Red Stone

I was surprised to watch BOON and then this one to discover that the same actor played the very same character, what a coincidence. This is an agreeable action flick with an ambivalent lead hero, as the same character will be in the sequel BOON. But the ending of this one seems to be the actual sequel and not the sequel which on the contrary seems to be the prequel...Follow me? Good directing, and as I said for the other film, don't be too hard with this kind of production, it s smooth and not without a certain charm, a B rural western thriller, action thriller. I will get tired of this kind of stuff.

Seems like they are trying to be camp but it comes across slow and dumb. If you like pure violence... you will be happy. If you are looking for action... the overall story here is lacking.

Your wife might even like this one, too, because it has Neal McDonough in it! Something about him really flips their love muscle!

Sure, the plot has been done - it's the quintessential story about a burnout hitman who grows a conscience and simply cannot kill for hire anymore. In this case, his target is a young man, Dash Melrose as Motley Adams, who does an excellent job in this role - he reminds of a young Patrick Dempsey ("Run"). Michael Cudlitz menaces as Jed Haywood - the boss - while Billy Blair menaces all as Hutch, the loyal psychopath tasked with managing Boon, who is clearly having a "bad day on the job".

I know you won't see this one at the Oscars, but I bet you watch it all the way through once you start it. My advice? Pack a lunch and plan to stay a while - this is a fun ride!

PS - also checkout the sequel, "Boon" - it's even better.

I can't stress enough how bored I was watching this film. This wannabe John Wick picture fails in every part of the process of movie-making and that is why I mostly blame the director Derek Presley for the disappointment this film is. Except for Neal McDnough (who is doing what he can to save this picture) every character/actor seems bored, confused and actually bad at acting. Than you have the story itself with many random unexplained scenes and long slow camera shots, which I believe were an attempt at some more "refined" camera work, but felt like the director forgot to say "cut!" instead. Maybe with some editing it could have been salvageable, but as it is I cannot recommend it.

OK, the good points:

1) great camera work 2) good music 3) some great actors

the bad points:

A) shockingly poor story B) totally unbelievable characters C) WAY too slow D) simply nothing to get invested in.

How on earth did something this bad every raise the budget to get made?