Director Report Card: Destin Daniel Cretton (2026)

 

7. Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Getting to direct a "Spider-Man" movie must be a real double-edged sword by this point. He's one of those superheroes that nearly everybody has strong feelings about. Thousands more kids grew up watching the cartoons and movies or playing the video games or with the toys than those that ever bothered to read a comic book. You're going to be judged and scrutinized by hardcore nerds and filthy casuals with spider symbol decals on their cars. At the same time, a film actually about Spider-Man – and not one of his villains or a blind lady he talked to a few times – is guaranteed to be a massive success. Also to consider is that the Marvel Cinematic Universe house style is so ingrained at this point that it's unlikely to make any filmmaker a household name. I'm sure Jon Watts and Marc Webb have done just fine for themselves. However, their stints with the web crawler did little to raise their profiles beyond earning the scorn of hyper-online nerds. These types of gigs are surely beneficial to the directors' bank accounts at the cost of any public artistic identity.

So you're Destin Daniel Cretton. You've directed some well regarded indies and two Oscar Bait dramas that didn't win Oscars. Marvel scoops you up to direct a project conceived during the period when every movie they were making, no matter how obscure the source character was, became a huge success... But the movie releases after the pandemic, when the air is fast running out of that balloon. I thought "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings" was among the best of the studio's post-"Endgame" slate and it did okay at the box office. Nevertheless, a prospective sequel and spin-off series got lost in the corporate shuffle to re-right the ship and your leading man said some kind of weird shit online. You're going to direct the next "Avengers" movie but then you aren't, because that project's leading man got real-deal canceled and took the entire planned direction for the franchise with him. Your prestige mini-series about Japanese-American soldiers in World War II is slow to develop and another Marvel TV project – the shrinking number of people still watching those like it – is the only thing you've actually directed in the last four years. Your Disney corporate overlords offer you the next "Spider-Man," maybe to make up for the "Avengers" fiasco. Do you take the job? Of course, you do. "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" has opened to predictably enormous box office, so I'm betting Cretton is feeling fine about all this. But what of the film itself? Let us investigate further. 

Despite taking its subtitle from a controversial comic story line, "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" is not set in the aftermath of a deal with the devil and Aunt May is still dead. Instead, the new status quo established by "No Way Home's" ending has Peter Parker forgotten by all his friends and loved ones. He has focused his life entirely on being Spider-Man. While this has made the web head New York City's most beloved hero, it's left Peter feeling isolated. His spider powers begin to develop in strange ways, his body producing organic webbing and Peter going into rage fueled black-outs where he acts dangerously. Soon, a new threat emerges: A psychic presence that can inhabit any body and seems determined to break into the Department of Damage Control. This new villain directly targets MJ, who Peter still loves but who no longer remembers him. The Spider-Man is going to have to learn to control his new powers, consider the cost of reconnecting with those who have forgotten him, and unravel the true motive behind this enemy all at once.

Filmmakers keep saying they have a desire to make a "street level" Spider-Man movie. While the character is certainly involved in universe reshuffling shenanigans regularly, most of his villains are of more humble ambitions than world dominance. Of course, every superhero movie has to be an event now, meaning the last several appearance of the character have been crossovers or globe-trotting adventures. At various points in development, it was promised that "Brand New Day" would finally refocus on the neighborhood part of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. And for about a half-hour in the first half, it actually is that. There's a highly energetic montage devoted to showing encounters with a series of B-list villains, each one patterned directly after a classic cover. This is part of a longer first act, in which Spidey is directly in contact with the chief of police and simply stopping whatever petty super-crime comes along. Even after the mind swapping threat appears to centralize the story, this more casual energy remains for a while. This is, in fact, the pace and tone I've always wanted from a Spider-Man movie. Aside from the thrill of seeing, say, Tombstone on-screen, a Spidey who is always swinging in and out of other adventures works great for me. 

Of course, this is not meant to last for the entire runtime. Each of the MCU Spider-Man movies have been reluctant to let the character stand alone, bringing Iron Man, Nick Fury, or Doctor Strange into the plot. You would think that, of all of Marvel's characters, literally their most popular would be able to stand alone. Whether this is a result of the Byzantine contractual obligations between Disney and Sony that make these movies possible or simply a desire to establish this Spidey as thoroughly part of the cinematic universe, that trend continues in “Brand New Day.” The Punisher appears early in the run time and reoccurs throughout. Dr. Bruce Banner gets a conversation with Peter before his green, angry alter ego is spotlighted in a later action sequence. The mysterious antagonist of the film turns out to be exactly who everyone has speculated they would be, another very well-known  Marvel character re-debuting on-screen. The superhero supporting cast is so prominent throughout “Brand New Day” that it might as well have been called “Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends” or “Marvel Team-Up Featuring Spider-Man.”

The stated goal of wanting to be a lower stakes story simply about the web-slinger, his civilian buddies and love interest, obviously conflicts with high-profile characters showing up. It also creates another tiring feeling, of sitting through a big budget superhero flick that is merely an extended preview of another big budget superhero flick that Marvel Studios' brain trust is presumably hard at work on. Can we not just enjoy a story by itself? Must every tights-wearing motion picture be a part of a massive web of crossovers and brand synergy? Ya know, Peter Parker swinging over to a college campus and getting some advice from Dr. Banner is one thing. That would be a fairly standard event in the pages of the comics. However, here this scene merely proceeds a showdown with the Hulk later on. Devoting the primary villain role to another hotly anticipated character is a more questionable decision, tying Spider-Man to a character he's not that associated with and promising more adventures – more corporate product we must consume – down the line. 

Of all the guest stars, the Punisher is one that gives me the most pause. The blood thirsty vigilante first appeared as a Spider-Man adversary, of course. I've not read every appearance the two characters have made together. I'm sure, at one point or another, they interacted in a more cooperative manner. However, it still feels a little weird to have Spider-Man bantering with a character that has been acknowledged in-universe to be essentially a mass murderer. Jon Bernthal and Tom Holland have some decently amusing chemistry. The contrast between the younger hero's irrelevant style and Frank Castle's gruffness is worth a laugh or two but, by the end, we are meant to have genuinely warm feelings about their relationship. Which feels like a kind of weird thing to do with such a hard-boiled character. The script never quite acknowledges that the Friendly Neighborhood hero is being all buddy-buddy with a brutal killer throughout, one presumably wanted in connection with hundreds of homicides. Perhaps I am simply too much of a nerd to overlook the disconnect here and the average theater-goer will be less bothered by this. 

That “Brand New Day” is so preoccupied with slightly distracting crossovers is all the more frustrating as the premise has an intriguing question behind it. Peter Parker has always been pulled between the duty he feels as a superhero and his devotion to his friends and family. In this film, he's essentially chosen his crime fighting over his love life, in an attempt to keep them safe from the consequences of being connected to Spider-Man. All he can do is watch from afar as his best friend and the girl he loves both easily move on without him. This addresses an anxiety perhaps all of us have felt: How vital are we to other people's lives? If we disappeared suddenly, would the people so important to us find us equally important to them? The push-and-pull between wanting those we love to be happy and move on and what value this assigns to our own existence strikes me as an extremely Spider-Man-like emotion to explore. 

This idea takes center stage in the film's middle section, when the focus turns to Peter and MJ's relationship. Tom Holland and Zendaya continue to have strong chemistry, making these moments even more compelling. The script, at first, seems like its sticking to its guns and isn't going to magically undo past events. The blank slate is indeed blank. Obviously, this is the emotional backbone of the entire movie. Frustratingly, that relationship is entirely sidelined during the actual climax, which basically removes MJ from the story all together. Instead, the script repeatedly focuses in on a much less compelling idea, asking Peter if he truly has to do this all by himself. This moves towards a more generalized struggle against grief and finding the strength to go on after such a loss. This is a much less interesting idea, that never quite squares with the story actually being told here and ultimately feels like a somewhat desperate attempt to connect Peter's story with that of the antagonist's. 

Another common enough Spider-Man trope is Parker's personal anxieties effecting his ability to fight crime. “Brand New Days” draws a little from storylines in which his spider side mutates further, this time as a manifestation over his fears of losing MJ for good. The sequel stops short of having Peter sprout extra arms or turn into a full-on human/spider hybrid. Instead, he merely wakes up in his own webs at one point and develops fully black sclera. This is disappointing in its own right, as it feels like this subplot never quite pays off. Further more, the way this is ultimately resolved really (excuse the pun) bug me. Spider-Man continues to struggle with a fear that he's losing control of his own abilities up until a pivotal moment where... He closes his eyes, thinks about it real hard, and seizes control. At which point, he suddenly has access to a whole new plethora of superpowers that give him the boost needed in a big fight scene. This, to me, feels like video game logic infecting Hollywood screenwriting. Peter Parker levels up, simply by progressing through events, and can now control that which he previously couldn't. It does not feel earned, like a proper pay-off to the hero's development, and simply has him being able to do these now because it's that time in the story. 

Writing like this, distressingly becoming more common in big budget cinema of late, undersells the idea that the story's deeper themes mean anything. How can we accept “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” as an actual reflection on grappling with loss, trying to stone-wall our personal pain, or anxieties that our loved ones will be fine without us if it all wraps up with some shonen fighting anime style power-up? That points towards a problem all blockbuster cinema has, in our increasingly corporate age. The last third of “Brand New Day” sees all of New York City rallying around their local hero, cheering for him to make a brave recovery. There's a lengthy montage of the character's distinctive red and blue web pattern appearing in all sorts of public contexts. At this point, the question becomes if the sequel isn't much more than a self-indulgent act of corporate self-promotion. Look upon this hyper-valuble I.P., mere mortal movie goers, and think about how much you love Product. Is the film's script built upon the nostalgic, emotional connection the audience has to the “brand” itself and not to the story its telling? 

It's entirely possible I'm overthinking this. That I've gotten too old and cranky to simply embrace a special effects driven spectacle for its own sake. Maybe my brain is too full of worries about corporate waste as the world faces down threats much more important than costumed villains. Popular films are ostensibly a reflection of the world they are made in. There are hints throughout “Brand New Day” of how fucked-up shit has gotten in America. A scene where a character is abducted off the street by black-clad government agents, shoved into a van, and un-person-ed in broad daylight is a (possibly questionable) reflection of ICE raids and anti-fascist protesters getting dragged off. The story bends towards an easily guessed twist, that the agencies we have designated with protecting us might be more interested in consolidating their own power instead. Of course, these ideas are never seriously confronted. As in past Marvel movies, the abuses of power by the government are dismissed as the acts of bad apples. Spider-Man stops the bad guy and they get arrested by the cops. He doesn't dismantle the architecture of systematic repression and control. Such short-falls are to be expected but it represents the film's unwillingness to actually make us care, to invest its world with the proper amount of reality. 

Which points towards another problem I have with “Brand New Day,” one that necessitates I enter Extremely Obvious Spoilers territory to address: Why is Jean Grey the bad guy in a Spider-Man movie? From the minute up-and-coming redhead actress Sadie Sink was cast in an undisclosed part, fans assumed she was playing the future X-Woman. The script reveals this is the case about half-way through, as if the filmmakers are admitting how obvious this would-be twist must be. While Miss Grey has been possessed by genocidal cosmic consciousnesses from time to time, she's not typically a villain. A viewer with a basic measure of comic book knowledge can anticipate that she's acting this way for a good reason. While the origins we're familiar with have been rearranged, it still presents an underwhelming reveal about what is really going on.

Sink is fine in the role. Her big blue eyes can convey a degree of pain and emotion that suits what her character is going through. I'm sure she'll do fine in the surely forthcoming “X-Men” movie Disney is working on right now. Occasionally, “Brand New Day” utilizes its telepathic villain for some exciting sequence. People rag-dolling for a second as another mind takes over their bodies is inconsistently portrayed, usually being used as visual shorthand to show us who is under Grey's control at that moment. (Which does remove some of what is supposed to make her powers frightening, the idea that this threat can be anyone at any moment.) However, the sequence where Peter has to outrun the body-hopping possessive entity across the streets of New York is well-done. It's certainly better than the CGI infused finale, that turns this into a city-wide threat with lots of explosive special effects also depended on the idea of a character suddenly gaining control over new powers. Again, I'm just left wondering why these events are being focused on over elements of the story that obviously mean a lot more to these characters and everything that came before. 

The answer to that question is obvious: Because it's a Marvel movie. Getting a soratonin spike out of the audience simply by putting a familiar name or face on-screen is what these films have increasingly been designed to do. It's frustrating because, occasionally, “Brand New Day” does prove to be compelling blockbuster film making in its own right. A highlight of Cretton's “Shang-Chi” were action scenes that balanced acrobatic martial arts with the expected CGI spectacle more often. There's some of that in Cretton's “Spider-Man” as well. Not only when Peter is swinging through the city or tossing webbing around to capture opponents. During several clever spots, the point-of-view itself inverts and swings around the action, truly putting the viewer in the center of this thrill ride. When battling a group of acrobatic ninjas or a free-fall struggle with the Hulk, I was able to get caught up in this. If I'm being especially generous, “Brand New Day” is better than most comic book adaptations of putting the visual dynamism of the four-color medium in motion on the big screen. If I'm being more honest with myself, these moments represents brief surprises in-between a lot of far less memorable lighting, blocking, and cinematography. 

And that brings me back around to the question of Destin Daniel Cretton's authorial fingerprint. I'm sad to say that you don't see much of his personality coming through the film. Learning how to square away personal trauma and continue on with your life is certainly a present theme in the film, as it was in his “Wonder Man' series as well. However, like I said, that often takes a back seat to the bombast. Cretton's other pet themes, of daddy issues and cultural integration, simply aren't present at all. In fact, aside from some of those “Shang-Chi”-like action scenes, the only move here that strikes me as indicative of Cretton's previous work is a soundtrack that's heavy on indie rock needle drops, especially during plaintive montages. That gave me some “I Am Not a Hipster” flashbacks. Otherwise, it's hard not to conclude that the “Short Term 12” auteur has been thoroughly swallowed up by the blockbuster machine. 

It is, in other words, just another Marvel movie. “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” has its moments, a splash of color or inventive action work that got my heart pumping. The cast remains likable. That opening act really did give me hope that this would be a proper day-in-the-life-of-Spider-Man adventure and not merely a teaser for the next massive crossover to come. Sadly, that's not the case. The mere sight of my childhood comic book collection being brought to life on-screen is not enough to subsist a whole movie anymore. This lack of novelty, the sense that the product itself has become the point and not whatever thoughts or feelings it might invoke, is what has made superhero cinema a lot less interesting to me lately. “Brand New Day” isn't bad. It's fine. Will I ever feel the need to watch it again? That's a question I have a much less certain answer to. Good luck with that "Naruto" movie, Destin. [Grade: C+]

 

CHUCK’S ROUNDHOUSE: Agent Recon (2024)

Following the non-event that was the 2005 release of “The Cutter,” Chuck Norris would essentially retire. He strapped on the cowboy boots for a small role in “The Expendables 2” seven years later. He provided a voice-only cameo in a 2015 episode of “The Goldbergs” before actually appearing on-screen in an episode of “Hawaii Five-0” five years after that. Mostly, Mr. Norris would amuse himself during his golden years by appearing in commercials. He hocked products like Mountain Dew, multiple video games, a Czech bank chain, United Healthcare, T-Mobile, Toyota and Mike Huckabee’s doomed presidential campaign. Almost all of these ads played more off the internet based Chuck Norris Facts than his actual action movie credentials. Which shows you what the guy was by this point: A dead meme that only amused the hyper-normies at ad agencies and their target audience of old people. Not the most graceful retirement for an action star but better than what happened to Seagal, I guess.  

This was before, in 2024, it was announced that the former Walker, Texas Ranger would be making a return to the world of cinema. That’s right, he was going to play himself in a jokey Czech horror/comedy in which Vanilla Ice gets top-billing. As of this writing, the sure-to-be future masterpiece “Zombie Plane” remains unreleased. However, Chuck also lent his talents to something called “Agent Recon” around the same time. To what do we owe this sudden re-emergence? Well, perhaps Chuck was aware that he wasn’t long for this world and wanted to add to his family's nestegg or something. Maybe he simply got bored in his old age. My personal theory is that his right-wing friends convinced him to dump all his savings into Crypto and, after that bubble popped, grandpa had to go back to work. 

It is a question worth asking but it is not, in fact, the question you should be asking about “Agent Recon.” The more pertinent quarry around this mysterious motion picture should be: Who is Derek Ting, the writer, director, producer, and star of the film? “Agent Recon” is actually the third entry in a series of science fiction/action movies Mr. Ting has similarly self-produced. It follows 2017’s “Agent,” which starred nobody famous, and 2021’s “Agent Revelation,” which at least roped in Michael Dorn. Unlike most low budget action stars on-the-rise, Ting’s background does not appear to be in competitive martial arts or stunt work. Instead, a cursory Google search informs me that he’s a former CNN producer, tech writer, and consultant for DoubleClicker and Mercer. He is not the CEO of free-mobile phone service TextNow, who happens to share his name. At first I thought maybe this was an example of some tech start-up guy trying to buy himself a low-budget movie career. No, it would seem that the Ting in question is a self-made guy trying to manifest a life as a direct-to-video action star. 

One suspects that Ting figured more people would see “Agent Recon” than its two prequels, which is why the film begins with a lengthy synopsis of previous events. Not that this makes the plot much easier to follow. As far as I can tell, “Agent Recon” is the story of Jim Yung, a once ordinary guy who gained superpowers after being exposed to an alien infection known as Ash. He combined this with an ability to manipulate the vital human life force known as Mana to gain more extraordinary abilities. He has used these powers to fight a shape-shifting alien race known as the Kinians, run from a secret government unit devoted to hunting aliens, and battle some sort of untrustworthy artificial intelligence. His mentor, Alastair, was seemingly killed. Now, Yung and his friends have somewhat reluctantly aligned himself with Colonel Green, a grizzled veteran searching for his daughter after an alien assault at a secret base in New Mexico. Along the way, an A.I. based on Alastair’s consciousness is uploaded into an android body. 

I will make no accusations against Derek Ting’s personal demeanor. (I’ll leave that up to the creators of this Change.Org petition that want to sue him for wasting public funds on his shitty movies.) If I had the means and drive to do so, perhaps I would also try and fashion an action hero status for myself. Nevertheless, “Agent Recon” does seem to be the self-serving fantasy of some guy, eager to build a comic book-like cinematic universe around himself with a convoluted lore. A lot of “Agent Recon” is devoted to explaining the movie’s back story and its various events. There’s a lot of chatter about DNA, A.I., aliens, conspiracy theories, this “Mana” thing, and the new and established characters’ histories. It’s all relatively incomprehensible, playing as the sort of thing an overly enthusiastic kid writing a fan fiction about the totally bad-ass new addition to his favorite anime or superhero team would come up with. In other words, the dense mythology of the “Agent” series is needlessly convoluted, endlessly talked up, and utterly meaningless to anyone that isn’t Derek Ting. 

That Ting’s film is so eager to describe the history and events of his universe is at odds with what we actually see on-screen. I’m not only referring to the obviously limited budgetary resources of “Agent Recon.” The movie’s aliens are mostly guy in gas masks. Its military bases look like generic Eastern European cities. The cast is small, the special effects are deeply unimpressive, the cinematography is heavy on aerial drone shots, and the editing is shaky. I’m pretty sure the big alien lair in the finale was created by generative A.I. As much as the script talks about the specifics of these extraterrestrial races and superpowers, the film mostly seems to be stapled together from unimaginative genre stock parts. The Kinians intruders are referred to as zombie-like, with their weakness being their livers instead of their brain, but act like the fodder in any low budget action movie. For all its ambitions, the film is mostly devoted to scenes of guys in military fatigues walking and shooting through darkly-lit buildings and forests.

Plot is not always important in action flicks, as long as the fights are good. Similarly, a derivative sci-fi or horror script can overcome those limitations with a properly energetic execution. Unfortunately, “Agent Recon” doesn’t have any of these things. Ting is so invested in his self-made mythos that a lot of the film is devoted to expanding on it. Because he has neither the money nor the imagination to properly depict these cosmic events, we get one tedious exposition dump after another. I was lost almost immediately but, by the time side characters are hacking into foreign networks and reading up on alien experiments, I was really lost. 

As for Ting’s abilities as a leading man and kick-puncher… Well, his website describes him as a martial artist. It’s fair to say that he’s a lot more adapt at fighting than an average slug like I am. He seems capable of pulling off a kick, punch, or swinging ax blow. However, there’s still an unavoidable awkwardness to his moves, a result of either the low budget production or Ting’s own inexperience. A scene where he rolls to the ground to pick up a shotgun is a good example of how “Agent Recon” desperately wants to convince us that Derek Ting is a total bad-ass but falls short of actually pulling that off. It’s hard to dismiss the feeling that this entire enterprise is the result of the man’s own ego. Especially when the film he wrote, directed, and produced has him inexplicably throwing Kamehames – he does the hand motion and everything – or intimidating bigger guys and generally depicting him as the most important human being in the universe. 

But the majority of people who watch “Agent Recon” aren’t going to care about any of that shit. They hadn’t heard of this Ting guy before watching it. No, what about Chuck Norris? Norris plays the result of some top secret alien engineering, an 84 year old man apparently being the robotic form that was decided upon. He first appears as an awkward held static shot of his face, the actor obviously having been photographed before a green screen. When he finally speaks, he sounds every bit like an old, old man whose frail and ancient body is barely holding itself together. He mostly says inspirational quotes to Ting’s character, the auteur casting one of his personal heroes as his own mentor. Several shots of Chuck from behind are clearly of an unmoving mannequin, suggesting he was only available to the production for a few days. Despite that, he does get some action beats to himself in the last act. In the finale, senior citizen Norris walks around and blasts indistinct aliens with a plastic-y looking chain gun. He looks off into the distance, a Joe Biden-esque sense of confusion on his face, as his not-exactly-whip-crack instincts have him very slowly pivoting around. I guess Chuck wanted to prove that he still “had it,” as he does do some fighting. Extremely awkward, sluggish fighting that amounts to some slow-mo punches and a few karate tosses, all of which are cut away from before we see Chuck himself and not a faceless stunt guy finish the blow. 

It is, in other words, about as embarrassing as you’d expect a great-grandfather still trying to be an action hero to be. Somehow, Derek Ting looked at an octogenarian Chuck Norris and decided that was the perfect guy to play an unstoppable cyborg. I guess Chuck has frequently been accused of being robotic. Norris is not the only washed-up action guy in this movie. Former “Beastmaster” Marc Singer plays Colonel Green. While no less insanely grizzled and wrinkly than Chuck, Singer does get more screen time. Not that you’re going to care about it, as the emotional plot of his daughter being rescued is hastily introduced half-way through and extremely sloppily executed. I will say that Singer is obviously a clear professional, delivering the bullshit dialogue he was given with, if not high energy, at least some degree of conviction.

During the press for the film, Ting insisted that Chuck Norris read the script in one session and loved it so much that he immediately agreed to participate in the project. This same anecdote also mentions that Chuck’s wife, a woman named Gena O’Kelley that is 23 years younger than him, sat the laptop before him on a flight. Which, when combined with Singer’s also rather sickly looking appearance, makes me wonder whether elder abuse isn’t the real culprit behind these guys appearing in a movie like this. Needless to say, the behind-the-scenes questions of “Agent Recon” are much more interesting than the largely boring, deeply inessential, mostly incoherent motion picture itself. I guess I can’t criticize Derek Ting for trying to fulfill his childhood dreams of being an action star. Go for it, my dude, I guess. However, he lacks the insane vision of an Edward D. Wood or Neil Breen. “Agent Recon” is kind of weird and a little funny but it’s never very entertaining or interesting. [3/10] 

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 1 outta 5]

[X] Facial Hair

[] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall

[] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face

[] Shows Off His Hairy Chest

[] Sports Some Cowboy Getup

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: The Cutter (2005)

By 2005, Chuck Norris was too old for this shit. “Walker, Texas Ranger” ended in 2001, after a nine season run that is frankly hard to believe. A mere four years later, there was an attempt to relaunch the show as a series of TV movies that did not get beyond the first installment. Chuck was well into the twilight of his career, doing shit like founding a short-lived fighting league, putting his name on books, and getting ironic cameos in big comedies. This was right before the internet turned him into a meme, signaling that he was truly a jokey relic of the past. The former Lone Wolf would basically retire after that... But not before starring in one more crappy, direct-to-video action movie. The story behind “The Cutter” is interesting but not that interesting. The film spent a decade in development before ending up at Avi Lerner's Nu Image/Millennium Films. One presumes this is how the story of a diamond cutter who survived the Holocaust got transformed into a low budget Chuck Norris vehicle. It would, for many years, be the final starring role for the once Karate Champ. 

In the Sinai dessert, an archaeological team uncovers the mythical, bejeweled Breastplate of Aaron. Shortly afterwards, a man lands in a private glider, kills the dig team, and steals the holy relic. Meanwhile, in Spokane, Washington... John Shepherd is a private detective who specializes in finding missing people and rescuing kidnapped individuals. After a botched rescue attempt of a teenage girl results in her death, he feels immense guilt. Through a series of encounters, he makes the acquitance of Elizabeth Teller. She is the granddaughter of Isaac Teller, a Jewish jeweler and Holocaust survivor. While imprisoned in the camps, he was forced by Nazi officers to design a new gemstone cut formation. Now, decades later, the last surviving officer at the camp and his younger associate, the murderer from earlier, captured Isaac and demands he cut the twelve fabled stones of Aaron. Shepherd and his team are on the case. 

"The Cutter" is, from most perspectives, a fairly shoddy motion picture. Chuck's "Hero and the Terror" director Bill Tannen came back for this one. While Tannen's career isn't the most prestigious, he was still an industry veteran directing his tenth feature here. Despite that, an aura of cheapness floats over all of "The Cutter." I mean, how many action movies can you think of set in Spokane, Washington? Many scenes seem to take place in unassuming homes, apartments, and buildings. The climatic moment happens in a single room, a generic warehouse setting, while another prominent fight occurs at the back of a city bus. The film features some extremely annoying editing, indicative of the early 2000s, with many sped-up montages  in-between scenes set to fast paced music. There are whooshing sound effects, frantic cuts, and shifts between color and black-and-white. It feels like a desperate attempt to make a low budget and unambitious project seem much more trendy and stylish than it otherwise obviously is. The film ends on a literal freeze-frame shot, like the old TV shows it actually has much more in-common with than "2 Fast 2 Furious." 

"The Cutter's" low budget cheesiness veers towards unintentional hilarity very quickly. The aged jewels of brilliant color and clarity that the plot revolves around look a lot more like plastic toys. The sound design is amusingly cheap, every firearm making one of two different gunshot sounds. The first proper fight ends with the hysterical sight of a guy launched through a window and doing the Howie Scream, a stock sound effect rendered hilarious by both its instant recognition and tendency to seem out-of-place in any context. Inevitably, you quickly notice that this melee filled shoot-em-up seems to revolve around mostly older people. The title character is a Holocaust survivor who can't be any younger than eighty. (Performed by, of all people, Bernie Kopell.) The secret final boss of the movie is a similarly ancient man, played by actual Holocaust survivor and long tenured character actor Curt Lowens. The leading lady has grey hair but still gets a sexy shower scene, making me wonder if "The Cutter" was specifically made with the AARP crowd in mind. 

No old guy is more prominent in "The Cutter" than Chuck Norris, who would've been about sixty-four at the time of filming. His action scenes seem to involve a lot of him mostly standing stationary, punching or shooting at someone right in front of him. The bigger stunts he does do, like jabbing an attacker in the temples or rolling over a stone wall, look awkward. He is often replaced by a stunt double wearing a noticeable wig whenever the story requires him to kick higher than his hip or fall backwards. We aren't quite in Charles Bronson in "Death Wish V" levels of embarrassment here but the disconnect between the star's age and the expectations of the action genre are still unavoidable. Chuck spends a lot of this one sitting down, drinking tea, talking on the phone, or displaying an inexplicable knowledge of Biblical history.  A car chase amusingly features him only in quick cuts, clearly not actually behind the wheel of a speeding automobile. The climax, once again, has him disarming a bomb rather than delivering a killing blow. Probably the most unfortunate moment occurs during his trademark shirtless scene, his once taunt and muscled arms looking rather skinny and his famous manly chest now peppered with liver spots. 

While "The Cutter" is definitely a Chuck Norris vehicle, in the tradition of many geezer teasers to come, it does feature a younger actor in an equally big role. That would be Daniel Bernhardt, the man you get when your action movie is too shitty for even Jean-Claude Van Damme's lax standards. Bernhardt is the bad guy, a good use of his talents. He gets to put on a variety of different accents, sneers villainously at his opponents, and wears a number of disguises. Including, most incongruously, a kippah. Bernhardt hams it up nicely, enlivening an otherwise listless production. In fact, if you watch a lot of crappy action movies, there are a number of people here you'll recognize. Norris regular Marshall R. Teague is his contact on the police force. Chuck's brother Aaron has a bit part, getting to unexpectedly thrown out some fast punches of his own.  Tracy Scoggins has some belligerent sexual tension with Chuck in a few scenes. Former American Gladiator Deron McBee gets karate chopped in the throat. How much value a movie making you say "Hey, I know that guy!" when some mildly recognizable character actor walks on-screen is debatable but it further brightens up "The Cutter." 

Another kind of familiar face is Todd Jensen, a regular in movies made by Avi Lerner's Nu Image/Millennium Films slop factory. Lerner's fingerprints are on the film in another way. Having picked up the baton left by Golan and Globus, Lerner is also an Israeli nationalist whose low budget action schlock doubles as white-and-blue propaganda. "The Cutter" is not quite as blatant as "The Delta Force" but, like earlier Nu Image production "The Order," it does take the Exodus myth as historical fact. Having the Breastplate of Aaron be the main MacGuffin and Nazis be the bad guys make me wonder if this was, at one point in its long development history, another "Indiana Jones" rip-off. But Nazis always make good villains, the film's backstory of the Holocaust only seeming odd because it was made and ostensibly set in 2005. This is not a Zionist screed. It's a standard Nu Image, in the other way: Being really cheap and kind of bad. However, watching a senior citizen action star fumble through familiar beats while surrounded by enough funny, intentional or otherwise, moments and one or two Guys I Like doesn't make me regret watching it. [6/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 3 outta 5]

[X] Facial Hair

[X] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall

[] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face

[X] Shows Off His Hairy Chest

[] Sports Some Cowboy Getup

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: Bells of Innocence (2003)

The 1960s saw evangelical fundamentalists, Biblical literalists who rejected modern science and changing social ideology, grow more influential within American Protestant congregations. Their tenets include the spreading of the gospel, the conversion of non-believers, that every good thing that happens to you is an act of God, the end times are upon us, that Satan and his demons are active in the world, and the adoration of Christ and Him alone. This necessitated the creation of a Christian media, in opposition to a secular – and therefore sinful – media. What we now call the "faith-based" film industry began to take shape at the start of the seventies. While apocalyptic oddities like "If Footmen Tire, What Will Horses Do?" and "A Thief in the Night" soon emerged, this style of filmmaking has mostly been defined by banalities like "The Cross and the Switchblade." 

 

The modern Christian movie functions a lot like fetish pornography. It exists to serve its intended audience what they want to see and are already familiar with, at the sacrifice of complex narratives, quality acting, and realistic dialogue. (Also the budgets are usually comparable.) A year before "The Passion of the Christ" gave cinematic proselytizing its biggest moment, a much less notable Christian film was released straight-to-video for the intended audience of church goers, youth pastors, and blind grandmothers. "Bells of Innocence" would be of little notoriety for anyone outside this demographic if it wasn't for its top-billed actor. Chuck Norris became "born again" sometime in the mid-nineties. He began incorporating conservative Christian hysterics into "Walker" shortly after this, so it's not surprising he ended up in one of these. The film also starred his son Mike, his granddaughter Gabby, and frequent "Walker" guest star Marshall R. Teague, so I guess it was a family affair. 

The film follows the improbably named Jux Jonas, a man whose young daughter died after being hit by a car. That loss shattered his faith in God and now he's a suicidal alcoholic. Despite that, his devout friends Conrad and Oren talk him into flying them into Mexico, where they will distribute Bibles at a small ministry. Their plane breaks down in the middle of the Texas desert and they wander into a town called Ceres. The locals seem totally unaware and cut off from the outside world, react strangely to visitors, avoid all physical touching, and bare distinctive marks on their arms. Only a solitary rancher named Matthew offers any assistance. Jux meets Lyric, a little girl that reminds him of his lost daughter, and she beckons him to stay. That's because Ceres is actually run by demonically possessed humans, town elder Joshua being a literal minion of Satan. A war between good and evil has been playing out there for decades. Now, the fate of Jux's immortal soul is the latest battle in this conflict. 

I am, usually, a fan of films made outside of the Hollywood system. I have, from time to time, praised movies made by largely unprofessional crews that lack the polished attributes of your bigger budgeted productions. I admire the can-do spirit of artists with more of a dream than experience or money, pursuing it anyway. Any resulting jank usually becomes part of the charm of such a motion picture and the best of these can reach the level of stupefying outsider art. I suppose this same attitude could be applied to movies like "Bells of Innocence." Cinematographer Hamid Shams was a camera assistant on "Evil Dead II" and "Death Wish 3" and done some lo-fi TV stuff, so he wasn't exactly an amateur. Nevertheless, "Bells of Innocence" has a flat, colorless visual style that, on several occasions, lapses into shaky handheld work. A chase scene has the camera flipping back and forth, for one example of this awkwardness. This is emphasized by blunt editing, the cuts between scenes being so abrupt as to often become unintentionally funny. This is apparent from the very first scene, a mostly unconnected sequence of people running in the dark from some villains on horseback and running into Native Americans doing a ritual of some sort, that is incoherently assembled. (There's a smattering of indigenous characters in the film, so the Norris family hasn't totally let go of that fixation yet.) Director Alin Bijan, his second feature after an un-faith based 1995 skin flick, does not distinguish himself. 

More than any other technical deficiency, two factors make "Bells of Innocence" an especially difficult watch. The acting is quite poor, distressingly so. Mike Norris is a wooden actor who does not have the screen presence of his father. His delivery of dialogue is awkward and unconvincing. His attempts at bigger emotions feel stilted and forced. This is largely true of the rest of the cast. Carey Scott gives a very annoying performance as Oren, acting in a childish, mawkish fashion that honestly makes the character seem unaware of certain social cues. His reoccurring trait of telling a joke he never gets to finish, because people start randomly laughing before he gets to the punchline, is a very questionable choice. David A.R. White as Conrad always feels like he is reading a prepared speech from the pulpit, trying to invest it with deeper emotions he cannot summon, than someone acting out a character. This is true of most of the acting in "Bells of Innocence" and partially what marks it as an unprofessional, church basement production. You know something has gone very wrong when Chuck Norris gives the best, most relaxed and natural performance in your motion picture. 

This points towards the biggest problem with "Bells of Innocence" and the majority of so-called "faith-based" film making. This is not so much a movie as it is a sermon. The narrative is not told with the intention of invoking certain feelings or ideas in the viewer. The goal is not fleshing out characters, experiences, themes or moods. Instead, it's preaching, telling you exactly what it means and what you should think about these events, with no room for ambiguity or personal interpretation. The message relayed in "Bells of Innocence" is that the devil is real and apocalyptic war with the forces of evil is inevitable, Luckily, all you have to do to be on the winning side is accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, no matter what bad things happen to you. Jux's grief upon his daughter's senseless death would seem to present one of the most complicated aspects of faith: How can you believe in an all-good and all-loving God if life just constantly grinds you down and takes away the people you love? Rather than address this idea, such events are presented as temptations by Satan and his minions. Jux's faith is turned like a light switch, from Questioning God's Plan to Jesus Loves All the Little Children, during the key points in the film. The subtext, that it is God's will that people die and lives get ruined, is never addressed simply because he chooses God over the Devil. Why? Ostensibly because his experience in Ceres has proven to him that Jesus is the way but, in execution, it looks more like he simply changes his mind. To evangelicals, is faith just God saying "Trust me, bro, it'll all make sense" and taking him at his word? It is an attempted persuasion without nuance. 

Moreover, "Bells of Innocence" delivers this idea in as didactic a fashion as possible. Before the trio arrives in town, we get several scenes of the town's sinister elders discussing what is to happen. When the gang takes shelter in Chuck Norris' cabin, he flatly explains that he is an angel, the history of the town, and what this all forebodes. The heroes outright proclaim their faith in God, against the demonic villains' statements. With such a hamfisted approach, it is unsurprising that the film has no grasp on the subtleties necessary to create an effective horror movie. The film seems to think having someone's eyes glow red and a red skull appear over their faces is the height of terror, alongside other thoroughly unimpressive CGI effects. The script is generally inconsistent, how much the people in the town can or cannot touch an outsider seeming inconsistent, and is totally unable to build up any tension at all. After all, we know that God is Good and Jux's soul will be safe, so there's not much in the way of suspense. 

It should probably be unsurprising that "Bells of Innocence" also does not feature much in the way of the Chuck Norris action you might be hoping for. The most exciting thing he does is talk down a crowd of demonic meanies, projecting a bolt of light from his finger and making a guy groan and grimace. This is, admittedly, one of the fewer moments that made me laugh here. Otherwise, he shows up in a few scenes, hangs out with the protagonists, and drones out some exposition. I went into "Bells of Innocence" hoping it would make me chuckle more often but it is mostly a tedious affair. The first act is extremely slow, as the film takes far too long to get all its characters in place, has them wait around for a while, before the plot finally begins to move. The film seems to reach its climax before chugging forward to a proper ending, the story heading into the credits with little drive or energy. While I'm sure some films made within the Sunday School approved method feature better acting, sturdier writing, and zippier pacing than this motion picture, my impression of the genre is that it's mostly stuff like this: Preachy and limp and boring, with one or two actors who were once semi-relevant but got saved and are now doing shit like this. I like my Chuck Norris movies with more punching and kicking than preaching. [3/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 2 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[] Shows Off His Hairy Chest
[X] Sports Some Cowboy Getup

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: The President's Man: A Line in the Sand (2002)

Finding ratings information for obscure television movies from twenty-four years ago is not always easily done. However, I can deduce a few things about the reception “The President's Man” got from audiences in 2000. It drew enough eyeballs for CBS to move forward with the project but not so many that a series order was immediately given. Instead, the greenlight was received for essentially a second pilot. This is typically what happens when a network sees something promising in a show but agrees that some bugs need to be ironed out. It doesn't always happen in public – and then archived forever via home video – as was the case here. “The President's Man: A Line in the Sand” would feature a lighter tone than the first and would recast the younger leading man opposite Chuck Norris. Another big difference was a reflection of how the world had changed between 2000 and January of 2002, when “A Line in the Sand” aired. This is the film that would bring the old school action style of Chuck Norris into the strange, strange era of post-9/11 jingoism. 

It would seem about three years have passed since the events of the first "President's Man" film. Deke Slater is now fully established as the American president's personal man of action, with Joshua McCord and his daughter Que acting as assistants. The U.S.A. is currently under threat by Fadhal Rashid, the head of a militant Islamic extremist faction. Rashid's followers have obtained a small nuclear bomb and successfully smuggled it into the United States, with plans to detonate it in a large city. Slater is air-dropped into the Middle East, where he blasts into Rashid's compound and captures the terrorist leader. However, Rashid's followers, most prominently his son Abir, remain at large and await a coded message from their leader. The plan becomes to sneak the dirty bomb into Dallas before setting it off. Slater and McCord leap into action to find the nuke, disarm it, and make the dastardly terrorists pay. 

If the above plot synopsis didn't indicate as much, "A Line in the Sand" is a distinctly different brand of propaganda from the first "The President's Man" film. The original had the good guys up against South American drug runners and nebulous "terrorists" of uncertain allegiance, connected to elderly enemies left over from the Cold War. Pretty old hat by 2000. The sequel, meanwhile, positions a seemingly Sunni Islamic jihadist as the mastermind behind a plot to kill countless Americans. Al-Qaeda and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center are mentioned by name. The words "weapons of mass destruction" are spoken. Rashid is described as Pakistani like Ramzi Yousef, the organizer of the aforementioned attack. However, his tendency to issue video recorded statements from his secret hiding place and his connections to Saudi Arabia also makes him a clear Osama bin Ladin parallel, already a notorious figure by the late nineties. What is not mentioned is 9/11. IMDb's frequently inaccurate information lists "A Line in the Sand's" filming date as May of 2001. If that is correct is true, any relation to the events that would happen later that year were unintentional. (Assuming you don't believe in certain conspiracy theories.) 

However, the film still operates totally in-line with American attitudes after the towers fell. The bad guys are all brown religious extremists who hate the U.S.A. and everyone who lives there as a course of belief. We are the infidels that should be scourged with holy fire. Certainly no mention is made of how the foreign policy of the U.S. and our allies might have radicalized any persons, real or fictional, against us. There are two very weird scenes in "The President's Man II." The first sees McCord – now upgraded to a college professor on all foreign cultures, I guess, not just the Japanese – argue against a student who believes we should indiscriminately nuke all of the Middle East. Chuck's character clarifies that violent terrorists make up a tiny percentage of all Muslims worldwide. That we should not correlate an entire faith with the actions of a few extremists. Later, an American Muslim fires back at Rashid, saying that his bloody schemes are actually in defiance of Muhammad's teachings and that Islam is a religion of peace. These moments stand in stark contrast to the multiple scenes of our white heroes kicking and gunning down brown baddies in turbans and robes. 

These scenes remind me of a speech George W. Bush made in the aftermath of 9/11, denouncing anti-Islamic prejudice here and abroad. Words he presumably spoke before approving military actions in Afghanistan that contributed to the estimated 46,319 civilians killed during the resulting twenty year war. In other words, cinematic moments such as these and their real life parallels read as deeply insincere. "A Line in the Sand" is a film about a bad-ass American being dropped into the Middle East and single-handedly capturing a terrorist leader. Its back half features scenes of red-blooded patriots extra-judicially kicking the asses of stereotypical Middle Eastern terrorists. These are very weird contexts in which to place pleas that your nearest masque has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. This is aggravated propaganda meant to inflame American hearts and minds against our nebulous enemies, that would soon be the central targets of the war on terror that the U.S. enacted shortly after this movie was filmed. 

I must also say that "The President's Man: A Line in the Sand" is not especially good propaganda.  In the first film, Dylan Neal played Deke Slater as a hot-headed, standoffish jerk who was only beginning to defrost. The character is recast with Judson Mills in this sequel. This was supposedly because of scheduling conflicts. However, Mills plays Slater in such a wildly different manner from Neal that it might as well be a different character, suggesting that this was a deliberate change. Mills' take on the guy is largely jovial, often making sarcastic observations. I would not say this is an improvement, as Mills is actually more wooden and stiff in his acting than Neal was. He's a bright-eyed hunk of meat with a strong chin but delivers all his dialogue like a surprised baby. There's little charisma or screen presence. I did not find myself invested in the character or enchanted by Mills' acting, making it hard to care too much about any of the shit that happens here. 

Judson Mills' appearance here follows a starring role in the last two seasons of “Walker, Texas Ranger.” One assumes that his character was introduced on that show to do the kind of action hero stunts that Chuck Norris was aging out of. That is obviously the case here too. Norris has surprisingly little to do in the first half of “A Line in the Sand.” He spends a lot of the movie standing behind a desk, looking at a screen, and speaking into a com-link. Mills, meanwhile, is doing all the running, leaping, kicking, and punching. I figured this would be the state of affairs throughout all of “A Line in the Sand,” the then-61 year old Chuck Norris having retired to mentor roles. However, the last act of the sequel sees Joshua McCord surprisingly joining the action. This got my hopes up that we might actually see Chuck Norris do some Chuck Norris shit in this motion picture. Unfortunately, “The President's Man II” was made during the era when no attempt at all was being made to disguise that its action star was an old, old man now. The film sees Norris' character doing shit like triple back flips through the air or leaping several feet onto a pipe without any issue. The most action Norris himself has is defusing a bomb, a protracted sequence if I've ever seen one. 

In fact, the action scenes in “A Line in the Sand” are some really silly business. When Slater is fighting off bad guys, his favorite move is a somersault kick that seems to violate the law of gravity to me. During the aforementioned triple back flip, Chuck's character is also accurately firing a gun. The film gets goofier as it goes on, the finale featuring the heroes delivering superhuman blows that launch their opponents across the room. All I can figure is this was some half-ass attempt to catch up with the exaggerated action theatrics of “The Matrix” and the wave of films it inspired. In general, the film is infected with a fatal cheesiness that outstrips the original. There's a random jet pack sequence. Multiple training montages or sparring sessions are scored to hilariously bad rap songs. While some camp value can be derived from ridiculous moments, the impression the film leaves a viewer with is that the project's vision far outstripped its available resources. 

Truthfully, most of “The President's Man II: A Line in the Sand” is dull. The action scenes are repetitive and rare. Far more of the film is devoted to people standing around and talking about shit. Its obviously Islamophobic content is interesting from an anthropological perspective, as a relic of a time that we have hopefully moved past, but is just reheated bullshit in execution. While I can imagine a perspective “President's Man” series further building off the national mood of blind jingoism and paranoia that would follow, not even that was enough to get the public interested in this one. The film would be the end of this particular franchise. More dire than the already pretty lame original, this film represents the point where it dawned on me that watching all of Chuck Norris movies might have been a mistake. [4/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 2 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[X] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[] Shows Off His Hairy Chest
[] Sports Some Cowboy Getup

 

 

 

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: The President's Man (2000)

After nine seasons and two hundred and three episodes, “Walker, Texas Ranger” would hang up his silver star in May of 2001. Presumably because he had roundhouse kicked every bank robber, crime boss, drug runner, human trafficker, Neo-Nazi, Satanist and skinwalker in Texas. Chuck Norris was not going to take it easy though. Instead, a year before “Walker” ended, he was already trying to get a follow-up going. CBS would air “The President's Man” on April 2nd of 2000, Norris Brothers Production having their logo right at the front of the presentation. As with “Logan's War,” the perspective series being set up by this TV movie would place Norris in more of a mentor role, while a younger, more agile performer shared the spotlight. In this case, Dylan Neal, another stout-chinned hunk of meat TV actor whose career never quite took off. Did it work better on a second go-around? 

It turns out that the President of the United States has a special operative, a secret agent infiltrator and all-around bad-ass, that answers to him and him alone. The current President's Man is Joshua McCord, a Vietnam veteran, college professor of Asian history, and martial arts expert. After rescuing the First Lady from South American terrorists, McCord fears he is getting too long in the teeth. Along with his daughter, Que, they seek out a protege. They find one in Sgt. Deke Slater, an Army Ranger who got dishonorably discharged for punching out a commanding officer and is now serving a thirty year prison sentence for killing a White Supremacist in a jail yard brawl. Slater is sprung from jail and taken under McCord's wing, the hot head bristling against the expert during the grueling training. Soon, the team is back in South America, seeking out a kidnapped nuclear physicist being blackmailed into building a nuke for the drug cartel. A cartel led by a former South Vietnamese general that McCord has unfinished business with.

 

The opening of "The President's Man" features Chuck Norris parachuting out of a stealth bomber, dispatching some baddies via knife throws and window dives, before paragliding the First Lady to safety. As this happens, a musical sting on the soundtrack that sounds suspiciously like the James Bond theme plays. This clarifies "The President's Man" as an attempt to do some super spy antics on an extremely TV budget. The drop out of the airplane features some sketchy CGI. Unlike the always horny Bond, McCord never makes any moves towards the totally grandmotherly First Lady, because that wouldn't fit television standards. For a movie about global politics and black operations, the sets and locations are seriously limited. The top secret training center for the presidential hit squad looks a lot like a suburban gym or recreational center. They hang off monkey bars, get kicked in the chest while doing pull-ups, and throw knives at spinning targets. A lot of the international missions seem to take place in sparsely forested fields surrounding farm houses. I really wouldn't expect a movie about the president's personal Rambo to feature this many scenes in offices, ranches, and sheds. 
 

The cheap production values of "The President's Man" point towards the film's status as basically the pilot for a series and not a work meant to stand alone. You also see this in the story structure. Within this ninety minute runtime, we see: The rescue of the First Lady, the botched mission that got Slater kicked out of the Army and dumped in prison, his first mission with McCord to snatch a Senator's daughter from a weird cult compound, and the saving of the nuclear scientists from some sadistic foreigners. Each of these story threads essentially stand alone, making "The President's Man" feel less like a single narrative and more like a couple of scripts for different episodes shoved together. The connecting fiber is devoted to the repetitive scenes of Slater training with McCord and his daughter, the kind of standard sequences used to establish the general set-up of a weekly show at the start of every hour. If "Logan's War" was an attempt to squeeze a whole backstory for a hero and his first adventure into one movie, "The President's Man" is an even shakier test-run for a concept more ready to air every Wednesday at 9PM than be watched as a complete story in its own right. 

One of the movies that makes up the episodic structure of “The President's Man” is basically a TV series version of “Missing in Action.” It's interesting how the television star portion of Norris' career saw him recycling ideas from his movie roles. “Walker” was “Lone Wolf McQuade” while “Logan's War” drew a little from “The Delta Force” and “Good Guys Wear Black.” This one makes McCord a Vietnam veteran. Much like Braddock, he has a Vietnamese wife and a child with her. As in “Missing in Action III,” she's murdered. To make the connection all-but-explicit, Soon-Tek Oh plays the killer who has returned, after previously appearing as the sadistic general in “Missing in Action II.” Chuck was too old at this point to take on-screen abuse so Dylan Neal gets strung up by the villains, shirtless and soaking wet, for an electrified torture scene. Braddock had a son that he didn't know about for years while McCord has a daughter that has grown up with him, Jennifer Tung playing the female lead. “The President's Man” also emphasizes this Chuck hero as a master of martial arts, who even gives lectures on samurai culture and practices zen meditation. Nevertheless, it would not take a lot of editing to make this a years later TV continuation of the “Missing in Action” flicks.

Does any of this prove especially entertain or interesting? The bits where Chuck is playing a wise sensai, especially when he's simply reading a book while his protege blusters around, are mildly amusing. While most of his kicks and punches continue to come from off-screen at this point, he does get a semi-decent fight with Soon-Tek Oh. The opening incursion he does got me to smile once or twice. Unfortunately, the action throughout is mostly extremely unremarkable. As a lead, Dylan Neal is astonishingly uninteresting. He's got a swell chin and a heroic build but little in the way of charisma or screen presence, instead merely acting like a generic tough guy. This is most apparent in the training montages, of which are there are many and all of them are quite dramatically inert. Jennifer Tung is a little more interesting and it was nice to see Stuart Whitman, in his final role, as Chuck's mentor. Sadly, most everything about “The President's Man” resists being memorable or compelling at all.

The greatest value “The President's Man” has might be as unintentional comedy. The film features an extremely corny inspirational rock song during its training montage, both of which made me laugh from how repetitive they are. Another quirk that's impossible not to notice is the awful sound design. Every punch sounds like a thunder crack, which because especially funny when Neal is driving several into a random goon's face at once. In general, this one is very cheap, extremely derivative and lame in its narrative, and doesn't present us with any characters to care about much. It's directed like an unambitious episode of television, which is more-or-less what it is. I guess it's a little more entertaining than “Logan's War,” if only becomes Chuck has more to do – despite really, really starting to show his age – and at least it's not 70% set-up. Consider this damning with the faintest of praise. [5/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 3 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[X] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[X] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[] Shows Off His Hairy Chest*
[] Sports Some Cowboy Getup

*Chuck has a shirtless scene but, extremely distressingly, he has obviously shaved!