"Unlucky Stars"
Once in the hall (or in the kitchen) directors and stuntmen gathered, about whom they usually say “widely known in narrow circles”: Dennis Ruel ("Rope a Dope", "Barrio Brawler"), Vlad Rimburg, Emanuel Manzares и Sam Hargrave. We got together and decided to film a lively get-together. Dennis Ruel appointed himself in charge, but did not shirk his work. He is both a director, a screenwriter, and an actor.
They told Hargrave: stop running, falling and fighting for Captain America and other Wolverines, play us the main villain, shine your bearded face into the camera not with your back and mask. They told Rimburg: enough for you to lead behind the scenes with an important look, let’s wave your legs and shake your stomach.
They called this whole thing a telling name "Unlucky Stars", marking an obvious tribute to classic Hong Kong action films. But most importantly, this tribute is evident not only in the title, but also in the staging of the fights. Personally, this type of fighting game is much closer to me than, say, aesthetics Adkins, Florentina, Tim Mana and other jumping tattooed guys. Ruel’s fighting game is light, unobtrusive, dynamic and rhythmic, following the canons of the legendary “trinity from the Chinese opera school”, only a little more down-to-earth and without acceleration. Yes, it lacks the seriousness and drama of a taut string, it doesn’t savor anything about rapids, but that’s not where its value lies. The characters in the film are different, each has their own technique, their own style. There is unobtrusive humor (not always funny, though). The plot here is also optional - about two not very “problematic” detectives, in which there is a lot of all sorts of stylizations accompanied by stupid music and a conscious lightness of what is happening, despite the fact that the fights, if you look closely, are quite tough, as was the case with Jackie or Sammo. Under seemingly comedic circumstances, they fought on the screen, but the harshness was very much smoothed out by the context and a minimal amount of blood. Ruel and company do a similar trick: in a light context, dynamic and contact fights with almost complete bloodlessness. Plus, in the on-screen fights there is a minimal amount of clumsy cuts (clumsiness is present in the unexpectedly appearing fighters, whom the hero killed a second ago with a frantic blow), wild shaking angles and failed equipment, although there is a problem in the protractedness of the battles.
It is clear that I do not seriously compare this film with classic examples and do not put it on a par with "Happy Stars" It's not a masterpiece, but it's worth watching. This is a case where a film doesn’t take itself seriously and only benefits from it.
"Die Fighting"
С "Die Fighting" the story is the opposite. Creators Fabien Garcia и Laurent Buson («Merantau») clearly took themselves and the film seriously. It is filled with darkness and drama; there is no trace of a happy ending in the film. He looks richer than "Unlucky Stars" and than many independent films of this genre, but it turned out to be somehow ponderous. The plot of the film is quite banal: deadly collars, a deadly game led by a mysterious big brother... in short, you don't really need to look into it too closely. Fans of on-screen fights will definitely have something to enjoy here, because there are a lot of fights here, both group and one-on-one, frequent and sweeping. But personally, I was not impressed by the film, and the fights, although presentable, are more reminiscent of some kind of tedious ballet. The creators seem to have played with the choreography and the result is choreography for the sake of choreography, in which the heroes often reinvent the wheel in fights, doing batman tandu, arabesques and attitudes inappropriately and inappropriately. Perhaps the film also didn’t grab my attention because the main character turned out to be somewhat dull. Not very charismatic, bad at acting out simple lines. It always seemed to me that the optimal solution for stunt teams would be not to spend money and reserves on a feature film, but to shoot a short film, maybe 30 minutes, but concentrate maximum energy, finances and ideas in it. In general, it is difficult to say which path is correct. In the creative field, there are no win-win mechanisms or recipes. Often guys shoot a full meter right off the bat, which mostly flops and certainly doesn’t pay off. Others film test fights divorced from history, but there are so many of these small fights now that for the viewer - one more, one less, they will still remember, God willing, a couple out of ten. And finally, someone makes short films, more or less successful. In the less successful ones there is nothing more than a formal prologue, a couple of parting words and, again, fights.
We must honestly admit that work in "Die Fighting" quite a lot of work has been done and it cannot be called a completely passable film. It seems to me that such stunt teams need to team up with others and film something together, and not stew in their own juice.
"One million k(l)iks"
“One million k(l)iks” – exclusively for fans Mike Moeller. The feeling of the film is somewhat reminiscent "Die Fighting". I'm not a fan of Meller. He is a good stuntman, he has excellent technique and physical fitness, but everything he does has nothing to do with cinema. Yes, there is a nominal plot, and people are trying to play something, but his films are always plot-integrated showreels, films made by stuntmen for stuntmen. This is all a product made just to show off, they say, there is such a Mike Möller. You don’t sympathize with him either at the beginning or at the end of the film, and after that you completely forget about him. The only interesting character is his Chinese chef-teacher; at least he is somehow different from the rest.
I see how Mike learned new elements and movements in training, and for the sake of this, a new film is being shot to urgently cram all this into it. Definitely, Möller is one of the rounds of evolution in physical form (but not the only round), old-school heroes never dreamed of such tricks. But so far there is nothing behind it except tricks. An action hero is still a complex of factors; it’s not enough to just do trick flips. It is clear that the creators are obvious professionals, but they develop within a certain niche, beyond which they do not go. But still, it’s probably better to shoot than not to shoot. Now it’s clear why the public was hooked at the time «Raid» и "Raid 2". Despite a huge number of shortcomings, they were still made for the public, with a noticeable amount of cinematography, which is sorely lacking in the films with Möller.
"Kamikaze"
"Kamikazde" - this is an example of how a person with Möller's training would act in an action film 30 years ago. Despite the fact that the film is new, it was created on the knees, they spent a little less money on it than the cost of a business lunch at Burger King, and in its naivety and lampposts it resembles the “best examples” of creativity of the 80s and 90s. x, although he is still far from the height of the Nevsky flight.
The main thing that catches your eye is the inconsistency of the main character (stuntman Marcus Shakheff), which moves quite decently, and the shabby surroundings in which all this was filmed. This is a case where the film lacks everything, but has a lot of desire. I am sure that few people will get through it from beginning to end without rewinding, except perhaps the filming participants themselves. It becomes funny from the very beginning, just looking at how the main character drags the system unit under his arm with a heroic face. Well, the pretentious name “Kamikaze” speaks for itself, because people filmed it with all seriousness.
Home » Reviews »
Tags: Die Fighting, Kamikaze, LBP Stunts Chicago, One Million K(l)icks, Unlucky Stars, Vlad Rimburg, Dennis Ruel, Didier Buson, Ken Quitugua, Laurent Buson, Mike Moeller, Marcus Shakheff, Fabien Garcia, Emmanuel Manzanares
Tags: Die Fighting, Kamikaze, LBP Stunts Chicago, One Million K(l)icks, Unlucky Stars, Vlad Rimburg, Dennis Ruel, Didier Buson, Ken Quitugua, Laurent Buson, Mike Moeller, Marcus Shakheff, Fabien Garcia, Emmanuel Manzanares
If we compare these undoubtedly talented guys with Adkins, then, in addition to acting, we should not forget about charisma - a very important quality of any actor. Unfortunately, in this parameter they do not reach Adkins. But the plot in such films is a secondary matter...
Lee,
Despite the fact that Adkins, to put it mildly, is also not the most charismatic action actor.
I view such films solely as an alternative to larger and more commercial films, which are made by professionals as part of the expression of their creative and athletic potentials. I respect people who don’t sit on their ass, but do something. The guys moved from short films to feature films, and well done. It's better to shoot than not to shoot.
I didn’t inflate my ratings before watching; in fact, it was clear from the trailers what kind of films they would be. As a result, both “Unlucky Stars” and “Die Fighting” were to my liking. It is clear that the guys devoted themselves completely to the production of these films. Yes, the shortcomings of these films are obvious and visible to the naked eye, but I got it.
I can’t finish watching Möller’s film. I divided the viewing into two times, but I can’t finish watching the second half. I haven’t seen “Kamikaze”, but I’ll still overcome it. It's interesting.
Danil Chupakhin,
Die Fighting, in my case, was most likely a victim of conflicting expectations. The trailer initially interested me, but while watching the film itself, all the “charm” disappeared. I think creators can do better, even with meager budgets and opportunities.
I agree with Anton, “Die Fighting” and “Unlucky Stars” were not completely mastered. And I only watched “A Million K(l)iks” from beginning to end. But I must say, I watched all three films in English, which I can’t understand very well from hearing. Maybe with Russian voice acting or at least with Russian subs, the impression of the plot would have been different.
But I liked the choreography most, oddly enough, in “Die fighting”. For some reason, looking at Möller’s tricking, with all its technicality and form, is incredibly boring for me. In “Unlucky stars” they paid tribute to the classics, but they just didn’t live up to the classics. But there was something unusual in “Die fighting”. Reminds me of Bangkok Knockout. And I liked this choreography more than Adkins's last films and many other films.
I'll watch Kamikaze.
Oh, and yes, I also agree that Adkins sucks as an actor. Absolutely the same type and the same, eternal Boyka. Möller will be more interesting as an actor.
Wave,
I agree with you that “Die Fighting” is interesting because the choreography in it is different from most. In this sense, yes, it’s not trivial. But perhaps it was precisely in the context of this film that it “didn’t work.” It would be better to place it in a more intelligible context, dilute it with something meaningful and meaningful.
In "Unlucky Stars" there is no particular plot at all, so many people are not very interested in watching it as a film, and that is also why it does not live up to the classics. In terms of choreography, no one can live up to the classics, let alone Ruel and Rimburg.
With Möller, this is an absolutely subjective topic, I just don’t like everything he does so far. There’s not even anything to talk about “Kamikaze”. Surprisingly, I was not bored watching Ruel and Co., and not Garcia and Möller, although it should have been the other way around, because both Garcia and Möller did quite large-scale choreography.
And they are all bad actors so far, and so is Adkins, but IMHO Adkins is of a higher class and craft.
I wouldn’t say that, Adkins is not bad in terms of acting, he didn’t play badly in Boyka 4, but in Hercules one might say he even played well.
Dave,
Adkins is good at getting emotional from time to time. Still, unlike all these guys from the films described, Adkins has an acting school and sufficient experience in filming not only B-class films, but also films of a higher level. Although, of course, Scott is far from a decent actor.
I already wrote earlier in the comments that among the first three films, Million Clicks is the only one that I was able to watch without wasting time. In the first two, the plot is nauseating, but here it is generally simple and even decent in places.
As for the characters, they were unpleasant and unwritten. It’s not interesting to watch two idiots play around and suffer from bullshit. Why would Fabien name his character Fabien? Does he imagine himself to be a maniac? Why create darkness and seriousness if you can’t build a plot and intrigue?
I'm not afraid to say that Möller has at least some semblance of acting, as an actor he is even better than Adkins, who is generally wooden.
I don't understand why he's ranked below Lucky Stars and Die Fighting, it's clearly not really filmed to showcase his skills. It seems to me that Möller is just a modest guy, he knew that he wouldn’t create a masterpiece and that’s why the film turned out to be sincere. He did not puff himself up, unlike Garcia and Ruel, who exude self-confidence and, as a result, watch their films unpleasantly, because they are full of pretentiousness and snobbery.
Anton Clemens,
I would say that Moeller and Garcia are equally bad actors who are disproportionately worse than Adkins.
The plot of all films is nonsense. The first one has a partial lack of plot, just a film of “positions”; the other three films have dull banality in terms of script.
Adkins has one facial expression, Moeller has three facial expressions. Adkins is as tough as a brick all the time, and Meller has as much humor as possible.
There is no plot in Die Fighting, the film is simply divided into three parts, where three uninteresting characters are killed in succession and all end in “intrigue”. In total, we have two films without a plot versus a film with a banal plot, but at least it is there.
By the way, have you heard anything about a sequel?
Anton Clemens,
I'm not writing all this because I love A Million Clicks, not at all, I just hate the first two films.
Unlucky Stars and Die Fighting pissed me off so much that I'm already glad for a banal movie that has a classic story structure, that's how bombed I am.
Seriously, why the hell do all these stuntmen make their own shitty movies? It would be better not to climb at all, let them know their place.
Anton Clemens,
So why? Let them film it. This is at least some kind of competition with the boring action films of Adkins and his comrades. Let them film, make mistakes, stumble, but do it. One day they will come to quality.
Anton Clemens,
History is a character's journey. At the beginning of history, a person starts with something and at the end he comes to something and there are turning points on his way. The character's path does not mean physical movement, but personal movement. This is how all decent books and scripts are written.
Here we see the character of Möller. He acts like an asshole and suffers from loneliness. Even bigger assholes are taking advantage of his position. Then he gets into trouble, his life changes, he finds a mentor and companion. And it was interesting for me to watch such a metamorphosis; there is at least some kind of emotional response here.
What do we see in the rest of the films? It’s an indistinct dregs that begins in no way and ends with nothing, well, you just can’t immerse yourself in the story, it’s not interesting to watch the characters, there’s no excitement for their fate.
I'm not comparing a masterpiece and two pieces of shit. I’m comparing two pieces of shit that were shot absolutely poorly, not only in terms of script, but even technically, and an ordinary film that formally follows the laws of storytelling, which is why it looks advantageous against their background.