michael0859 The beginning of this movie was fashioned after a popular online video game. I don't play it so can't comment but the dialog does a good job with introducing the characters and how they view their jobs. And I like that final shot of the opening sequence where he shoots the bad guy in the heart but has to shoot through his bosses shoulder to get at it. I think it reveals another side of his character that would not have been evident in the movie otherwise.And in response to whether or not Tom Wrights ad lib should have been cut out? I liked it and thought it was a good addition.As for the rest of the movie? It would be my life's dream just to produce something half this good.

winner55 When his career began, Lou Diamond Phillips promised so much as an actor, that I have continued to see his films hoping that this promise would be fulfilled. But, while Phillips' acting is as good as ever, he has just made one bad film after another, so, until he or his agent learn what to look for in a script, I'm afraid "Striking Range" is the last time I'll be seeing Phillips for a while.This is an action film, and the actions scenes are OK. But the script really reeks. line by line the dialog is OK, but the story is a real mess. The idea of tossing a psycho-killer into the mix of a conflict between two mercenary groups might have seemed good on paper, but it's a bad strategy: psycho-killers have to be explained at some point in a film, because otherwise their motivations come off as silly. I know that sounds bizarre, but what I mean is that the explanation helps the audience suspend their disbelief in why anybody would want to kill people simply because they work at some office or attend some school or stopped at the wrong restaurant for dinner. This disbelief is essential to our sense of morality - it is why the violence of real psycho-killers, like the Columbine boys, is so horrifying and why we take such strong measures to counter it: we simply cannot believe anyone could be that vile.Since the writer of this film has left himself little time to develop the psycho-killer aspect of the plot, he has to resort to cheap tricks, stereotypes, and cliché to make the whole thing work somehow. The psycho-killer comes across as a parody.Meanwhile a plot twist seems to resolve the mercenary conflict - except that it doesn't, it's so wholly unprepared and obviously artificial. We want clues to this sort of thing, so we can look back on the film to say "I should have seen that coming," but we can't do this here, no one could have seen it coming, it doesn't make sense.And what is the thematic connection between the mercenary conflicts and the psycho-killer's? Even Sigmund Freud couldn't tell you; I don't think there is any.the writer here needs psychoanalysis for coming up with this hodgepodge, and Phillips needs it to try to figure out how he could throw away his mature career on such hooey.Four stars for the action scenes, the rest gets - blah!

wrlang Striking Range is a class C shoot em up film about a business man who creates a destructive ray gun that can revolutionize military combat. He needs more money than his backers are willing to give him and that sets off a fight to save the crooked business man from his angry backers as they try and steal the technology and kill the business man. A special force is called in to protect the business man but someone from the inside is helping the bad guys out. The business man's whacked out son adds some interesting twists, but is not carried off well in th acting department. This intrigue is readable from square one and leaves little to the imagination. The action is OK, but everything else is low quality. The relationship between the two stars is carried off in a pitiful manner by the directing. The actors are pretty experienced, so I don't feel comfortable assigning blame to them.

jnor "Striking Range" has been a film I have been following for quite sometime- This usually works as a disadvantage because after so long I get let down with the end result. When the first seven minutes of the film was released on youtube I became very skeptical of the film. From the shaky camera work to the dialog I was like -"WTF"? It isn't surprising many people shared my opinion.However the movie came out and I went ahead and rented it. sat through those seven minutes again and Im very glad I did because what follows is a very good film. The acting improved vastly as did the action and suspense. It was all quite interesting.There are flaws of course- but knowing the budget and work that went into this ( via Internet and Indie Slate.) they are very easy to over look. My main issue was the purpose of one central character and while it does lend to one of the morals of the film ,it does kinda throw the viewer a bit off focus.There's a lot good though- The moral of the story for one- ideals , agendas and power- what that can do to someone even if its not your own. The acting was Super. Honestly I have never really paid attention to Lou other than a brief TV series he did a while back...which was so-so. But he is very good as Vash. Another stand out is Glen Moreshower from 24-very good and Of course Yancy Butler great as always.But seriously this film was low budget and you can't even really tell especially when you compare it with fims with a trillion dollar budget (you would be surprised.) that look very shoe string. this is high quality. and while it isn't the best thing ever it is waaaayyyy better than its current ranking.