Released: October 1999

Rated R

Director: Eric Freiser

Run Time: 94 Minutes

Distributor: Trimark Pictures

Genre: Horror

Cast:
Bruce Payne: The Warlock
Ashley Laurence: Kris
Paul Francis: Michael
Jan Shweiterman: Jerry
Angel Boris Reed: Lisa
Rick Hearst: Scott
Boti Bliss: Robin

In 1990, there was a nifty little flick called Warlock that was released to theaters.  It featured Julian Sands in his most recognizable role as an evil warlock dead-set on destroying the world.  It wasn’t the most creative plot device, but the way it was executed was very interesting and very well done.  It also featured an awesome performance by Richard E. Grant as a 17th century thrown into the modern world.  As you could imagine, things get a little crazy.  But it worked.  The film flopped at the box office, but it gained enough of a cult following to warrant a sequel: Warlock: The Armageddon, which would feature Julian Sands as the Warlock again.  While I wouldn’t say that The Armageddon was as refined as the original film, it definitely had a meaner streak and a far more violent vibe.  So, imagine my surprise when I walked into my local Blockbuster(when they were still in business) and I saw Warlock III: The End of Innocence in the horror section.  There was no YouTube or any form of social media when this movie came out in 1999, so nobody knew about it.  There were no trailers released to the film at least on the theatrical level, mostly because it went straight to video.  Yup, it’s one of those.

The film opens at some point in the 17th century as some apparently random woman is dragging her young daughter along to find….stuff.  Out of nowhere comes a mysterious man in black who is not Julian Sands that kidnaps the girl and rides off.  Cut forward a few centuries and we see a young woman, Kris, as she heads to her apartment after going to classes for the day.  After spending the night with her boyfriend, Mike, she gets a phone call in the morning.  Apparently, she’s inherited a house that’s been in her family for generations.  She’s given the opportunity to go the house and clear out anything family-related before it gets torn down.  Taking her friends with her, she also hires a historian to talk to her about the house.  At the same time, a mysterious man-in-black-who-is-not-Julian-Sands shows up.  What follows is quite possibly one of the most ho-hum horror movies I’ve ever seen.  The Warlock movies have always been low-budget movies.  It’s been evident since the original film.  But they couldn’t even muster up enough money to come up with something more compelling than this.  There’s a reason why Julian Sands didn’t come back for this film.  The script wasn’t up to his particular standard.  It’s very clear from the opening scene that this Warlock simply wasn’t going to come anywhere near the first two.

Since Julian Sands refused to take part in Warlock III, they brought in Bruce Payne.  That’s not actually a bad choice for the role….if it was the same character that Julian Sands played, which it’s not.  This is a very different Warlock that actually has a name: Philip Covington.  Mr. Payne’s performance is actually not that bad.  He doesn’t go completely over-the-top until the end of the film.  His character is far more manipulative and conniving than the previous films.  He’s clearly a supernatural bad-ass, but we’re never given the full extent of his power, unlike the last two movies, where the Warlock just let loose.  Ashley Laurence, who played Kirstie in Hellraiser, plays Kris.  She does the best she can with what she’s given, but it’s not really a whole lot.  Everyone else does an okay job, but there’s nothing Oscar-worthy here, even though you really shouldn’t be expecting that in a Warlock movie.  Most of the victims in the movie are your typical slasher-movie fodder.  It also plays out very much like a slasher film.  The previous movies were essentially supernatural road movies, because the Warlock had to travel to get the things he needed for world domination/destruction.  Here, everybody’s trapped in a house just waiting to be picked off one by one.

Surprisingly, the effects in Warlock III are pretty decent.  The gore effects and make-up work are done practically, and it’s fairly impressive with what they’ve accomplished.  When Covington rips the throat out of the historian, it’s grisly and detailed.  It’s pretty cool.  Mike’s decaying is pretty gruesome as well.  We see him go through various stages of decay.  The CGI that was used in the film was thankfully kept to a fair minimum, but it was used.  The problem here is that the violence of this film isn’t up to the level of the previous two, and a lot of people are going to be disappointed.  I get that it’s a low-budget direct-to-video film, but I think they could have done a lot more here.

While I can’t flat out say that I hate this movie, because I don’t, it fails to provide the thrills and chills of the previous films.  Everyone involved here does the best they can with what they have, but the script needed quite a few more re-writes.  The things that save this film from complete obscurity are Bruce Payne, Ashley Laurence, and the effects…well, most of them anyway.  However, Julian Sands was right in not coming back for this film.  It’s easily the worst entry in the series.  Is it the worst direct-to-video movie I’ve ever seen?  Not even close.  It has enough saving graces to warrant at least a viewing on a rainy night.  I can definitely think of worse ways to spend 90 minutes.  But I can also think of better ways to spend 90 minutes.

Final Recommendation: If you learn that you have inherited a run-down ancient house, stay away, there may be a Warlock lurking about.  6.5/10

Released: August 2017

Rated R

Director: Todor Chapkanov

Run Time: 90 Minutes

Distributor: Universal Pictures

Genre: Action/Martial Arts

Cast:
Scott Adkins: Boyka
Teodora Duhovnikova: Alma
Alon Aboutboul: Zourab
Julian Vergov: Slava
Brahim Achabbakhe: Igor Kazmir
Emilien de Falco: Viktor

It is a very rare thing to see sequels completely overshadow the original film.  In fact, most of the time it doesn’t happen.  There have been franchises that have accomplished that.  Ip Man 3 blew the first two movies out of the water.  The Road Warrior ran circles around the original Mad Max and The Fast and The Furious sequels left the original film in the dust.  Is that always a good thing?  Depends on the movie.  When it comes to Undisputed, my first exposure to that franchise was Undisputed II: Last Man Standing with Scott Adkins and Michael Jai White.  When Undisputed III came out, I was really excited.  I’ve never seen the original film, oddly enough.  I was never interested in a prison boxing movie.  So, here we are 15 years later with the third sequel in the Undisputed franchise:  Boyka: Undisputed 4.

As the film opens, we see famed ex-prison fighter Yuri Boyka enter the ring against a man named Viktor.  Blow for blow, the two fighters go at it until Boyka gets the upper hand and knocks Viktor out.  As Boyka leaves the ring victorious, medics rush Viktor to the hospital.  After being informed by his manager that Viktor had passed, Boyka discovers that Viktor left behind a wife, Alma.  Taking the prize money and photo that he finds of Viktor and his wife, Boyka heads to Russia to find Alma.  As soon as he finds her, she’s whisked away by a Russian mobster by the name of Zourab.  It seems she owes him a lot of money and is working to pay off the debt.  Most people generally don’t go see an Undisputed film for the story, just the fights.  However, the story in Undisputed 4 is a personal one for the character of Boyka.  It’s not bad at all.  In fact, I found myself pretty engaged and actually giving a shit about what happens to these characters.

Over the course of three films, we see Boyka transform from this seemingly egotistical angry Russian to a character on a quest for redemption.  He was definitely the bad guy in Undisputed II, make no mistake about it.  His character got what was coming to him.  In the third film, he’s kind of broken because he lost to a boxer and ended up with a shattered knee.  Undisputed III was a chance for Boyka to become a fighter again and rediscover that part of him that was really violent.  Undisputed 4, has him seeing the consequences of that violence and has him trying to atone for that violence.  Boyka is easily Scott Adkins’ most memorable role.  I haven’t seen anybody play an angry Russian the way Adkins does.  Scott Adkins, while not the most refined actor, has a physical presence that can rival that of a lot of 80’s action heroes.  Adkins is easily the best part of these movies, but I like it when he confronts Alma and tries to tell her the truth about her husband’s death.  It’s a surprisingly powerful moment for both characters and actors.  The villain, Zourab, is played by Alon Aboutboul, and makes for a terrifically slimy villain.  Aside from those three main actors, everyone else is kind of….there.

In terms of action, I would personally say that Undisputed III is the better film in terms of choreography and intensity, I can honestly say that Boyka is no slouch in that department either.  Thanks to some very solid fight choreography by Tim Man, who also makes an appearance, the fights in Boyka are brutal and spectacular.  Watching Scott Adkins do his thing in the ring is nothing short of amazing.  All the acrobatic stuff that you saw in the previous two films is intact here.  I also have to give credit to Brahim Achabbakhe for being able to go toe-to-toe with Adkins in terms of physicality.  If anything, Undisputed 4 manages to infuse those fights with the story, which gives them a much larger impact, especially on Yuri Boyka.  The action in the film is shot well with big wide shots so you can see what’s going on.  There’s also no shaky-cam going on, thankfully.  The shaky-cam during fights in most movies, is done to hide poor choreography, from my perspective at least.  Action-wise, everything that you would want in an Undisputed film is here.  It’s definitely worth checking out for the fights alone.

Overall, I would have to say Boyka: Undisputed 4 is a worthy addition to any fan of the franchise and fight movies in general.  It’s action-packed, hard-hitting, and has a surprisingly emotional weight to the film.  The three lead actors are absolutely fantastic in their roles and just seeing the character of Boyka go to town everyone in the ring is a sight to behold.  I love it.  Before I wrap this review up, I would like to address an issue that I’ve come across on Scott Adkins’ Facebook page: Piracy.  I came across an exchange Scott had with one of his fans about the actual damage piracy can do to a film.  When it comes to the larger, multi-million dollar movies, one or two copies being pirated isn’t going to make much of a dent, but it does add up quickly.  For smaller and more independent productions like Boyka, piracy can be very destructive.  All the money that’s made from each copy sold goes back not just to the distributor, but also to the actors and the people that work to create these films.  To say that piracy doesn’t have an actual effect, shows a complete ignorance and lack of understanding when it comes to the economics of making a movie.  I have to side with Scott Adkins on this issue:  Piracy is bad for everybody involved.  If Boyka gets pirated more than it sells legitimately, any chance of making another film is going to be diminished, no matter how popular the film is.  So, film makers can’t make the movies they want, and fans aren’t going to be able to see them.  There is a relationship between the two.  Honestly, just go out and buy it.  If you can’t afford to buy it, rent it.  Do it legally.  Support the indie film industry and support the people like Scott Adkins who love making movies this way.  If you do that, you’ll be seeing more.

Now that I’m off my soapbox about piracy, I can easily give Boyka: Undisputed 4 my highest recommendation as an action film.  While I don’t think it is as good as number 3, it more than stands on its own.  With surprisingly good performances by Scott Adkins, Teodora Duhovnikova, and Alon Aboutboul, this is a very solid film.  I would love to see another, but if there isn’t another, I could think of worse ways to end a franchise.  Definitely check this one out.

Final Recommendation:  Don’t piss off an already angry Russian.  He might beat you to death.  8.5/10

Released: September 2017

Director: Michael Baumgarten

Run Time: 86 Minutes

Not Rated

Distributor: Traditionz Entertainment

Genre: Action/Comedy

Cast:
R. Marcos Taylor: Tyrell
Don “The Dragon” Wilson: Shota Kabu
Anita Clay: Meena
Alissa Schneider: Cecelia
Jonathan D. Lee: Vinnie
Wade Williams: Rocco
Forbes Riley: Mrs. R.
Paul Logan: Low-Gunn

Comedies are hard to review.  Why?  A lot of the time, how funny a movie is depends entirely on who is watching it and what their sense of humor is.  I tend to be very, VERY picky about the comedies that I watch.  But I don’t review them.  What I find to be funny isn’t going to be the same for anybody else, and trying to describe a joke to someone is not something I’m very good at.  When you throw in comedy with another genre, I tend to bring that up, because it’s part of how the film works.  Whether it’s a horror comedy, dramatic comedy, or action comedy, the humor has to fit the situation.  That’s where the comedy works best.  One-liners and zingers aren’t really that funny to me.  But for the comedy to work in those genres that I mentioned, the other part of that equation has to work just as well, otherwise you end up with a very lopsided experience.  For today’s review, I present to you, Paying Mr. McGetty, and upcoming action-comedy starring the legendary Don “The Dragon” Wilson and R. Marcos Taylor.

The film opens as Tyrell, a laundry delivery man, wakes up to a phone call from his girlfriend, only to find that he’s in bed with a beautiful blonde woman.  Don’t you just hate it when that happens?  Leaving the hotel with the lady, somebody takes a picture of the two and sends it to a local mobster.  The mobster decides to send the best hitman he knows, Shota Kabu, to deal with Tyrell.  After encountering Shota, Tyrell tries to run away.  With most comedies, the humor usually comes from some forced and awkward exchanges.  I don’t like that in my comedies.  I don’t mind awkward situations, but when they’re forced, they become even more awkward.  If it’s awkward to watch, you did something wrong.  Thankfully, for Paying Mr. McGetty, it never goes that low with the humor.  The humor also isn’t crude, like you see in some movies.  The story here works because of the characters.  The best movies, whether it’s comedy, action, or drama, are character-oriented.  It is the characters that propel the story forward.  The action and humor are natural consequences of that.  I actually enjoyed the story in this film, it’s actually rather engaging.

While a lot of the side-characters in Mr. McGetty are fairly disposable, the main characters are what make the movie so damned endearing.  My hat is off to R. Marcos Taylor as Tyrell.  He’s clearly having a lot of fun playing a guy who is having a VERY bad day.  His character’s frustration is palpable and understandable, and yet that’s part of where the film’s humor comes from.  You can tell the character wants to tell people off, but he doesn’t, because he’s got a girlfriend that he’s trying to support.  Don “The Dragon” Wilson plays the assassin Shota Kabu.  This guy is clearly not somebody you mess with, as he takes out his first target in the film with absolute ease.  While the character seems like a villain at first, we actually get to see this guy think about the job he’s been assigned.  Over the course of the film, we find that Kabu is not without a sense of decency or honor.  An assassin with a heart of gold?  Seen it before, but still, that also adds to the film’s humor.  When we see Tyrell try to run, we see Kabu just calmly walk after him.  Seeing him actually maintain a pace with Tyrell’s “running” is rather funny.  One of the sidecharacters, Rocco, puts on a facade of being this hard-ass gangster, but when Tyrell knocks him out with one punch, I had to laugh.  The characters are pretty decent, even though Wilson and Taylor are the front-runners.

While I knew about Don Wilson’s background as a martial artist, I was clueless about R. Marco Taylor’s background.  This guy’s got quite a repertoire.  In addition to being a stuntman, he’s got experience in Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai, Hapkido, Capoeira, Kung Fu, Boxing, Judo, and Ninjitsu.  That’s very impressive.  The action film definitely takes advantage of his particular background.  When he goes up against Wilson, however, it’s pretty one-sided.  Later, he takes on a would-be robber and eventually teams up with Wilson’s character for the final fight of the film.  The fight choreography is surprisingly really good.  It’s a blast watching “The Dragon” work, but I was surprised at how good Taylor was.  The fight sequences were pretty entertaining.

There are a couple of issues that I had with the film, though.  The film, which runs at 86 minutes, feels longer than that at times.  I think it lingers on some scenes for too long.  There are also a couple of characters that really irritate me.  Mrs. R is probably the biggest offender.  I wanted to see Taylor just tell her off so many times throughout the movie.  Also, there a couple of scenes that involve a group of hitmen that kind of went nowhere.  We learn about these characters, but we don’t see them do anything, and as quickly as we are introduced to them, they disappear until the end of the film.  I would have loved to learn more about this organization that Shota Kabu apparently belongs to.

Overall, though, I was pleasantly surprised with Paying Mr. McGetty.  It’s got a surprisingly thoughtful story with some well-rounded characters.  The humor is genuinely funny and the action sequences are pretty good.  The negatives definitely bring it down a little bit for me, but honestly, I could think of worse things to spend an hour and a half on.  So, yeah, I’m giving this one a pretty solid recommendation.  I would love to see Don Wilson and R. Marcos Taylor team up for something else.  Those two work very well together.

Final Recommendation: Don’t wake up in a bed with a strange woman who may or may not be the daughter of a local mobster.  Also:  Where the hell was Mr. McGetty while all of this was going on? 8/10.

What is an independent film, you ask?  Strictly speaking, an independent film is a movie that has been made without the backing and distribution of major film studios.  Independent movies are also often low-budget and are not necessarily as “refined” as a major studio production.  You also have to take into consideration that indie film makers tend to have to work day jobs in order to support the film that they are making, even though sometimes they can get financed from one of several smaller movie studios.  The idea of the independent film goes all the way back to the early days of the Edison Trust.  The Edison Trust was formed in 1908 and was comprised of all the major studios that existed at that time.  The Trust had a monopoly on all the production and distribution of movies.  As a result, many film-makers either refused to participate or were rejected by The Trust.  The folks that refused to join the cartel were considered “independent.”  It didn’t last long, with the Supreme Court essentially cutting off the head of the snake in 1912 and 1915.  All patents held by The Edison Trust were canceled.  During this time,  a number of film makers had banded together to form the first movie studio systems.  These led to the creation of some of the big studios that we see today:  MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros., 20 Century Fox and RKO Pictures.

Now, I touched briefly on the history of independent films, because I feel it’s important to point out where all this comes from.  There’s a lot more that happened between 1908 and 1950, but I want to focus more on why the independent film is so important to the film industry, at least in my opinion.  I’ve heard people refer to indie movies as a genre, when it is clearly not a genre at all.  The indie film is more of a mindset and philosophy than a genre.  When film-makers feel pressured or constrained by the major movie studios, they try to find other avenues of financing and distribution.  This one of the reasons why film festivals are so vital.  The Canne and Sundance Film Festivals give independent film-makers a chance to have their movies or short films put out there for people to see.  That’s not to say that a major film studio like Paramount won’t pick these up, because sometimes they do, and that’s not always a bad thing.  Having the recognition of a major studio can have a very positive effect on the film-maker and the people involved with his/her film.  It also allows audiences outside of these festivals a glimpse at some of these “unsung heroes” of cinema, so to speak.

So, why is the independent film important in TODAY’S world?  The answer is simpler than you would think:  Technology.  While the film festivals that I mentioned are still important, the advent of social media today actually makes it a lot easier for indie film makers to get their films out to the public.  YouTube, Vimeo, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and Instagram are all tools that are available for indie film makers to utilize.  You don’t even have to be super-rich or famous to get your stuff out there.  I’ve seen a lot of short films and small movies over the past 6 years that have been really good.  With social media, you can buck the system, and you don’t have to really adhere to the rules of the major movie studios or the MPAA.  Now, you might not get your film into theaters, but movie theaters are becoming less and less relevant as time goes on, with the advent of online streaming.  Why go to a movie theater, when you can stream the movie from the comfort of your own home?  That’s not to say that big-budget movies and movie studios are evil.  Not at all.  They just have a very different mindset.  They are more focused on the business side of things.  It’s not wrong, but I feel that the quality of some of these big movies don’t justify the enormous price tag.  Look at independent movies like Weapon of Choice, Road To Hell, The Evil Dead, Donnie Darko, and The Terminator.  These films prove that you can have a compelling and decent movie without the backing of somebody like, say, 20th Century Fox.

The independent film is import because it forces the film-makers to get really creative in terms of not only their content, but in how to distribute it as well.  It also shows that even with all these big-budget movies, it’s not necessarily as compelling.  All you really need is a camera, maybe some actors, a few bucks, and the will and passion to create.  THAT’S what draws me to independent movies.  Sometimes the drive and desire to create something is far more important than making money.  Money is important for independent movies, but it’s not the driving force.  Money isn’t everything, and it shouldn’t be everything.  Anyway, that’s my take on the whole independent movie thing.  I tend to find independent movies far more interesting than the crap that’s being pushed into theaters these days.