À Queima-Roupa

STRIKING RANGE delivers what it promises, a shoot 'em up action flick packed with twists and exit wound gore. Lou Diamond Phillips gives a committed performance as a cash strapped gun for hire with a moral code that includes never challenging the US Government and never taking a bullet for a client (which is a good thing since most of his assignments appear to be protecting shady businessmen).

In STRIKING RANGE, Phillips and his three-person crew are charged with bodyguarding a "next generation" weapons maker who turns out to be an unscrupulous dealer who has no compunction against selling to the highest bidder. Naturally, squinty-eyed rogues, led by martial artist/actor Jeff Speakman, demand the latest weapons gizmo with a five-finger discount. This is where Team Phillips steps up to the challenge. However, a mysterious third party throws a hat into the ring putting the executive protection crew in a circle of crosshairs and ballistic mayhem.

The movie is a lot of fun, but by no means perfect. The opening sequence is a head scratcher as Phillips and his crew (including an excellent Tom Wright) casually banter about video games as they go on a search and destroy mission in an office building. The scene feels contrived and woefully unrealistic as we're asked to believe these guys need to alleviate boredom in the midst of a hostage rescue. And I'm still wondering what happened to Sharon, the poor executive they intentionally shoot to get the Bad Guy standing behind her. Quibbles aside, the low budget film looks great, shot in 35MM with fluid Steadicam moves, we also get nifty pyrotechnics, and a NRA member's wet dream in a variety of firearms. Thespians are first rate, giving us raw emotion in a scene where Phillips and Wright nearly come to blows as they argue about their failing executive protection business. Music cues nostalgically evoke 80's TV show "Miami Vice" at its highlight.

STRIKING RANGE doesn't offer anything new, but it gets its job done and it certainly gets a lot of bang for the buck.

And PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... putting an explosive INSIDE a MICROWAVE does not mean that it "happens" to go off WHEN THE TIMER PINGS....

1. Any metal or foil would f' up the microwave and it would spark erratically 2. What if the timer was set to 1 hour? Would the explosive just sit there until it pinged.

When his career began, Lou Diamond Phillips promised so much as an actor, that I have continued to see his films hoping that this promise would be fulfilled. But, while Phillips' acting is as good as ever, he has just made one bad film after another, so, until he or his agent learn what to look for in a script, I'm afraid "Striking Range" is the last time I'll be seeing Phillips for a while.

This is an action film, and the actions scenes are OK. But the script really reeks. line by line the dialog is OK, but the story is a real mess. The idea of tossing a psycho-killer into the mix of a conflict between two mercenary groups might have seemed good on paper, but it's a bad strategy: psycho-killers have to be explained at some point in a film, because otherwise their motivations come off as silly. I know that sounds bizarre, but what I mean is that the explanation helps the audience suspend their disbelief in why anybody would want to kill people simply because they work at some office or attend some school or stopped at the wrong restaurant for dinner. This disbelief is essential to our sense of morality - it is why the violence of real psycho-killers, like the Columbine boys, is so horrifying and why we take such strong measures to counter it: we simply cannot believe anyone could be that vile.

Since the writer of this film has left himself little time to develop the psycho-killer aspect of the plot, he has to resort to cheap tricks, stereotypes, and cliché to make the whole thing work somehow. The psycho-killer comes across as a parody.

Meanwhile a plot twist seems to resolve the mercenary conflict - except that it doesn't, it's so wholly unprepared and obviously artificial. We want clues to this sort of thing, so we can look back on the film to say "I should have seen that coming," but we can't do this here, no one could have seen it coming, it doesn't make sense.

And what is the thematic connection between the mercenary conflicts and the psycho-killer's? Even Sigmund Freud couldn't tell you; I don't think there is any.

the writer here needs psychoanalysis for coming up with this hodgepodge, and Phillips needs it to try to figure out how he could throw away his mature career on such hooey.

Four stars for the action scenes, the rest gets - blah!

great actors (Lou Diamond Philips, Glenn Morshower) and good actors (Yancy Butler), mixed with good action, a stolid if mediocre and predictable plot, and an obviously low budget = something kind of sad. While there are no major disappointments in this flick, and there are several glimmers of something beyond the typical B movie actioner... it just doesn't quite manage to make it over the fence from B movie to A movie. Halfway through it you feel like you don't need to see the rest 'cuz you know exactly what's going to happen, though the cast does a great job with the thin material they've been given. Lou Diamond Philips seems to be one of those great actors that's terminally unable to distinguish good projects from bad, he just keeps cropping up in these roles (and movies) that are far below his talents.

A cheap movie full of bad imitation of great movies and clichés. The writer/director desperately and clumsily tries to catch your attention using great ideas from other movies IE the first part trying to use the "Pulp Fiction formula" by Tarantino. Since this is a valid approach (the use of references from other movies) when done with quality and class, in this movie the director/writer comes with a a very unfortunate solution. Inconsistent plot: is a mixture of action movie, with a little of horror, a little of suspense a little of love and hate story, a little of friendship… . The characters are poorly defined, uses the ambiguous character formula in order to create a "obvious surprise" at the end. The acting is weak. A cheap movie, with awful story and direction. An insulto to the public.