DVD Review: Vengeance Road

Year: 2014
Director: Ravi Dhar
Screenplay: John Fallon
Starring: Nick Principe, Robin Sydney, Todd Farmer

 
Synopsis is here

 
Vengeance Road (altered from its more confusing U.S title American Muscle) lost a lot of its luster the moment our anti-hero John Falcone bangs his first broad. We're told (on the film's marketing) that Falcone has spent ten years in jail has now has 24 hours to claim his revenge on those who wrong him. The thing is, the film never really bothers with the semantics so if it hadn't been for me double checking the synopsis on the imdb, I wouldn't have had a clue that Mr Falcone had a set time frame. The film seemingly cares little about the details.

As Vengeance Road unfolds, we are handed an unsurprising revenge movie chock full of phoney cgi blood and bullet holes and grisly meat shouldered men who all look like Stone Cold and/or Bill Goldberg. These men are covered in a golden shower of mediocre fucking and fighting that do little to tease anything out of those darker recesses that lay dormant in many a viewer's mind. To the film's credit, it only clocks in a hasty 74 minutes, however, this time could be shorter if you're unable to deal with the screenplays flat dialogue or how these should be wrestlers spew it into the air.

There's very little else I can say about Vengeance Road. Those who are deathly into the neo-Grindhouse may find more in this than myself. However, I found little in this film to recommend. I found Vengeance Road, much like the film itself found it's scantily clad females. Disposable.

Review: Hobo with a shotgun

Year: 2011
Director: Jason Eisener
Screenplay: John Davies, Jason Eisener
Starring: Rutger Hauer

Synopsis is here (as if the film needs it)

Hobo with a shotgun delivers what it says it delivers. To knock the film technically is almost silly and there will be many out there who have not seen any kind of exploitation feature asking themselves; "what kind of screw loose would even try to enjoy a film like this". To them I will say "hey at least it's short."

I liked Hobo for what it was; extremely OTT nonsense, it's shot with knowledge of those gritty shlock features and yet still has a certain amount of flair in the cinematography that defies some of the films it's paying homage to. It isn't a deconstruction like Deathproof, nor is it following the genre as close to the bone as Planet terror, but there's something about it's cartoony madness that works well enough to be although you may want to wash the nihilism of you.

I think one of the main reasons that I like the film is that it almost plays out like an antithesis to films like Harry Brown, a film which celebrates the idea of vigilantism as completely fine and worthy idea. Hobo, like a florescent Taxi Driver depicts the whole situation as the horrid and vile mess it actually is. Nobody gets away clean no matter what your intentions are. I won't lie however by saying my viewing of this reminded me of the films of one Michael Haneke. And yet despite my love for his essays on the west glorifying violence (something many could say this film does at times) the films lead character, his dreams and the outcome still managed to sway me not only as entertaining (the violence is SO out there one can't take seriously) but strangely affecting due to what happens. I won't lie, I knew where the film was going and yet when it reached it's destination I wasn't as disappointed as i would be with many other more mainstream affair. Mostly because it's outcome comes off more as a trope than lazy writing.

That aside I liked the nuttiness of it all; the silly dialogue, the over the top sleaze used to portray the despicable of it all, the wonderfully garish colour scheme that felt right at home with the material and of course, Rutgar Huaers ability to hold a viewers attention with his presence.

I wlll say however, for a film that healthy acknowledges that it's an exploitation flick and is made now in the 21 century, why is it that Hobo with a shotgun couldn't have made it's female lead a stronger one? I'm not looking for role models but Molly Dunsworth's Abby starts off as a streetwise prostitute before decending very quickly into a screaming damsel in distress who can't seem to function with her Hobo hero. Considering that some of the most well known exploitations have very strong female characters (Day of the woman/I spit on your grave, nearly anything Pam Grier was in in the 70's, slasher movies in general) you get the feeling the film missed a trick.

But then again, has it? It's called Hobo with a shotgun, and has a Hobo with a shotgun. He puts it to great use. This isn't the sort of film that gives you a title with a metaphor or has any alterer motive. It does what it says it does. If your arguing about it, you really should have paid closer attention to the title.

Review: Drive Angry

Year: 2011
Director: Patrick Lussier
Screenplay: Patrick Lussier, Todd Farmer
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner

Synopsis is here

Drive Angry is a trashy little exploitation flick that for the most part does exactly what it says on the tin. Sex? Check. Blood and Gore? Check. Nic Cage walking away from an explosion in slow motion? Double check. It's silly, ridiculous and for the most part it's kinda fun in a schlocky sort of way. Don't go looking for "serious" write up of a film like this because it doesn't take itself seriously. Unfortunately despite it's b-movie intentions I'm quite surprised it doesn't go for broke.

The film is about a man named John Milton (geddit?) escaping hell to seek bloody revenge on those who have killed his daughter. So why is it that we have Nic Cage in the lead role not chewing the scenery like a child chomping on taffy? In fact why are we seeing not only Cage but the script itself so restrained? This is a film that need not copy Planet Terror but defiantly needs to get hold of the same energy. Unfortunately this lack of verve (right word to use for a grindhouse pic?) display the films main weakness. This is a film that suffers from too much downtime and not enough lunacy. We can forgive Drive Angry for a patchy narrative if it promises not to be dull. But tell that to the films middle act, which goes nowhere. It's fairly obvious that in the hands of Roger Corman; 15 minutes would have been yanked out of it's 104 minute run time.

We must also add that despite a story which features god guns, breaking out of hell, lunatic priests and the like, why are are the set pieces so uninspiring? Is it because there's TOO much money for something like this? We used to see films like this at your local video store; costing less but having way more nuttiness throughout. Hell, compare this even Hostel and you could be surprised at how little this film does to turn heads. But at least Lussier understands that 3D is best used as a gimmick.

The reason to see this if any it seems is the two performances from Amber Heard and William Fichtner, as they seem to understand that Drive Angry is supposed to be a laugh and get the tone right. Least not Heard who has a character that not only wants to be a strong ass kicking female but also wishes to titillate like an Zoo magazine model. Let's not lie here as most men in the screen will be watching to see how far those hot pants ride up Miss Heard's pert posterior. Heard however manages to be more interesting to watch than Cage just by being up for the role. Fichtner in the meanwhile steals most scenes he's in by not only getting all the best lines, but also having fun with the films most intriguing character.

Driver Angry may gain more fans on DVD and fair play to it. However those who enjoy their grindhouse without a certain amount of gloss may look elsewhere. Just think about that for a minute...grindhouse with gloss...see where the problems lie?