The progression of events goes something like this:
1) I heard there was going to be a Road House 2. Result: Smile on my face.
2) I heard it was going to be direct to video. Result: Frown on my face
3) I heard Rod House 2 was NOT going to have Patrick Swayze in it. Result: I never gave Road House 2 another thought.
Personally I’ve yet to see a decent direct to video film (except perhaps Starship Troopers 2… which was dumb as hell but mildly entertianing). They usually go direct to video for a reason. But hld on a sec… one reviewer over at AICN is saying Road House 2 isn’t half bad… for a Direct to Video flick that is. Here’s some of what he had to say:
“But believe me, I’ve watched alot of terrible DTV sequels and I was amazed at how much this captured the unique ROAD HOUSE feel. I didn’t even know it was possible.”
There are many reasons why this is a worthwhile DTV sequel. Number one, it’s full of action. “Intense, Nonstop Action is on Tap!” says the back cover. There’s alot more fighting in this one than you get in modern Seagal movies, or even some of Van Damme’s, which is especially impressive since you’re actually watching a ROAD HOUSE picture more for the dialogue than the action. You get alot of punching, alot of bashing heads into things, some flying stools, an occasional unnecessary flip or exploding car.
So there you have it. Take it for what it’s worth. Perhaps I’ll wander over to the old Blockbuster and grab this one when it comes out on July 11th. But perhaps I’ll change my mind before then too. Who knows. I just can’t wait to get Doug’s impressions of this.
I kinda want to see the new Van Damme movie. I’m a closet fan. Sober, it’s unwatchable, but drunk? It’s absolutely unmissable.
To clarify, the above (Seagal, Van Damme) I aim at AICN (oddly, they DID like JCVD’s latest flick, ‘Second In Command), the second , ‘direct to video for a reason’ to John.
“There’s alot more fighting in this one than you get in modern Seagal movies, or even some of Van Damme’s”
Give a little more credit to Van Damme. At least he isn’t into himself and looks like something the cat leaves at the doorstep.
“Personally I’ve yet to see a decent direct to video film…direct to video for a reason”
Wrong. One of THREE reasons.
1) The film bypasses theatres because it is horrible. That’s your point.
But keep in mind that even Uwe Boll’s contributions go theatrical, for whatever unknown reasoon.
Now the other two:
2) It was intended to go DTV, such as Starship Troopers 2 and endless Disney “sequel” films.
3) The film in question might play overeas, in Canada, or at film festivals, but when it comes to US distributors, sometimes they feel there is no audience for the picture. Such as the horror film ‘Dog Soldiers’. Or ‘Cube’. Or the wonderfully acted “Ripley’s Game”.
But I will give you this: I am disappointed in most low budget B movie fare. It’s not like the 80’s or 90’s. NOBODY it seems knows how to make a down and dirty and ambitiious exploitation picture anymore. ‘Troopers’ came close- but I notice that when the films are helmed by FX wizards they have a cesspool of buddies and the FX, even on tight budgets, look fairly decent.