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.
