A.W.O.L.


It'll always be A.W.O.L. to me. I grew up on this stuff, and I watch it regularly, and it never disappoints. Everything leading up to the finale is good, but the final fight is spectacular. Van Damme, pumped up wearing a tight grey T-shirt, walks into the arena to Bill Wray's "No Mercy" and is ready to kick some 'Attilla the Hun' ass, then the fight ensues and it's not going all Van Damme's way, until the brief intermissions when he talks to his black manager, then all hell breaks loose. It's such a fun movie, and it has the necessary sentimental plot about his brothers' daughter and struggling wife.

A

Yes, this is a solid action film. A nice option if one is exploring Van Damme and has seen Bloodsport and Timecop.

Though Timecop is definitely an exception (and JCVD), I tend to prefer Van Damme movies which just openly admit the audience is there for the fight sequences and therefore revolve around a competition. I find him far less engaging than Arnold, Bruce, and Sly in hit man or secret agent type roles in more plot driven fare.

David, have you seen Kickboxer? It's 10 times better than Bloodsport. I could never understand why Bloodsport was held in high regard when Kickboxer (among others) existed.

I have, but I prefer Bloodsport.

I just watched this last night and I hadn't seen an old-school Van Damme or this type of action film for a long time. But this gladly took me back to the mid 90's where I watched such films all the time, and Lionheart, which was titled "Leon" in the version I watched, didn't disappoint. In fact I was surprised how good it was, from most of the acting to the fight choreography and just the general style. It was great to be thrown back to the early street vibes of NY and LA, with its costumes and cars.
Van Damme simply excels in this, he's perfect for the role and sells every moment of it, both in interaction with other characters and in the action. The blonde woman and his black "manager" are quite delightful to watch, and the girl playing his niece puts in a very performance for a child actor too.
I thought the film immediately started off great already with a drug-deal gone wrong ending up with a guy on fire, and there's several more highs throughout. When Van Damme gets prepped right before the fight with "No Mercy" playing is great, as well as the ending. It's a nice sequence too, and pretty fantastical to think about in mind actually, how he went from the desert in Africa, on a ship to the coast of New York, to just jump off and ending up in his first fight.
But the film does lack an overall tension and isn't really emotionally engaging, so that's holding it back from being really great. The fight scenes are decent, not too impressive, but believable, it's just that there's never any doubt, incl. the last fight, that Van Damme will win.
The score wasn't really impressive either, aside from the "No Mercy" inclusion, the sound mixing and editing both could have been better. There's this moment where Van Damme goes for a run, and what could set up a greatly scored montage moment, but it quickly fizzles as the run stops soon after starting to look at his niece playing across the street. Further it was nice to recognize Brian Thompson in this, but he should really stick to brawn as his acting fell through for me, as well as that of the French bozo's in pursuit of Van Damme. The small role played by Van Damme's legionnaire boss was a nice addition though.
So in the end it's not a perfect film, but it holds up well, and is better than most of the crud that comes out nowadays. A very solid and enjoyable entry among the action films of its time.

B+

Very, very, very pleased you watched it and even more that you liked it.

But why the title change? It's such an ugly title now. I'd go for: Lionheart [A.W.O.L.] or just: Lionheart

Yeah, glad I watched it too, there's just a lot to like and it's quite the pleasure.

Because another title for it seemed appropriate, but I'll remove the Absent Without Leave here then.

Thanks, much better.

You know not every film needs great acting. I don't understand even mentioning it in a film like this. It's a Van Damme martial arts film. Who cares if Brian Thompson is wooden! Same for when a film isn't "emotionally engaging". Who cares! Loads of films in my Top 100 are not "emotionally engaging", but they're still brilliant films.

I think bad acting takes away from the quality of any film.

But I see your point, just the fact I picked up on it does affect on how I view the film. It's a small thing though, because Thompson had a small role in this only, the main cast simple impressed with their roles though and that adds to what I liked about this film too. It's not just a brainless action film, several performances stand out too.

Eh, I disagree. You and me clearly view films differently. For you, it seems out there somewhere in the cosmos there is this formula for a perfect film. A perfect 10 can only be given to a film that has no faults whatsoever. For me, that's not how I look at films. The faults are as much a part of the film's fabric as its positives, and for me they are not a means to chip away at its imaginable allotment of points. They can add charm or nostalgia or insight into the film's production.

Even mentioning the acting for a film such as A.W.O.L. is silly. And singling out Brian Thompson is even sillier. The entire cast are bad actors. That's why they're making A.W.O.L. and not Hamlet.

And here's a tip: never check the Goofs section on IMDB of any film that you like. You'll never grade any film above a C ever again.

I don't think the cast if full of bad actors at all, but sure it's film that doesn't require award worthy performances, there's still a floor you can go through, and I felt Thompson especially went through that a few times here (I remember him being great in Cobra though).

And there's nothing about formula really either, it's just a whole package...usually a package that includes acting, script, directing, cinematography, score, well everything that goes into film making really. Do you slack in one of those areas, it usually affects the result. Having said that, when I was younger I paid less attention to such specifics maybe, I could be more amazed by just a certain feeling a film gave me, regardless of how technically perfect it is. But I can't change really how I look at a film anymore these days either.

He's fine here too. I think you're doing a #MeToo and placing 2018 standards onto a 1990 film.

I guess the fact it came out first is a reason why many prefer it. When Kickboxer came out a year later, it was probably seen as Van Damme trying to emulate that same success, plus it's more serious whereas Bloodsport is trying to be fun, which is why I prefer Kickboxer.