knock-out Awesome bloody & brutal Action Thriller's that are reminiscent of the old skool 80's & Early 90's Van Damme & Steven Seagal flicks we all grew up watching & loving.

Nearly all of Adkins work in the Action genre has been pretty much fantastic in my opinion & he seems to get better & better, faster & often funnier (The Debt Collector) & really puts his all into each movie low-budget or not, gotta respect that. Here the Awesome Adkins plays Colten a Drifter, Fugitive & Mercenary who gets his niece back from a Mexican Drugs Cartel & ends up in a dusty old border town where he's hunted & has to protect his sister & niece, there's a correct Sheriff & the dangerous cartel that want Colt & a hard drive he stole with all their business on it. It's a nice easy & basic setup for an old skool style Action film. I liked the dusty small town setting & got vibes of a Robert Rodriguez or Walter Hill flick especially with it's music score of guitars & very western or Ry Cooder style. Adkins looks the part here with his buzz-cut & thick goatee beard he's every bit the tough Action hero lead & should be up there with Jason Statham as a mega star? The fights are fantastically fast-moving & bone-crunchingly ferocious & there's lots of gun battles & blood splatter everywhere!!! There's nothing amazing here & nothing that hasn't already been done many times before but it's simply enjoyable & entertaining old fashioned Action & i loved it for that.

I'm collecting all Adkins films because to me he's the greatest action star working today & there's something so cool & old skool about him.

Feeling generous giving it a 1

[cantonie · 1/10 · 23 November 2015]

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.

Its an Action Movie

[BratE9000 · 6/10 · 24 April 2016]

I'll start by saying that my 6 rating is not for anything lackluster in this movie. I just don't dole out high ratings for anything that isn't stellar, and action movies such as this rarely have all the pieces in place that would leave a person (me) emotionally blown away. An 8 would have me thinking about it for days and wanting to talk about it with everyone I know. A 9 would put me on my knees and deprive of me of sleep as it invaded my dreams. But this movie had me engaged and entertained from beginning to end. The opening is directed finely and trapped me right in. The rest isn't quite as artistic, but who cares, its action action action.

This movie is precisely what you would expect and is a cut above your average action movie, on par with Jason Stratham films and comparable to his best.

It is non-stop action and the hero is pretty good. As some others have commented, the acting is questionable, but I say it is good enough and my disbelief was thoroughly suspended throughout the movie (except maybe once for a second). Truth be told, there isn't time to think about it because the action is non stop. The Jujitsu, or whatever they use in the hand-to-hand fight scenes is pretty darn cool. The fight choreographers and stunt men put on a wicked show! Several times, I was thinking, "wow, that was a cool sequence." Mind you I watch MMA, not WWF or whatever they are calling All-Star Wrestling these days (and not to discredit myself, but I have been impressed by sequences on WWF where I have to wonder how many hours they practiced together to pull those moves off.) (Mickey Rourke - that was a 7 in my book, but not because of the "fighting" - never mind) Sorry for the multi-level digression. Yes, the fights are great. Dare I say Vikings and Game of Thrones might like these guys on their team.

On the gun nerd front, I was elated that not everyone walked around holding their gun with their finger on the trigger (one of the sacred three gun safety rules). You see, there is plenty of time to put your finger on the trigger when the target is in sight. Next time watch where the soldiers have their fingers on CNN coverage (not that I watch that channel). Triple thumbs up on that. I should change my rating to 7 just because of that. On the other hand, our hero expends ammo unwisely. He is just blasting away. More of a pro would not pop off a round without a reasonable chance of connecting.

I didn't hate the score like some others did. It wasn't Mozart or Eric Clapton (I still can't believe he said Prince was better than he), but I thought appropriate and not in any way distracting.

If you like Jason Stratham movies, you will like this like I did.

Martial arts 10 plot etc. - 7

[quicksilverkraus · 3/10 · 25 September 2020]

Great action, and so let's ruin it by, oh, chatting it up slowly while you know cartel rushing to your ranch. Leaving tons of firearms behind when you are almost out of ammo. Don't bother grabbing one of the vehicles left behind... Instead, run in the desert towards the ranch... I can keep going. But by all means enjoy the kick ass... Lol.

Badassery

[ReviewsMatter · 8/10 · 15 September 2019]

Scott Adkins delivers in Close Range. If you're into martial arts, action, thrills, no holds barred badassery then watch this film.

Pretty lazy movie

[deanocware · 5/10 · 9 January 2021]

Scott Adkins is hit and miss and this was mostly miss. Filmed at basically two locations a hotel and a ranch and it showed. Everything was intentionally dragged out from the less than interesting fight scenes to the never ending gun battle where neither side hits anybody on the other side for the first ten minutes. The plot purports to be about him saving his niece but inexplicably changes to an all important thumb drive with no one really caring about either. I gave it a five because the actors did what they were asked to do but that's not saying much.