RICHARD HARRISON Vs. RICHARD HARRISON

Who is more badass?

Richard 'Ninja' Harrison, star of innumerable Godfrey Ho cinematic cut-and-shut ninja epics...like this one.

or:

Richard 'Old Man' Harrison, star of History Channel's 'Pawn Stars' and mainstay of Las Vegas' Gold & Silver Pawn shop?


...I have to say, as much as I love ninja movies, the Old Man's just shading this one for me, probably due to his pearl of wisdom about the prerequisites for calling yourself a man. Having said that, he does lack the ability to disappear into thin air or magically change into a full ninja costume (plus eyeliner) in just a split-second puff of smoke.

Still, this intriguing battle could make the basis for an interesting crossover film...imagine somebody comes into the G&S pawn shop and sells the Golden Ninja Warrior statue. After having had a buddy who is an expert look at it...

...and then totally lowballed the seller on the price...

...the shop buys the statue. Then, having seen said statue on the TV show, the remaining members of the Ninja Empire from which it was stolen resolve to liberate it from the pawn shop by fair means or foul, whereby it is discovered that ninja Richard Harrison is actually a distant relative of the Pawn Stars Harrisons, and he joins his long lost brethren in the almighty struggle to rout the fiendish evil ninjas from Las Vegas.

Think about it...it would be like Ocean's Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen, PLUS Ninjas. What's not to love?

Joking aside, I wonder how much that Golden Ninja Warrior would actually be worth if it ever came on the market? I'm pretty sure it's not made out of real gold, but discerning film geeks everywhere would still want it, that's for sure.

Ownership would also mean you could also totally mug Steven Spielberg off if you wanted to. After all, he only owns 'Rosebud' from Citizen Kane, which I think we can all agree is a distant second in terms of cinematic prestige when compared to the Golden Ninja Warrior statue, and the incredible powers of invincibility and imperviousness to all harm (except a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick) that it can bestow.

Anyway, all things considered, the undisputed winner of this contest is definitely Richard Harrison. Hands down.

THE SILENCER

THE SILENCER
Running Time: 75 mins
Directed & Produced by Steve Lawson & Simon Wyndham
TRAILER
OFFICIAL SITE

I've been meaning to check out The Silencer for a long time. Firstly, it's a no-budget British film. I'm all for no-to-low budget filmmakers, doubly so if they happen to hail from my homeland.

Secondly, I thought it looked cool and that the concept had some definite potential with its' faceless/voiceless hero clad in black motorcycle leathers and a tinted helmet.

Unfortunately, it seems The Silencer first surfaced on DVD in the UK on the now-defunct Black Horse Entertainment label, which means that due to its' relative rarity, it can be difficult to scare up a copy at the sort prices I'm willing to pay when taking a punt on a low budget indie.

Sure, you can get dirt cheap ex-rental versions off of ebay, but I'm as anally-retentive about not having DVDs with 'RENTAL COPY' plastered
over them as I am anally-retentive about having proper retail versions with a sleeve and all the trimmings. What can I say...I am a DVD snob, otherwise I would have probably downloaded it off the internet or something. Where's the fun in that, I ask you?

So I was like the dog with two bones, caught between the affordable yet undesirable ex-rental copy or the brand new and sealed but priced at more than I want to pay retail version, and unable to decide on either.

Then lo and behold, out of the blue, no less than Steve Lawson (not to be confused with fellow UK director Steven Lawson) himself emails me and asks me if I'd like a review copy. Thus inadvertently solving my dilemma whilst simultaneously disproving the maxim 'If you don't ask, you don't get.'

I didn't ask, but I did get. With this is mind, I'm going to purposely NOT ask low budget indie filmmakers to send me their screeners, because the asking approach doesn't seem to be working...maybe I should make the first move and contact them? We shall see.

So, the moral of the story is that if you send me your movie, book, comic, fanzine, whatever...I WILL REVIEW IT. Steve Lawson figured it out, and this here review is the result. I am as good as my word!

So, without any further ado, here is my review of The Silencer



Glenn Salvage is Michael Eastman, an elite anti-narcotics cop who's been double crossed and left for dead. Having been shot full of lead by the henchman of the local drug kingpin, he awakes in hospital some time later to discover that thanks to some pioneering surgical techniques, his life has been saved, but his vocal chords have not. Whilst his wounds leave him mute, in a Darkman-esque twist it appears that an unexpected side-effect of the surgery has rendered him impervious to pain...but not from injury.

Suspended from the force, Eastman must now struggle to come to terms with his injuries, clear his name and exact vengeance upon those who have robbed him of everything, including the love of his life who has now shacked up with one of his corrupt former team-mates. Drug dealers, hoodlums, corrupt cops...you name it, he's going after them with a vengeance.

Spiritually, the movie feels like it should have been shot in the late 80's/early 90's in New York. I feel a more bleak urban environment (or more of the bleak urban environment that is already there) would have complimented the similarly-bleak mood of the piece. As it is, a lot of the movie is shot in the beautiful English countryside in bright sunshine (which is a rare enough combination in and of itself!) which seems a little incongruous with the overall mood of the piece.

Some full-on 80's cheese sequences shot with either blue gels or filters as the menacing back-lit silhouette figure of The Silencer suddenly strides through one of those ubiquitous clouds of steam/smoke
that always seem to be rising out of somewhere in 80's urban action flicks (like the iconic title card shot from the opening credits of 'The Equalizer') would definitely have hit the spot.

There's a subway sequence that certainly captures the right sort of mood (I'd dare say the film was given an 18 certificate on the strength of some of the grafitti alone...disgusting!), and some more sequences along those lines would certainly not have gone amiss.

One thing the filmmakers have unquestionably got right is the wonderfully ominous synth signature we hear whenever villains suddenly realise that The Silencer is there...again pure 80's, but absolutely bang on the money, thematically-speaking!

Image quality is excellent, and the use of camera movement is subtle and well-judged (as opposed to the
'We're paying for the jib/dolly for the whole day, so we might as well use it for every shot!' brigade, the spiritual twins of the irritatingly ubiquitous 'Let's use every effect and transition in Final Cut Pro just to show that we can' people).

Particularly impressive also is the use of reveals. Both Lawson and Wyndham have professional experience, so we're not looking at your usual camcorder jockeys here, and thankfully it shows.

There are certain scenes and a couple of performances which occasionally serve to betray the true budgetary level of the work, but then there are also those which punch far above the financial weight of the production too. Maye Choo has gone on to carve out a nice career in television dramas such as 'Honest' (NSFW), and Jim Clossick was also very impressive, particularly near the end of the film. I've seen a lot worse, but taking the rough with the smooth this is a very passable and fairly professional looking production. Dare I say it but this is the kind of movie that should be turning up late night on Movies4men or Movies24 (before they start with their 'erotic' programming). I'd much rather watch this than one of those second run made-for-TV Syfy channel disaster movies which all seem to closely follow the Jaws/Day After Tomorrow template.

Action and fight sequences are great. Cinematically, the subway sequence is the standout, but I think my favourite overall is his second visit to the country estate of drug dealer Sirrus Rook, complete with a pair of butterfly knives (for those not au fait with these things, I'm talking about the meat cleaver sized Chinese knives rather than the Balisong flick knives which are sometimes erroneously called Butterfly knives).
Butterfly Knives...that's what I'm talking about!

There's also a pleasing dust-up at a car scrapyard, with all the smashing of windscreens and denting of bodywork your heart could possibly desire.

Whether they needed to be or not is another question. Truth be told, if we're going to be picky, I'd probably say that The Silencer specifically belongs in the genre of vigilante films. There's definitely some martial arts action, but the nature of this particular beast is definitely
in the tradition of Death Wish and The Exterminator (the chief influence on the film, so much so that one of the characters is named Ginty by way of homage to Robert Ginty). The commentary mentions specific pains being taken to limit the style of fighting to reflect the condition of The Silencer, holding off on the big moves until the showpiece finale. Obviously, the budget did not stretch to huge amounts of onscreen gunplay with squibs going off everywhere, so hand-to-hand combat makes a very decent substitute. As it is, I think they've done a great job of serving their narrative needs (of a physically limited character) whilst still fulfilling the requirement for action.

Would an explosion or two have made it a better film? Maybe, but then we would be straying away from the vigilante genre and firmly into the territory of the action movie. Thankfully, the filmmakers elected not to use CGI explosions or anything like that. Sometimes, less is more, and nothing would ruin the suspension of disbelief more than crappy CGI. In the end, there's a lot to be said for 'keeping it real'.

What the movie does lack is a strong central antagonist or villain, which I believe is in part due to there being perhaps one too many 'key' villains, and not enough screen time being available to properly develop them and establish them as truly credible threats to our hero. There are five by my count, and with a running time of 75 minutes, that doesn't leave a lot when you consider the main character, love interest, and any of the slightly more incidental characters too (like the drug dealing Irish terrorists, for example).

Lawson himself plays one of them, and mentions in his commentary that he was struck by just how much he is in the movie, and concedes that it's probably too much.

Of course, this is one of the drawbacks to having the main character be mute...whilst there are numerous non-verbal things you can do to move the plot along, you're not going to be able to get away with this for the lion's share of the movie. The filmmaker's have obviously realised this and opted to have other characters pick up the slack in terms of dialogue and exposition rather than use flashbacks, dream sequences or internal monologues to give Eastman a voice.



At this budget level, it's a lot easier and cheaper to shoot something with Steve Lawson, because as one of the producers, he's always there. Also, lest people jump to the wrong conclusion and think that it's one of those oft-seen exercises in ego-gratification whereby the producer assiduously casts themselves in their own movie, make themselves look like a total badass, hog all the best lines and end up either in bed or the jacuzzi with one or more nubile and naked young women who, but for the fact they are being paid, would otherwise be out of said producer's league (...and believe you me, I have seen a fair few of those kind of movies), you could not be more wrong.

Lawson arguably plays the least likeable and most unsympathetic character in the entire film. A villain, but more of a pitifully detestable one than a 'cool' or fearsome villain, and without wishing to give too much away, he has a wonderful 'just when you thought he couldn't go any lower' moment towards the end of the film as he tries to placate a local drug dealer. A self-promoting role it is not, but there is a lot of it.

In addition to the inability of the central protagonist to speak is the fact that Eastman
is also fitted with a neck brace (which he removes before going into action), which prevents any movement of the head, including minimal movements such as nodding.

In such a situation where the tools of both verbal and non-verbal expression are either seriously curtailed or removed completely, some actors might tend towards
overcompensating with their facial gestures, which can have the unfortunate side-effect of descending into unintentional comedy. Fortunately, Salvage avoids falling into this trap in his depiction of Eastman. Another bonus is that they probably saved a small fortune in ADR costs by conceiving the lead character in this fashion...the filmmakers never mention this as being in any way responsible for informing or motivating their decision to have a mute lead, so I'm going to assume it's just a happy accident. If not, it's a devilishly clever money saver.

The only dialogue scene Glenn Salvage gets to do in the whole movie!

I'm happy to report that the single disc is heaving with extras, including a making of featurette, outttakes, and not one but two
(count 'em!) commentaries!

***PLEASE NOTE: Steve Lawson has informed me that the version put out by Blackhorse in the UK does NOT contain the commentary tracks like my review copy, but does contain the other extras. Please bear this in mind when I'm talking about the commentaries. I was unaware of this at the time of writing my review, but I'm leaving the sections regarding the commentaries in because I believe they help paint a fuller picture.***

The second commentary involves Lawson flying solo and giving a 'Low budget Filmmaking 101' of sorts, which is extremely honest in its' appraisal
of the film and its' inherent faults.

It's another one of these films which has been shot over the course of a year rather than a few weeks. Of course, this sort of thing matters not a jot to the man in the street, who expects it to be as good as your average $50 million Hollywood action movie. Personally, I can't help but admire what they've managed to put together with so little money.

It's highly interesting to see and hear what went wrong and how the problems were overcome, or how they impacted upon what was initially planned.

The Silencer is a film I like 'as is', off the bat as a stand alone feature, but I dare say that you'll appreciate it a lot more and respect the
achievement of the filmmakers after having listened to the commentaries. I know I certainly did.

For example, regarding my contention about too many weakly-established key villains (or 'end of level boss' types, for the video game geeks among us), there is one who is obviously there to provide a physical counterpoint to The Silencer. Alas, the actor playing him injured his leg, meaning that they were unable to display his kicking prowess in an earlier scene where he's working over a punchbag,
and that the proposed 'epic showdown' also had to be cut drastically short as well. The idea was sound enough, but unfortunately the filmmaking fates conspired to prevent it being realised in the intended manner.

Of course, in the ad hoc think-on-your-feet world of low budget filmmaking, you are going to get the occasional curveball thrown at you. Life certainly threw a few lemons in their direction on this shoot, but they made lemonade accordingly.

What's most bizarre to me is that one of the best and most striking scenes in the movie seems to have come about completely by chance. After The Silencer has dispatched a bunch of would-be rapists in the subway, he moves towards their intended victim, an Oriental girl, a reaches out to her, but she recoils and
runs away, terrified of the mute brute lurching towards her, incapable of offering so much as a reassuring word. Given that Eastman's estranged love interest is also Oriental, I feel this scene serves as a wonderful encapsulated metaphor which both mirrors and echoes his plight. Neither commentary track draws attention to any intent
behind it (I'd be crowing about it if I'd thought up putting something like that in, let me tell you...),
so I can only assume it is a happy accident, even though the fact it is shot in slow motion would tend to suggest that some thought went into it.

Either way, it really works as a cinematic device. In truth, it would have still worked with any female, but the fact we are talking about two women of similar appearance and ethnicity makes it a doubly bizarre coincidence, but doubly effective in a visual terms at the same time. For me, the single most memorable and resonant scene of the whole movie.

We later learn that this apparently coincidental casting of two ethnically-similar females also served to inform the characterisation of one of the villains (a drug dealer with something of a taste for ladies of the Asian persuasion), and also part of the storyline in the final third of the film (wherein Lawson's character reaches a whole new depth of scumbaggery).

There's also a sequence contrived to get a little 'production value' out of a real life motorcycle spill on-set. Again, whilst I like the film as is, it's only after getting the inside scoop on the making of it that you really begin to fully appreciate it for what it is.

Whilst scouring the web for some pictures with which to tart up my review, I happened across the Tesco DVD Rental page for the movie, wherein one disgruntled reviewer from Cardiff complains about wasting 90 minutes of their weekend on the film (which only has a 75 minute running time...go figure), and claims the story line rips off the Steven Seagal film 'HARD TO KILL' as well, which it plainly does not.

Another makes the ludicrous claim that The Silencer is a 'Rip off from every film with martial arts in'.

Just take a moment to reflect upon the outright stupidity of that statement. Aside from the obvious physical improbability and impracticality of such a notion, this plainly laughable assertion is easily disproved. For example, at no point in the film does Salvage homage Van Damme by doing the splits or flashing his bum, there's no wirework whatsoever, and absolutely no ninjas either.

It's a good job Tesco's doesn't rent hardcore porn DVDs (....yet. Every little helps, after all), lest he accuse the director of Sex-Starved Sorority Sluts of ripping off Cum Chugging Co-Ed Cheerleaders because their movie also features a scene where some guy ejaculates on some chick's face.

Seriously, some people do get out of their pram over nothing these days! Possibly they are getting it confused with one of the other films (at least three more by my count) called 'The Silencer', one of which stars the American Ninja himself, Michael Dudikoff!

Dudikoff's cool, but he'll never out-ninja Richard Harrison

Or this one:



Anyway, that aside, I'd definitely scarf up a retail DVD version of this if I come across it at a price I'm amenable to. Yes, I'm one of those sad people who likes them in the case with the sleeve and everything. I still buy books made from paper too. And read them.

The Silencer was actually pretty much the film I expected it to be. I could tell from the trailer that it was a cut above most low-budget stuff, and I wasn't wrong. I'm not going to lie to you and pretend it's the greatest thing since sliced bread or that it raises the bar clean out of sight. In the end, it's just an extremely decent little movie, nothing more, nothing less. Don't go in expecting a Hollywood blockbuster and you won't come out disappointed.

The storyline would definitely benefit from a little simplification, and some of the performances are a little patchy in places, but that's just a matter of personal taste. Some of the longer dialogue sequences would definitely have benefited from some intercutting of different shots. Alas, shots require set-ups, set-ups require time, and time requires money, which is something that is in short supply at this level of filmmaking. Thus, sacrifices have to be made.

In terms of mood, execution, and action scenes, The Silencer delivers quite handsomely. In the course of writing his review, I've watched it three times (once with the soundtrack, then once with each commentary), and even with the rough edges I feel I could quite happily watch it again at some point. It's very easy to watch, possibly due to the slightly shorter than average running time, although it's not noticeably short and is well paced throughout.

As I write this, the usually-Satanic IMDB has it clocked as a 6.7, which isn't probably too far from the truth, and when you consider how little was spent on it and the manner in which it was produced, it's an achievement and a half. One shudders to think what the team behind it might be capable of if given a budget somewhere between a luxury car and a small house.

If you want to make your own low budget independent films however, this one is definitely required viewing. If anything, I'd recommend it to aspiring filmmakers before martial arts fans, such is the amount of insight and revelation provided by the commentaries. As I said in my review of Infestation, I much prefer open and honest commentaries as opposed to the saccharine Hollywood ones where everybody and everything is either 'great', 'fantastic' or 'amazing'. It's refreshing to see filmmakers who not only realise what they've done wrong or could have done better, but also own up to it as well.

So, to paraphrase a famous song, as far as low budget action flicks go 'Silence(r) is golden'. If you spot a copy at a price you like, my advice would be to snap it up post haste.

INFESTATION

TRAILER
Distributed by Blackhorse Entertainment (now defunct)
Directed by Ed Evers-Swindell

In the near future, a deadly virus has decimated the Earth's surface and forced humanity to dwell underground in vast subterranean cities. When an expeditionary team fails to report back, a ragtag unit of military misfits and misanthropes (including team leader Sash and brooding anti-hero Loki) is hastily thrown together and sent topside to find out exactly what has happened to them. Scientists have developed a serum which gives limited immunity to the virus, but that deadline has passed, so the expeditionary team should (in theory) all be dead.

The giveaway line is 'We're still getting activity readings on their personal locators'...dyed-in-the-wool fans of genre cinema will know exactly what to expect!

'Infestation' hits the ground running with a prologue comprised of two terrific action sequence wherein Sash and Loki fight off members of the 'Tunnel Rats' terrorist outfit with a mixture of gunplay and fisticuffs, which then seamlessly segues into CGI jetspeeder chase throughout the labyrinthe of the underground city's erstwhile skyline (if that makes sense?) which is every bit as good as the similar sequence in Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones, and doesn't feature Hayden Christensen either! What's not to love?

Loki (Ross Evison). Could Lisa Rogers tell the difference between him and Ralf Little after a few drinks? Probably not...

Loki disobeys a direct order to abandon the pursuit of the last remaining terrorist, and in doing so causes an accident in which civilian lives are lost. He's kicked out of his job and we next find him some months later drowning his sorrows in a bar, having drifted into depression. Fortunately, his old colleague Sash has just been handed a mission which would suit a near-suicidal pilot down to the ground, and so Loki is brought out of his enforced retirement to join the team going up to the surface.

Sash is starting to regret taking this assignment on...

After the team is introduced, there's a needless but well executed sequence in which the one of thrusters on their rocket elevator malfunctions (again done with CGI), meaning they could miss their window with the automatic, override-proof vents and doors which their craft is supposed to navigate, and thus be killed. Unsurprisingly, they make it after the thruster miraculously kicks in again. Like a Bond film, you know they're not going to die (at least not this early on...) but the scene is staged in such a way that it still grabs your attention and has you wondering how they're going to find a way out of it. As such it's rather a disappointment when the answer is simply good fortune. I felt this would have been a good opportunity to add a little characterisation to the team, to see how they cope with and rectify the situation? Which one panics? Who's the aggressive one who'd rather argue than fix the problem? Who takes the lead and sorts the problem out, and how do they do it? All this sequence establishes is that Freeman, their Commander, doesn't really care much whether they live or die, but we'd pretty much gathered that already, especially where Loki is concerned.

This picture gives a much better impression of what the film is like, although I've no idea where it's from or where it's used.

The opening scenes all have that sort of bleached-out, post-processed blueish-greenish hue which seems so beloved of music video directors working with nu-metal bands and the people who made 'Saw'. Of course, when filming in an ostensibly underground location, one must limit oneself solely to artificial light sources, and it has the added bonus of complimenting the CGI sequences which are largely green on black in the style of a nightvision camera, which makes perfect sense if you think about it. It's simple, logical and it works, and it's also probably cheaper and quicker than doing it in full colour.

Once topside, the mood of the film changes somewhat, as does the colour pallette, but more importantly so does the pace. The second act is extremely slow, all the more noticeably so having come off the back of the action-packed first act. Very little happens (too little, to be frank) save for some exposition and the added problem of having to find an hidden access hatch so that they can get to the ship which will take them home before their immunity to the surface conditions expires.

I've seen bits of 'Infestation' on TV a couple of times, and every time I was compelled to switch over and watch something else. It's only now that I have seen the full film that I realise it was because I was always coming in midway through the second act. It's the Achilles' Heel of this movie.

What makes the second act appear to be even more of a dog is the fact that it is sandwiched between the first and third, which are both very well done save for a bizarre shoot-out sequence near the film's climax. It's hard to put your finger on why it doesn't work specifically...things happen, the plot advances, people die, but possibly it simply takes too much time to do so.

'Mad Dog' Maddox lets 'em have it!

Still, if you can make it through, your patience is well and truly rewarded with the third act, the highlight of which is surely Loki and the remaining survivor of the original team taking on a horde of zombies within the claustrophobic confines of the makeshift command centre, including a nifty escape into an attic that the likes of Jackie Chan and Tony Jaa would be proud of!

Overall, in terms of 'bang for your buck', it's safe to say the producers got more out than they put in. Aside from the sagging second act, this is really quite a respectable little movie. I've no doubt it could be a lot more polished overall if they had a bigger budget to play with, but as it is, and for the money that was spent, it's a creditable achievement. It's further differentiated from other films of the same budgetary ilk by some undeniable quality in terms of the music used, the impressive opening title sequence, and the CGI.

I believe this is the cover for the Asian market...it bears little resemblance to the film itself!

Refreshingly, the CGI is actually used fairly sparingly, which is quite a rarity these days. The only moments it is jarringly bad are the end of the opening chase sequence and a couple of the explosions at the film's finale. Other than that it is extremely well done, especially when one bears the miniscule budget in mind. You'll see a lot worse in one of the Sci-Fi channel's made-for-TV movies or an Asylum flick, for example (not to knock or disparage either of them in any way, just using them as a frame of reference).

The effective and judicious employment of the CGI could perhaps act as a metaphor for the film as a whole. It never makes the fatal mistake of trying to cram too much in or overreaching its limitations to the extent that it makes them too glaringly obvious. It's not bogged down by too many subplots or ancilliary characters, and whether this is due more to budgetary constraints or the filmmakers simply be very disciplined and trimming the unnecessary fat is ultimately irrelevant. In short, it works.

The DVD is not exactly overloaded with extras...there's a commentary track and scene access, and that's it. However, the commentary alone is worth more than its weight in gold (yes, I'm aware DVD commentaries have no physical weight per se, but I'm mixing metaphors here!). It's brutally honest, self-deprecating and hyper-critical, and fully acknowledges all of the problems with the film that I had identified while watching it. It also provides a lot of eye-opening insights into a number of things I hadn't noticed. Evers-Swindell states at the beginning that people who buy this DVD will fall into one of two groups: those with an interest in low-budget filmmaking, and those who will be taking the DVD back to the store tomorrow and asking for their money back. As you may have guessed, I class myself firmly as the former.

US cover, I believe...something of a '28 Days Later' riff if we're honest.


Truth be told, it's something of a low-budget filmmaking masterclass, so much so in fact that producer Stuart Fletcher is one of the feature interviewees/case studies in The Guerilla Filmmakers handbook, alongside such notables as Jake 'Razor Blade Smile/Evil Aliens/Doghouse' West, deltacinenomophile Neil 'Dog Soldiers/Descent/Doomsday' Marshall (Infestation cover blurbee, no less!), Edgar 'Shaun of The Dead/Hot Fuzz' Wright, the guys who produced Saw, Blair Witch, Open Water, and some guy called Christopher Nolan, whoever he is. That's some pretty fast company in anybody's book.

Perhaps Evers-Swindell is correct in his assertion regarding audience reaction, that 'Infestation' will prove to be the archetypal 'Marmite movie'...you'll either love it or you'll hate it. If you, like me, love no-budget genre cinema (which I'd assume is the reason you're here reading this) then you'll likely get a kick out of 'Infestation'.

On the other hand, if you prefer your movies in the multi-million dollar, overblown orgy of CGI with some gangsta rapper in the token black role contemporary Hollywood moviemaking paradigm, then 'Infestation' will come as something of a cinematic culture shock. You'd probably be better off waiting until the Hollywood braintrust tires (read: totally exhausts) of remaking/reimagining/remixing films and instead adopts the musical mixing technique known as the 'Mash Up' and applies said technique to 'Aliens' and 'Day Of The Dead'.

(While we're on the subject of throwing together film franchises, how much cooler would 'Alien vs. Predator' have been if they'd called the sequel with the hybrid creature 'Alienator', thus spawning a hybrid franchise and giving us a cooler name than 'Predalien'? Lighting it so people could actually see what was going on would have been a big plus too, I feel.)

In terms of value for money, I got my copy of 'Infestation' off of Ebay dirt cheap, so I feel it represents excellent value, especially given the gut-spilling commentary track. If you see it at a price you feel happy paying, my advice would be to go for it. At the moment, it seems many of the titles that were being distributed by the now defunct Blackhorse Entertainment are popping up for some pretty high prices simply due to the relative rarity factor, so you might have to do some digging to turf a copy up at a reasonable price. In my opinion, it is well worth the effort in doing so.

Failing that, 'Infestation' does sometimes crop up on Movies4Men late at night, but this is a cut version whereas the DVD presents the film in all its uncut and gory glory.

All told, it's another one that is going to be finding itself a permanent home on my 'keep' shelf (the Vatican Library of low budget genre cinema, I tell you!). If you have any interest in low budget movies and the makings thereof, then this one is an education and a half. You might also be interested in checking out the three-part 'Making Of Infestation' BTS (inexplicably not included on the DVD version I have) on Evers-Swindell's own YouTube page, although it's nowhere close to being as near to the knuckle as the commentary track...

LEFT FOR DEAD

Running Time: 105 mins
Distributor: York Entertainment (US)
Website: Left For Dead
Directed By Ross Boyask
Written By Adrian Foiadelli
Produced By Phil Hobden

@Amazon.co.uk


Ask and ye shall receive! Having read of my difficulties in my review of 'Ten Dead Men' of getting the free download version of Left For Dead to play, the good people at Modern Life? have kindly provided me with a review copy.

In an ideal world, I would have watched Left For Dead (henceforth L4D) and Ten Dead Men (henceforth 10DM) in chronological order, and thus have been able to chart the progression and improvement between the two films. Sadly, it appears that the world we live in is far from ideal, so as per usual I've done things arse-about-facewards and watched them in reverse order.

The beauty of blogging is that I can go back and make retroactive amendments to my original 10DM review now that I have a slightly more informed perspective on it, so fortunately it doesn't make too much difference in the grander scheme of things, but I thought it fair to inform readers where I'm coming from in this respect.

Now, on with the review...

'Left For Dead' tells the tale of Williams (Glenn Salvage), a veritable killing machine in the employ of Hope City's criminal kingpin Kincaid (Adam Chapman). Williams has decided he wants to quit, but Kincaid decides to have his fellow assassins Dylan (Kevin Akehurst) and the trigger-happy psychotic Taylor (Adrian Foiadelli, more recently seen getting shanked with a screwdriver in 10DM's garage fight) retire him instead, and his retirement gift isn't going to be a gold carriage clock, but rather a lead enema.

Taylor...prone to going off on one.

As you might well imagine, Williams is none too taken with the idea of being shot full of holes, and thus makes good his escape from his would-be assassins (and former colleagues), but not before taking a round in the shoulder.

I really like this shot, good composition.

As if his day wasn't already going badly enough, he's then subsequently poisoned by his treacherous ex-lover Sonya (Vicki Vilas). As we will go on to see, there are no such things as 'old friends' in Hope City when you're on the wrong side of Kincaid.



We are then introduced to Kelso (Andy Prior), an up-and-coming kickboxer who somewhat unwisely chooses to rub Kincaid up the wrong way by refusing to take a dive in his fight. Kincaid sends Taylor and his thugs to break Kelso's fingers, thus effectively ending his career, and tells him to get out of town before he reaps some more lasting, or perhaps even permanent, consequences.

Again, there's an added significance to this scene because Taylor is an old friend of Kelso, and is thus the man selected to put Kincaid's offer on the table. When Kelso refuses and wins his fight, Taylor is again selected to be the messenger boy, but this time he has to redeem himself in the eyes of the enraged Kincaid, and in such a situation it soon becomes apparent that in Hope City old friendships count for nothing, or perhaps even less. It's a nice cameo of Kincaid's rule-by-fear approach in action...people fear Kincaid's thugs, and Kincaid's thugs fear him. Ergo, everybody fears Kincaid.

To add insult to literal injury, Kincaid's boys also brutally murder Kelso's promoter/mentor Roarke (PL Hobden, again getting reduced to a bloody pulp for art's sake) just for good measure, and with Taylor delivering the fatal coup de grace it effectively doubles Kelso's motivation to come after Kincaid's organisation and Taylor specifically.



Following a chance encounter whilst both seeking the highly dubious medical services of a no-questions-asked underworld surgeon, the two erstwhile heroes decide to team up and take down Kincaid and his criminal empire the only way they know how...with feet, fists, and any weapon that's handy. As you might readily expect, a wanton orgy of indiscriminate arse-kicking ensues.

Right off the bat, there's a nice contrast between the two main protagonists, and you can see it's intentionally done. Happily, it avoids the classic cliches of the buddy movie as Williams and Kelso never become 'buddies' or share some breakthrough 'moment'. They just have an uneasy alliance based on the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Aside from the differences in outward appearance (Williams: Long hair, beard, black suit; Kelso: Short hair, clean shaven, sportswear), there is also a difference in their respective moralities, with Kelso being reticent to kill or use drugs and Williams killing people as if it was second nature. This is nicely illustrated by a brief scene where Kelso takes him to task for killing Sonya, and Williams puts him straight about the gravity and reality of their situation. Besides, believe me when I say that the bitch had it coming anyway...



The first thing that strikes you about the content of the film itself is that whereas 10DM is largely an action movie with some martial arts elements, L4D is the other side of that proverbial coin. Yes, there is a fair bit of gunplay spread out over the course of the movie, but the onus is on martial arts of the leaping roundhouse kick variety rather than the sort of close-quarter brawls that viewers of 10DM or the Bourne Trilogy might be more familiar with. I know the latter is more 'realistic' in the minds of a lot of people, but it is nowhere near to being quite as cinematic.

Part of this prevalence of a more classic style of screen fighting is due to the internal reality of the film. It's a martial arts film that doesn't pretend to be anything else nor make an apology for being what it is.

For example, there's a scene where Taylor has his gun snatched from him after sneaking up on a kickboxing foe, who then proceeds to cockily toss it away and instead engage him in hand to hand combat. If this kind of thing has you jumping out of your seat, tearing your hair out and screaming at the TV to 'Just bloody shoot him!', then L4D probably isn't the film for you. Whilst we're on the subject, I'd also probably try to avoid watching any James Bond films as well, as they also have a habit of putting Bond and his comely companion in some sort of elaborate-yet-easily-escapable deathtrap peril (usually right after the villain has boasted to him about all the details of his nefarious masterplan) rather than just shooting him in the head and being done with it. Let's just say that people like Scott Evil would most certainly not approve.

The internal reality of the film is also graphically displayed when Williams takes on Kincaid. I'm not going to give away the ending, but you'll either love it or hate it, and it tends to suggest the influence of certain fighting video games, as do other aspects of the film which I will address in due course.

The other reason the fights are bigger in terms of scale is because there is room to have the fights with the big moves, rather than the somewhat more claustrophobic locations of 10DM. Indeed, even the outdoor fights in 10DM are relatively constrained and close-quarter in comparison.

Kelso takes out two at once

Unlike 10DM, which by and large has 'feature' one on one fights with identifiable characters as Ryan works his way through his list, L4D has a whole lot of nameless henchmen getting the stuffing beaten out of them. This allows for a lot of one-hit 'set pieces' which serve to both drive home the abilities of Williams and Kelso, and mark out those foes who don't go down in one to be more serious, credible threats with their own impressive arsenal of moves and manouvres.

The other key difference with L4D's fights is one of motion and, perhaps more importantly, progression.

Dylan prepares to take on Williams in their final battle...or is it?

For example, Williams assault on the dojo (recalling Bruce Lee's visit to the Karate school in Fist Of Fury) progresses from being a one-against-many brawl to a rooftop one-on-one with Dylan, and I for one certainly enjoy fight scenes which progress and evolve in terms of the challenges facing the hero (number of opponents increasing/decreasing, the gaining/losing of a weapon, a hostile/advantageous environment, etc.). One of the more familiar examples I could point to would be the House of Blue Leaves sequence from Kill Bill Vol. 1. The challenge faced by 'The Bride' is constantly changing (different types/levels of fighters, different weapons, different amounts of fighters), as is the environment (thanks to some clever lighting tricks and some fun on the balcony) and that's what keeps it fresh and interesting. Only the final battle of 10DM has this progressive quality, but due to the relatively brief and largely mismatched fights, it never gets to be fully developed as one might hope it would be.


Happily, one gets this same sense of progress in both spatial and storytelling terms in a number L4D's fight sequences, and I for one appreciate the variety. Whether it's the exterior to interior of the opening sequence, the dojo to rooftop fight, or the fight to reach Kincaid, the key sequences have this quality, and thus allow the action to advance the story rather than hold it up.

Indeed, in many respects, the final assault on Kincaid's HQ is like Bruce Lee's 'Game of Death' on amphetamines, especially after the swathes of low-level lackeys have all been disposed of.

Williams takes on Kincaid's henchman

Again, like with Williams and Kelso, each of the significant 'feature' foes is nicely differentiated from the other (and from the masses of faceless henchmen) by some means, be it personality, mode of dress, fighting style, choice of weapon or even race/gender. It's the same clever trick used so well in Predator, where each member of the unit has their own subtle little modification to their uniform (headwear, sleeve length, etc.), different weapons (grenade launcher, minigun, etc.) or character trait (constant shaving, tobacco chewing, joke telling, pendant rubbing). In short, it creates slightly more developed characters without the need to sacrifice running time to accomodate scenes of explicit characterisation or backstory. L4D wisely does this from the very beginning, as despite being universally clad in all black, the trio of Taylor, Dylan and Williams are easily distinguishable from one another by their weapons of choice, (namely guns, swords, and bare hands respectively) and their respective approaches and demeanors in combat.

These more distinguished feature villains are what the Playstation generation kids might refer to as 'End of Level Guardians' (namely Williams' former partners in crime Dylan and Taylor, Kincaid's tazer and balisong-wielding henchman, a not-quite-so-criminally-underused Cecily Fay, and of course the Big Boss himself).

Proof that you can't keep a good villain dow...Dylan vs. Williams Redux

To continue the videogame metaphor further, it might work best to try and imagine L4D as a sort of live-action version of something like Final Fight or Double Dragon and you'll be getting pretty close to the mark.

(Actually, on second thoughts, forget the part about imagining a live-action version of Double Dragon. They did that already, and it made me seriously reappraise the merits of Uwe Boll's videogame adaptions. We're taking worse than Super Mario Bros. bad here...but, on the plus side, it has inspired a generation of amateur filmmakers to make good on their boast that they 'could do a better Double Dragon movie than that piece of shit!', and judging by some of their efforts, they were right, too...so much so that I'm going to have to do a post on fan films sometime soon!).

You know, now that I think about it, the Final Fight comparison suddenly becomes a lot more plausible when the two martial arts heroes draft in the powerfully-built (and slightly older) brawler Loader (Adam Hawkins). He's like the Haggar to Williams and Kelso's Guy and Cody respectively. For example...

Haggar cleans house with a double clothesline...

...as does Loader.

Haggar puts a lifting chokehold on some chick...

...as does Loader again!

Having said that, nobody's daughter/fiance has been kidnapped, Loader is not the Mayor of Hope or Metro City, and the villain isn't a wheelchair-bound millionaire/crossbow enthusiast, so perhaps I'm reading a little bit too much into it. Then again, Kelso does have his hands all taped up, just like Cody...also, there's an occasional computer-generated map showing our heroes' progress (which FF also has), and there's a Metro City too? Hmmm...

I've seen various reviewers remark that it has a 'comic book' sensibility to it, but to my eye it is actually about the nearest thing in spirit to a 'video game movie'(and by video game, I'm talking specifically of the clasic 2-D side-scrolling beat 'em up model) that I have seen, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It's not trying to be a videogame or pay lip service to the idea (Unlike such smug toss as the pov sequence in doom). I mean instead in terms of clear, linear progression...of fighting in order to advance the plotline and progress to a goal, opponent or new level, with Kincaid sitting at the very top of metaphorical tree, which in reality is actually the top floor of a rather forboding high rise building.

Of the fights themselves, there's something of a showreel element. If someone can do a backflip, then they're putting it in rather than constricting the performers to a set fighting style or set of moves. Kelso, for example, has a neat line in launching himself off of objects like cars, walls or benches into a leaping spinning roundhouse kick, to devastating effect.

Kelso gets some airtime via the hood of the car

It's used at least three times that I counted, but I have no problem with the repetition. I'd rather see people doing what they know they can do well instead of doing something half-baked and thoroughly unconvincing.

Kelso launches into another one of his trademark kicks.

The key element for me is that it looks good every time he does it, as does Salvage's trademark kicking combo. In short, there's plenty of highlight reel stuff mixed in with the more mundane moves, as well as various other set pieces (like the knock-the-guy-into-the-transformer-substation electrocution or Dylan using the long grass as camofluage) that obviously weren't improvised on the spot. My favourite would have to be an unsuspecting smoking hoodlum getting his neck broken by Williams. As his lifeless body slumps to the floor, we see his cigarette packet with the legend 'Smoking Kills' emblazoned upon it, and the Benson & Hedges logo has been craftily altered to read Boyask & Hobden. It's a very nice touch, and one that certainly caught my attention.

The desire on the part of the filmmakers to constantly punch well above their weight and transcend the limitations of their budget is apparent throughout. With a film like this, providing you have a handful of people of the requisite proficiency in martial arts, then you can put together a number of fights with only a small group of performers. Again, just like the relatively small-scale 'Game Of Death', you don't need a cast of thousands to successfully execute a progressive fighting/revenge movie, especially if you're working on a tight budget.

For starters, there's seemingly a small army of people involved in this movie as low-level hoodlums who get killed off by the bucketload. I'm sure there must be some 'recycling' somewhere (dressing the same actor differently and using them again), but if there is, it's not particularly obvious.

Another particularly eye-catching sequence involves a gang of motorcyclists being called in to hunt down the escaping Williams. When asked how many to send, an exasperated Dylan demands 'All of them!' We're teased at first by being shown three of them, which seems like an ample number to do the job, but looks a little low-rent if three constitutes 'all of them'. However, it is shortly revealed that there's actually enough bikers to hold a pretty substantial motocross rally. It's a cinematic sucker-punch wherein the filmmakers draw you in, lower your expectations, and then completely blow them away.

Just like the sizeable swathes of hoodlums, it's a bloody impressive sight which serves to further distance L4D from the sort of "3 men and a dog" aura of fiscally-enforced minimalism which tends to haunt some lower budget productions, British or otherwise. It's all very well and good to portray Kincaid as the iron-fisted ruler of an immense criminal empire, but nothing backs that idea up quite so well as actually physically displaying that he can bring a small army into play if he feels like it.

Obviously, it is not without a few faults. I'm not a fan of digital blood effects, nor the opening title sequence & episodic nature of the story with chapter titles a la Tarantino, but that's just me.

On the other hand, I think digital muzzle flashes are brilliant because you can stage full-on shootouts without all the unnecessary noise and disturbance, as they do in L4D's opening sequence. Having said that, there's a digital ricochet effect in the scene where Williams is escaping from Dylan and Taylor which is so weak I'm rather surprised they left it in.

Again, Director Ross Boyask isn't backward in coming forwards about the films that have influenced him and including a little nod here and there. I won't detail them all (spotting them for yourself is half the fun, after all), but the most obvious has to be Kincaid's introduction being given 'The Marsellus Wallace Treatment'*.



(*By 'The Marsellus Wallace Treatment', I don't mean forcibly sodomised in the basement of a pawn shop, but rather the fact that he is only shown from behind for the opening portion of the movie)

As per my review of 10DM, Boyask again excels at action sequences rather than people sitting around talking and so forth. The good news is that this is a very action-heavy film, ergo we get a lot of superlative fight sequences, which is what you want from a martial arts film.

As you might expect from a low budget production, the standard of acting varies a great deal. However, one compensation L4D can offer is that it's not too dialogue-heavy, plus if someone's acting really gets on your nerves, you know they're not going to be talking (or walking) anymore after Williams and Kelso get through with them.

Two things that really stuck out for me with regards to the acting were as follows.

I expected Glenn Salvage to be a lot, lot worse. I've not yet seen 'The Silencer' (check the trailer out HERE), but the very concept of it, with Salvage being rendered mute by a gunshot wound early in the film, seems to send out the message that 'this guy is great at martial arts but utter toss with dialogue'. Fortunately, it seems I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I've seen a lot worse.

Secondly, having watched the trailer of L4D, I had already seen bits of dialogue scenes which had me thinking 'That's a bit of a clunker' or 'They can't act for toffee'. Maybe you will have had the exact same thoughts. Bizarrely, when you watch those snippets in their proper context, most of them actually work quite nicely.

Having said that, I didn't come into this movie expecting Branagh-esque displays of outrageous thespianism, and nor should you.

Everyone has to start somewhere, though, and low budget films like L4D provide an important opportunity for people to get their foot in the proverbial door and cut their metaphorical teeth. The biggest example in L4D would have to be none other than Joey Ansah. One minute he's getting the crap beaten out of him by Glenn Salvage in the dojo fight, the next thing you know he's getting killed with a bathtowel by Matt Damon in 'The Bourne Ultimatum'. That's showbiz, baby!

When all is said and done, on just about any individual aspect you might care to pick, be it acting, effects, cinematography, etc., L4D is plainly inferior to 10DM (as you would naturally expect...progression not regression), yet perversely the sum is greater than the constituent parts, so much so that given the choice, I'd probably rather watch L4D over 10DM.

Perhaps it's because L4D is more obviously low budget when compared to the more illustrious 10DM (which benefits greatly from the flatters-to-deceive production value afforded to it by the various unique locations employed throughout) that I'm more than willing to cut this one some slack.

Despite being set in a desolate, crime-ridden hellhole, it's overall a much less bleak and nihilistic film than 10DM. There's a little more humour, for starters, mostly provided by Dylan who has all the best lines (although my favourite has to be Taylor's "I can't believe you made me take my fucking coat off!"), but also in scenes such as the one where Kelso demonstrates to Loader how he plans to fight with his badly damaged hands, or the the knowing look given before a nameless thug is electrocuted in the opening battle.

The relative simplicity of the storyline (Introduce Williams, Introduce Kelso, Team up and take down Kincaid) means that it flows a little more readily than the multiple characters and storylines of 10DM. Less apparently is more, after all.

The other key distinction is the fact that the plotline is entirely linear, save for some very brief flashbacks featuring Williams' now-deceased wife (cleverly done using leading man Salvage's real-life wedding video. Now that's what I call production value!), and a sequence wherein Taylor is shown to be a cold-blooded killer, but we knew that already. 10DM, on the other hand, is largely non-linear with many flashbacks. As such, there are no real distractions from the general thrust of the plot. The 'softest' part of L4D in terms of advancing the plot would most likely be the sequence detailing our heroes healing up and getting ready to take on Kincaid, and that's wisely condensed down into a brief montage. Other than that, the film literally flies by. 'Fast paced and hard hitting' sounds like a marketing cliche, but in L4D's case it's extremely appropriate.

So, if you have the opportunity, I'd advise you grab this one first. I just like it better. It's markedly less polished or professional than 10DM, but it's ultimately a lot more fun and easy-going. If you're looking for practical and realistic, look elsewheres. If you want a fighting-for-fighting's-sake low budget martial arts rampage, l4d delivers the goods in impressive style.

It's hardly appropriate for me to comment on value for money as I got it absolutely free. My version bears the logo of the widely-despised York Entertainment, so I assume it was the US version. How the current or subsequent UK versions may differ in terms of running times and extra features, I couldn't say, but it would really have to go some to top 10DM in terms of extra features. These BTS features do exist, as you can see on producer Phil Hobden's YouTube Channel, but whether they are or will be included on a DVD version remains to be seen (by me, at least).

I think the most telling comment I can make on value for money would be that I am now resolved to find a retail copy to replace my current screener version with. Yes, I'm the kind of completist anorak who likes cases, sleeve art and all that jazz rather than MP3s, blank disks or portable hard drives for my media. I'm so old school I still buy CDs. This movie is definitely one I want to see added to my collection in the proper manner. In short, a keeper with plenty of replay value.

TEN DEAD MEN

Running Time: 87 minutes
Distributor:Brit Films
Website:Ten Dead Men site
Director: Ross Boyask
Writer:Chris Regan
Producer:Phil Hobden

Amazon.co.uk



Please be advised that this review relates solely to the UK version

"Ten Dead Men" is the latest film from the duo of Phil Hobden and Ross Boyask under their Modern Life? banner. I'd like to be able to tell you something about their previous film 'Left For Dead', (check out the bone-crunching Trailer!) but I haven't been able to get hold of the DVD and watch it. They're even giving it away as a free and copletely legal download HERE to help promote the release of "Ten Dead Men", but as yet, having downloaded it, I am unable to get it to play on either my PC or Mac regardless of what player I use, be it Windows, Quicktime, iTunes, DivX etc. Even VLC was having none of it, and that plays just about anything. As is customary with any sort of computer problem, I'm blaming Bill Gates. Even for the fact that it won't play on my Mac. Die, Gates, Die!!!

Obviously, it seems God does not want me to watch "Left For Dead". However, even The Almighty himself has been unable to prevent me getting my hands on "Ten Dead Men", so here's my review.

I've been wanting to check this one out for a while now. If you're going to do low budget films, it's common knowledge that you do a zombie or slasher flick because they're relatively easy to do. Action and martial arts films, on the other hand, are not so easy to do. Any idiot can shuffle about and groan whilst wearing zombie makeup, but leaping roundhouse kicks and the like take a little bit more effort. You can recruit your family and friends as zombies, but probably not as backflipping, axe-kicking ninjas It's a lot easier to choreograph a zombie attack or some cheerleader getting stabbed than it is to choreograph a halfway decent fight scene, which is why you get more low budget zombie and slasher flicks (just look at Zone Horror after 10pm!) than you do low budget martial arts flicks. As such, it's refreshing to see something a little bit different, and this is coming from someone who absolutely adores low budget zombie and slasher flicks.

It's pretty much a standard revenge flick, with the ostensible and remarkably taciturn hero Ryan (Brendan Carr) tracking down and taking out the people who killed his girlfriend (Poojah Shah, ex-Eastenders apparently, but not watching soaps I wouldn't know...) and left him for dead. Astute readers may have already gleaned that people being left for dead is something of a recurring theme or 'leitmotif' for the Modern Life? boys.

As you might well imagine, copious amounts of brutality and bloodshed ensue as Ryan works his way through the list of assorted lowlife scum in a series of impressively-executed action scenes with a number of inventive little twists. Up until "Ten Dead Men", I'd never seen a film where a guy smears a handful of piss and urinal cake into the eyes of his assailant to temporarily blind him and escape his clutches, but I have now! I guess we just have to thank our lucky stars that the writer didn't think to pay homage to John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" (totally NSFW, and you will probably regret clicking the link for the rest of your life unless you really enjoyed that movie with the 2 girls and 1 cup!) and have someone leave a convenient floater in one of the stalls.

Carr (with the aid of some stunt doubles) certainly distinguishes himself in the action scenes, throwing in a wallrunning flip and somersault kick amongst others. Sadly, the fact that his role is almost entirely dialogue-free means he is left with little to do inbetween other than pull a variety of facial expressions to communicate to the viewer his state of mind. This is all very well and good when all that is required is to stand around and look moody, but there are also times when it just doesn't work. Frankly, it's not an enviable situation for an actor of any standing to find themselves in, but it is the situation he finds himself in with this particular movie. Still, like a porno movie, nobody really watches movies like this for the dialogue. Instead, they watch it to see people get injured and/or killed in a variety of new and inventive ways and in as graphic a manner as is possible, and it is on this front that "Ten Dead Men" happily delivers.


For pure oddity value alone, you've got former "Steps" star Lee Latchford-Evans getting garroted in a car park (could this perhaps be the birth of a new cinematic sub-genre wherein minor celebrities or reality TV show rejects are graphically killed onscreen? Might be quite a lucrative market for this, I think...most people only watched the remake of "House Of Wax" so they could see Paris Hilton get killed, after all), and apparently he had a concert to perform later on in the day with his new band "The Latch". Now that's what I call suffering for your art!

(Incidentally, Lee's former Steps bandmate, the now-brunette Fay Tozer (the really, really fit one) has recently begun to dip her toes into the acting pool with an appearance in Xavier Leret's 'Flidsploitation' epic Kung Fu Flid which is apparently being renamed "Unarmed And Dangerous" for the upcoming DVD release. You can watch the movie in streaming format via Film Lounge, but given that I live out in the sticks and my internet connection is less than stellar, I believe I'll wait for the DVD. Coincidentally, Kung Fu Flid also credits none other than L4D and 10DM's Phil Hobden as a producer...it seems that if arse is getting kicked on a Low-To-No-budget independent feature in the UK, then it's a surefire bet that this man will be involved in some way, shape or form. Or capacity, even, if you prefer.)

Speaking of minor celebrities and the like, the fun doesn't stop there, as Chico Slimani (Yes, that's "Ten Dead Men" star JC Mac as the interviewer...he's also Chico's real-life brother and agent too, apparently!) makes a brief cameo as himself whilst Axel is flipping through the TV channels, as do UK pornstar Mark Sloan and Hungarian saucepot Kat Varga (most certainly NSFW!), doing what pornstars normally do. I know which one I'd rather watch!

Away from the quasi-celebrity cameos, we swiftly move on to a terrific tear-up in garage, where Ryan sets about dispatching multiple assailants as he tries to get to Stone, played by producer Phil Hobden under his stage name of 'PL Hobden'. Credit where credit's due...most of the time, when a producer casts themselves in their own flick, it's usually a starring role as the coolest/baddest MF'er on the block who can easily outfight guys much bigger and better than him, has all the best lines, car, wardrobe, and all the best looking women throwing themselves at him. Thankfully, Hobden steers well clear of this and just gets the crap beaten out of him like everyone else.

Indeed, if there's one overriding complaint I do have with this movie, it's that everybody gets the crap beaten out of them by Ryan, and probably a little bit too easily for my liking. You never get the sense that he's in any real danger of being defeated or that he has bitten off more than he can chew, even when the gang draft in some outside help with prior knowledge of how he operates. Again, the rapidfire succession of fairly short fight scenes does nothing to help dispell this perception, however erroneous it may or may not be. Considering he's already been fairly well worked over from the beating he's been given at the start of the movie, you never get the sense that the injuries are truly starting to take their toll on him as his quest for vengeance progresses.

True, the filmmakers have sought to address this near-invincibility by depicting Ryan constantly popping some form of illicit pills to keep himself going, but rather than having him run out of pills sometime before the end and thus be forced to continue his one man mission and contend with his own mortality/injuries at the same time, he instead runs out at the very end, when there is only one bad guy left and one that is not particularly physically intimidating either. It's another golden opportunity missed to graft on a little sub-plot and add another challenge for the hero to (somehow) overcome.

The standout fight of the film, for me, is Ryan versus Bruiser(Tommy Gerald), which involves the two of them demolishing the interior of a derelict house as they attempt to demolish each other. Gerald also contributes another nice fight in the Cage Rage segment as his character is established as a serious physical threat.

Cecily Fay is criminally underused in her role as a Dominatrix. For a brief moment during Ryan's escape from the torturous designs of the sinister Projects Manager (a suitably detached Keith Eyles), I thought we might see a proper fight between the two of them. Sadly, she is dispatched with a quick flurry of headbutts and that's that. Given her rather unique combination of martial arts skills (including weapons) and gymnastics/acrobatics, I felt a fight between her and Ryan would have been something interesting, especially considering the additional factor of gender disparity. A female opponent would certainly have added a little variety to the proceedings, especially one with the sort of skills that Cecily has.

In her defence, she looks good doing, saying, and wearing next to nothing, but you could have just put any half-decent looking girl in this role and not noticed the difference. To put a skilled martial artist in a martial arts/action movie but not have them actually do any martial arts-related stuff just seems like a massive missed opportunity to me.

Anyway, you can check her showreel out HERE.

Comedic relief (or as near as you're going to get to it in a bleak and ultra violent revenge flick) is provided by the vaguely Kidd and Wint-ish (or is it actually rather a homage to Frank Miller's homage to these selfsame Bond villains in "Sin City", which the filmmakers readily acknowledge as an influence on 10DM?)double act of the cold-eyed and distinctly moddish Garrett (Jason Lee Hyde, who bears a slight facial resemblance to Bruce Glover, thus inviting the comparison further) and JC Mac's somewhat simple-minded Parker, an apparent bastard hybrid of Joe Pasquale and Frank Spencer, but thankfully slightly less irritating than either. Oddly enough, despite looking and acting the less mean of the pair, the hitherto bumbling Parker has a down 'n' dirty and thoroughly spirited (but again, sadly all too brief) little scrap with Ryan, so much so that it almost seems out of character for him. Still, it's better than getting punked out with an exploding (and somewhat homoerotic) wedgie or set alight by flaming kebab skewers, as was the inglorious fate that befell their undoubted cinematic precursors.



To top things off, aside from the numerous hand-to-hand fights, there's also an extremely well done sequence where Ryan launches a full-on armed assault on the gang. Guns, grenades, gasoline...you name it, he uses it. I wasn't crazy about some of the CGI in this sequence, but it's bearable because it's brief. Again, this scene stands out because it's a little longer than the others (and segues into the fights with Jason Maza and Silvio Simac, thus extending it further), and I feel that is perhaps the missing ingredient for most of the action sequences in this film.

If anything, I feel that most of the fights are perhaps just a little too short in places, but this is more than likely a consequence of the fact that there needs to be a lot of them as Ryan has a long list to work his way through. I mean, it took Uma Thurman two whole movies to hack her way through a list half that size (okay, and maybe a few other people in the process), whereas Ryan does twice as much in half as many movies. What there is in terms of action is well done, it just seems to be over far too quickly in most cases.

I believe that it is the fact that the storyline necessitates so many fight scenes which has in turn given rise to the oft-aired complaint that this movie is just one fight scene after another with little much of anything in terms of dialogue, character or plot development sandwiched inbetween. In a film that runs 87 minutes, that's nominally one fight every 8.7minutes, and that's without taking into account that the fights themselves will comprise/eat up some part of those 8.7 minutes themselves. Of course, each character has some form of backstory or brief character sketching which eats further into their allotted time. It's not so much "Hello, Goodbye!", but rather "Hello, DIE!", as we are introduced to character after character only to see them meet a violent end a few short minutes later. There are too many divergent storylines for a film of this length to be able to comfortably handle, and as such it does seem to be somewhat truncated in parts. Personally, I'd have gone with less victims (and by victims I mean those he has to kill...the bodycount on this sucker is a lot bigger than a mere 10) and longer fight sequences, but that's just me.

This surfeit of storylines is probably why the filmmakers decided to use a narrator to drive the plotline forward. Not a bad idea in and of itself, but for my money the narration by Doug Bradley doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with the narrative or his reading of it, it's just that his voice doesn't really 'fit' with the subject matter.

However, putting myself in the producer's shoes for a second, I can see that having a narrative by an actor of international reknown with 'above the title' name value versus having a narrative done by someone whose voice is a more natural fit but is completely unknown is a commercial no-brainer (although unless my ears deceive me, a different narrator is used briefly at the very start of the film). I have no doubt that having Doug Bradley's name attached to the project will have certainly opened a few doors and gained a few more sympathetic ears than an unknown would have. Plus it lends an air of respectability to what is otherwise a very low budget affair.

In short, whilst I don't think the Doug Bradley narrative works for the film in an artistic sense, I have no doubts that the Doug Bradley narrative worked extremely well in a commercial sense.


(Oh, and in case you're wondering, it's done in a normal speaking voice rather than the ominously otherworldly tones you might be more familiar with from the likes of the Hellraiser movies or the introduction from Cradle Of Filth's "Her Ghost In The Fog".)

The other storytelling device used to flesh out the very minimal dialogue (apparently the film was ultimately conceived this way for budgetary reasons) is one of constant flashbacks, signified by the screen whiting out and then fading back in again. Indeed, one could say that the whole movie is a flashback of sorts as when we first find Ryan, he's in the process of killing off his eighth victim.

Director Ross Boyask wears his influences firmly on his sleeve...you've got the Tarantino-inspired "shoot from the boot" (or "trunk" for our Americanese-speaking readers) shot, the "Commando" homage with Ryan gearing up before his attack on the gang, and the Robert Rodriguez trademark "guy walks towards camera as something blows up behind him" shot, amongst numerous others.

The latter was a little disappointing as I didn't think the shot was composed as well as it could be (should have been a little tighter, as in the above photoshopped picture...compare it to this promo and see the difference), and being something of a stickler for good composition, I couldn't help but notice the inconsistency in some of Boyask's shots. When he gets it right, which he does more often than not with shots like Terry Stone looming menacingly in the toilet doorway, it's great. When it goes awry, such as with some of the scenes of Ryan and Amy's domestic bliss, it is so jarringly perfunctory that it looks like someone has spliced in one of the dialogue bits from a feature porn movie into the film. Moody action stuff he can do, kitchen sink (literally) not so much. On the plus side, he's only going to get better with each passing film, and it's not like you're going to be watching a film like this predominantly for the dialogue (of which, as I have said before, there is very little).

Still, these gripes are purely a matter of taste than anything else, and other people might find they disagree with me entirely. Having said that, there are a couple of things in "Ten Dead Men" which I thought could have been done a lot better as they are nothing to do with financial limitations or artistic decisions.

For example, when Keller the bent copper goes to collect Ryan's girlfriend Amy, he rings the doorbell and is greeted with a terse 'Do you have any idea what time it is?'. It's broad daylight, she's fully dressed/made up, and you can hear traffic in the background, which would seem to suggest it is neither ridiculously early in the morning nor unsociably late at night. Had she perhaps came to the door in a nightdress or dressing gown then they might have gotten away with it, but as it is this line simply doesn't make sense.

The dumping of Ryan's body at sea is another problematic sequence. We see the nefarious hoodlums heading out to sea in a powerboat, but the dumping of the body is shot looking towards the shoreline, which clearly shows they are not very far out from the shore and all the buildings and people upon it, plus it's broad daylight too, so they can be easily spotted. Had they simply shot the scene from the other side, looking away from the shore and with the vast and seemingly infinite expanse of ocean behind them, it would have looked a lot more plausible, even in daylight.

These are just two things that I thought could have been easily improved/solved at no extra cost.

Still, in spite of the faults addressed above, I rather liked it. There are plenty of good bits to balance out the bad. Indeed, perhaps the greatest crime the producers are guilty of is trying to cram too much in and reach too far beyond the limitations of their budget. Indeed, the mass of deleted scenes included on the disc
(Parkour Chase, Notting Hill, and Speedboat Drug Deal, for example) tends to suggest that this is indeed the case. Inevitably, when you're trying to do so much different stuff, you end up spreading yourself a little too thin in places, and it begins to show.

Having said that, they certainly can't be faulted for trying to go the extra mile and make their film stand out from the pack. There are a number of interesting locations used in the movie (Greyhound track, demolition derby, live Cage Rage event at Wembley Arena) which add significant production value to this little flick. My personal favourite location would probably be the timber yard where the climactic showdown takes place. It's nothing out of the ordinary, but it does look suitably distinctive.

I feel that ultimately the producers are perhaps victims of their own success when it comes to some of the less complimentary reviews floating around out there, as some people might have be lulled into thinking that it is a bigger budgeted production than it actually is. When you consider the budget and schedule/timeframe this was put together under, you suddenly gain a much deeper appreciation for exactly how good it is in spite of these limitations.

Happily, I can report that the ethos of 'going the extra mile' seems to extend far beyond the feature itself. For a single disc release, it is positively crammed full of extras including a 'Making Of...' documentary, cast and crew interviews, the aforementioned deleted scenes (10 in all!), Cage Rage featurette, two feature-length commentaries (one featuring a slightly more locquacious Brendan Carr), and a 30 page graphic novel (or 'ashcan' for the comic book afficionados reading this) which acts as a prequel to the film itself. Plus all the usual stuff like trailers, etc.

In this age of P2P, torrents, and tube sites, it is heartening to see people actually make the effort to add a little 'purchase incentive' value to their product.

So, this leads us to the most pressing question of all: Is it worth the money?

Well, this is going to be a difficult one to answer as I got mine off of Ebay for the princely sum of £2, postage included, so at that price it's unquestionably a bloody steal. Had I paid £5-6 for it, I wouldn't feel particularly short changed, but there's no way I'd pay the £15-17 that some people on Ebay are asking for it. Then again, I wouldn't pay £18-20 for a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster on DVD either, but that's because I'm tight-fisted! For this movie/package, I'd say anything under a tenner is an absolute steal.

Ultimately, this is one you're going to have to make your own mind up on, and balance out how much you want to see it versus how much you're prepared to pay for it. I believe HMV recently had it for around £4, so it can be had at a very reasonable price if you're prepared to bide your time and wait for it. As I write this, it is available for around £2.50 secondhand at Amazon.co.uk, but you've got to figure in postage and packaging to that particular equation.

Personally, as someone who will always give low budget movies a go, and particularly low budget British movies, I'm rather chuffed with my purchase. At the piffling price I paid for it, I'm sure I could turn it around for a swift and handsome profit, but this one is finding itself a home on my 'keep' shelf. Sure, it has more than a few flaws, but there are also plenty of diamonds in the rough, the action and fight scenes are really well done and I'm definitely going to be making a point to check out whatever they are doing next.

Amazon.co.uk