11/04/2013

An Eye For an Eye (1981)

An Eye For an Eye (1981)-* *1\2

Directed by: Steve Carver

Starring: Chuck Norris, Richard Roundtree, Christopher Lee, Professor Toru Tanaka, and Mako










Sean Kane (Chuck) is the best undercover narcotics cop in the San Francisco police department. During what he initially believes to be a standard bust, his partner is killed. His classic BYC (Black Yelling Chief) Capt. Stevens (Roundtree) yells at him for a while about his rogue ways, and, without even being asked in the traditional fashion, Kane turns in his badge and gun. But the threat is far bigger than he originally believes, as a reporter, Linda Chan (Chao) is murdered. 

So Kane teams up with his buddy James Chan (Mako) and the two men work together to get justice, results, or some reasonable combination of the two. But it’s not going to be easy, as dapper baddie Morgan Canfield (Lee) is a powerful man with connections, and his right-hand man has some massive right hands, because it’s Professor Toru Tanaka playing, as if he could play anything else, The Professor. So Kane and Chan have their work cut out for them, but even in the face of insurmountable odds, Kane never loses his cool, or doubts the fact that “he’s a human weapon!” Will an eye be taken for an eye? Find out today...



An Eye for an Eye is generally what people think of when discussing early-80’s Chuck: it’s a little slow, a little dull, but it’s steady, solid, and gets the job done. Perhaps the filmmakers didn’t trust Chuck alone at this early period in his career, so they loaded the movie up with action fan favorites: Mako, Professor Toru Tanaka, Roundtree, and of course Christopher Lee. 

Unfortunately, the fight between Mako and Tanaka left a bit to be desired, and Lee doesn’t show up until 43 minutes in. He should have been more murderous and sinister. But he does his usual professional job, and his mustache and pipe make him seem so sophisticated. Amazingly, in the same year, 1981, Lee starred opposite none other than Eddie Deezen in another San Francisco-set movie, Desperate Moves (1981). We don’t know which was filmed first, but to go from Eddie Deezen to Chuck Norris, or vice versa, is enough to make your head spin.



This was the phase of Chuck’s career where he had a blonde mop-top and no facial hair. He might be the only man of action to make the sweater-with-a-collared-shirt look seem intimidating. An Eye for an Eye follows the formula of “Chuck chasing a hulking brute who’s going around murdering people” template later used for Silent Rage (1982) and Hero and the Terror (1988). 

While Mako makes a great sidekick, and there are some excellent moves displayed in the fight scenes, there’s no conceivable reason why this needed to be 104 minutes. It should have been 90 at most. But then again, this was before ADD had come along and ruined people’s attention spans.

That’s just the thing: as we talked about in our Hero and the Terror review, we’re not against slow paces necessarily, but take a comparable action star of the day like Arnie. His personality, accent and charisma can help viewers power through the boring parts. Chuck doesn’t have those tools at his disposal. 

His co-stars ended up falling into some similar ruts: Roundtree ended up playing BYC’s again, most notably in A Time to Die (1991). Director Carver apparently had no problem with Chuck’s shortcomings and went on to work with him again with Lone Wolf McQuade (1983). From there he did Bulletproof (1988) with Gary Busey and Danny Trejo, and River of Death (1989) with Dudikoff. So his resume of video-store action speaks for itself. Finally, it should be noted that fan favorite Richard Norton is listed as a stuntman, but doesn’t appear in the movie, unfortunately.

An Eye for an Eye certainly has its moments, but there’s some dullness surrounding them, which is a common problem for Chuck movies. Don’t hesitate to see it, just be prepared for that.

Comeuppance Review by: Ty and Brett

11/01/2013

Good Guys Wear Black (1978)

Good Guys Wear Black (1978)-* *

Directed by: Ted Post

Starring: Chuck Norris and Anne Archer












John T. Booker (Chuck) is a former Vietnam commando who has blown up his fair share of huts and guard towers when in his prime. Five years after the end of the war, he’s living a peaceful life as a teacher and race car enthusiast in Riverside, California. There’s even a romance brewing with journalist Margaret (Archer), and all seems well. That is, until members of his former unit start being assassinated one by one. This sends John T. Booker on a quest to find out the truth behind the ruthless murders. He just may find that it’s a conspiracy that goes - you guessed it - all the way to the top. Will good guys wear black, or will good guys be DEAD? Find out today…

Good Guys Wear Black is a pretty early Chuck movie, and has an old-fashioned, staid vibe to it more suited to the TV movies of the day. We found it boring, talky, and it looks its age, and not in a good way. There isn’t even any Martial Arts until an HOUR into the movie. All that being said, there is a standout action setpiece around that point.

Chuck is a guy you can’t help but like, and, despite the annoyingly minimal character development (what else is new in the world of Chuck), his mustache is looking especially walrus-y this time around. Plus the opening credits sequence sets things up to be a lot cooler than what follows, with snazzy 70’s-era computer graphics and nice music. But then it goes into a ‘Nam sequence the viewer has trouble seeing, and interest starts to slip. From there it goes to some government yakety-yak, and interest slips even more. If not for Chuck’s superstache, this first half would have been a total waste.



Interestingly, though, Seagal ripped off Chuck once again - Chuck was first when playing the silent-but-intellectual professor, decades before “Professor Robert Burns”. Another thing going against the movie is the unusually fuzzy presentation from Vestron. This seems to be a rare lapse for the normally fine company. The visuals are dull and washed out. Maybe other presentations on other formats are better, we’re not sure. If you have another version, write in to let us know. But it all kind of cumulatively adds up against the viewer’s enjoyment. It made us aloof to most of the proceedings, and the slow, overlong nature of it all certainly didn’t help either.

We really wanted to like the movie more, and all it had to do was have Chuck fight more people, and have more scenes like the big action setpiece in the middle. That’s ALL it had to do to win us over. But no, there was too much mush clogging things up. So it’s all very middle-of-the-road, as way too many Chuck movies are, as things didn’t start to pick up for him until later in his career.

Comeuppance Review by: Brett and Ty

Also check out a write-up by our buddy, The Video Vacuum!