"Simplicity is not always worse than theft"- this thought came to me after watching the last film with Scott Adkins"Liquidators"(Eliminators). Compared to the endlessly dull"Hard Target 2“This unambiguous and simple as three kopecks “bashka” left quite pleasant emotions. There is, of course, a nuance - the film is exclusively for connoisseurs of action films, while aesthetes and lovers of “high” cinema will cringe already at the stage of reading the synopsis. But the viewer who will enjoy I watched movies with Olivier Gruner и Gary Daniels (and with Don Wilson it happened that there...) and is not used to pursing his lips like a chicken butt and rolling his eyes at the phrase “DTV action movie”, he will very likely receive a certain nostalgic pleasure from the film.
Yes, the plot is simple, if not primitive. Yes, the sins are constant"pianos in the bushes"Yes, Adkins' hero has a daughter, which means that we won't see Yuri Boyko(uh?) here. In general, the very presence of a family for an action hero is like damned armor in a role-playing game; it immediately lowers certain characteristics. -15 to brutality, or even -10 to charisma. On the other hand, the character needs motivation, and saving only his own skin seems to be unworthy, because even cockroaches have a habit of fighting for their lives. The villain in the performance here serves as a compensation for Adkins’ lack of toughness. wrestler Stu Bennett (aka Wade Barrett) - the same film from WWE Studios. Bennett's hero is a mercenary formerly trained in MI6, Bishop. This guy, whose face vaguely resembles a French actor Dani Buna, and with the dimensions of a closet, the whole film definitely pleases with both negative charisma and completely adequate behavior. It must be said that here comes a successful fit into the image and the right choice of “profession”. As they say, Schwartz doesn’t need to play Hamlet, he would need a machine gun in his mighty hands and a couple of memorable touches like a sidelong ironic glance and “I’ll be back.” The same applies to our Stu: a hired killer, and even more so trained in the foreign intelligence service, must be a cold-blooded and self-possessed person, therefore Bennett does not need to constantly try to “play” something there, or rather, as often happens, desperately making faces in an attempt to portray a scoundrel. Bishop's arsenal of non-verbal influence includes a piercing cold gaze and occasionally an evil grin, and all this is complemented by an arsenal of physical influence: fists the size of a good Kyrgyz melon and a rather sickly set of firearms. Our mercenary also behaves very decently, and not like the stereotypical “dumb jock” in the spirit of the characters Nathan Jones or, holy holy, the clown and degenerate Romeo performed by Bill Goldberg from the second "Unisola". He acts calmly when necessary, and sometimes with cheerful pressure, skillfully provokes, competently adapts to rapidly changing circumstances and invents various tricks on the fly. The only thing that confused me: I don’t know, of course, what the selection criteria are for MI6, but in my layman’s opinion, an intelligence officer should be able to be invisible and blend in with the crowd, and Bishop, with his heroic physique and two-meter height, clearly finds it difficult to do this. I just imagined Nikolai Valuev in the role of Stirlitz and choked on tea. Okay, why am I quibbling...
As for the action, it can be described as "vigorous". However, what personally invariably infuriates me in modern action films is the abundance of graphic shooting. Moreover, in “Liquidators” it looks somehow strange: in one moment blank cartridges are used, and in the next frame you see another wretched computer effect of the flash from a shot. Well, what the hell is stopping you from using normal pyrotechnics all the time, like in the good old 80s and 90s? However, the filming is still quite dynamic and does not cause rejection. And, of course, let's talk about fights. Unfortunately, there are not enough of them, but they are well staged and not disfigured by vile editing, like the same Hard Target 2. The battle of opponents of different weight categories is shown quite well, when Adkins’ hero is forced to spin like a frying pan in a fight with the much larger “James” Bond on steroids." However (and this is also a plus in the piggy bank Stu Bennett, whom I think I'm already overpraising), Bishop doesn't look slow or clumsy, as big guys are sometimes portrayed in movies, like "strong but slow", and demonstrates good technique and sharp, swift blows. Unlike, for example, Steve Austin. Of course, I loved old Stevie when I watched wrestling in the seventh grade, but in the films he, distributing slaps in the style of a “drunk collective farmer at a disco,” looks, alas, not so impressive.
What do we end up with? Yes, in general, nothing special, a good cheap DTV product in the spirit of the 90s, with an ordinary plot, but watchable and relaxed, just right for fans of the genre to while away the evening. To be honest, I'm surprised by the large number of negative reviews on imdb. What did people expect from a film like this? It’s the same as hating seafood, but for some reason you go to eat at a seafood restaurant, and then start rolling a barrel at the chef... It’s extremely strange. And further, Stu Bennett - good roles, too cool, the devil.
Author: TonychTG
Especially for FIGHT-FILMS.INFO
Home » Reviews » Author's reviews »
Tags: Eliminators, James Nunn, Scott Adkins, Stu Bennett
Tags: Eliminators, James Nunn, Scott Adkins, Stu Bennett
This is a flaw in the b-action genre.
Danil Chupakhin,
This is a flaw in almost all modern action films, regardless of the budget.
A normal action movie with Scott. No better, no worse.
After “TM2” it’s a real outlet, of course, but it doesn’t reach the same level as “Ninja”.
It seemed the same choreographer, and the cameraman was not crooked. But the action is twice as big
less than in "Ninja 2", as a result the film sags.
The script and dialogues are boring, people die during the film,
but you don’t feel anything for them. This is a flaw in the script.
Although I respect James Nunn as a director, he doesn’t get along well with screenwriters:
either there are far-fetched twists in the plot, or there simply aren’t enough interesting dialogues to make the characters “come to life” and not be cardboard cutouts.
Having a family for the main character gives a plus of one hundred million to all parameters in only one case - if it’s 2008, your daughter was kidnapped in Paris, and you just acquired a lot of skills in your life that made you a nightmare for such bastards.
I will find you and I will kill you
Well, you get the point.
Dark Samurai, ))) It’s a pity that the sequels added another hundred million to the idiocy of the script and the epilepsy of the operator.
DIV,
I agree, wrestling techniques are really well integrated into the picture of the fight, I should have mentioned it in the review. In general, here are some of the most decent fights in films from WWE Studios, in my opinion.
The film actually turned out to be quite good for a B-action film. And despite the fact that the fight between Stu and Scott took third place in the “Best Screen Fight” category, I have to admit that the fight director perfectly integrated wrestling techniques into Adkins’ style. They don't seem foreign, as in many other films where wrestlers played fighting roles.
Frankly speaking, I only saw the fight from this film, which was put up in the vote for the best screen fight. And to be honest, she didn't really impress me. Yes, she is believable, adequate, but quite nothing.
I liked the fight between Tony Jaa and Dolph Lungren in “Slave Trade” much more of a similar plan. And there’s Tony against Misha Bely...
We are not talking about the fact that this is some kind of master class, a standard good level. But, in my opinion, nowadays there is such an acute shortage of action films with somewhat acceptable fights, that without fish... And in “Slave Trade” Tony Jaa is, compared to Lundgren, VERY small). And those two fights, with Dolph and White, in my opinion, are the only advantages of the film.
That's why it's funny. From the first viewing of that fight, it gave the impression of a fight between a monkey and a gorilla: neither the monkey can kill the gorilla, it doesn’t have enough mass, nor the gorilla the monkey - it doesn’t have enough speed, it can’t catch it.
Wave,
It was the same in The Expendables with Jet Li. You just have to watch it in the re-version, because the editing in the original is worse.
With an initiative!