MovieChat Forums > Homefront (2013) Discussion > Stathom vs Grillo = WTF was that?

Stathom vs Grillo = WTF was that?

posted 10 years ago by cyguration
11 replies | jump to latest

So I've just come off a good action-thriller in The Purge: Anarchy where Frank Grillo turns in the best Punisher yet, and I find out -- through a pleasant surprise -- that he's in Homefront.

I'm thinking to myself "If Grillo is a bad guy in this movie, that instantly means him and Stathom will have to throw down!"

To whom it may concern where fisticuffs and brutish face-pummeling is a flavored venue of entertainment, let me just make it perfectly clear that the "big fight" is one of those fast-cut, you-can't-see-jack-spit moments.

Remember that crappy fight at the end of the movie War? Yeah, well, it's even crappier than that.

I've noticed something about Jason Stathom: He can have really well-choreographed fight scenes so long as it's not against someone established or legit. All his fights with Jet Li have been crappy; and any time he's about to fight someone established it's usually turned into a quick-cut disaster *cough*Stathom vs Adkins*cough*.

This was a purely average movie, but I was really hoping for more out of the Grillo vs Stathom face-off.

[–] subsnico 10 years ago

Statham. STATHAM!

[–] Justin-Maikranz-11 9 years ago

It's a movie... Not a real fight...

[–] Leroy_Johanson 9 years ago

You dumbass, he was referring to the fight in the movie. No one wanted to see these actors fought out there for real (probably). Nonetheless, I'll also *beep* hate thar final fight. I was expecting some awesome fighting sequence with great choreography or at least a bloody throwdown since this movie is R rated after all and it has been established that the Grillo character is supposed to be a powerful enforcer but what do we get is obscure small fight covered in darkness and got lodged between that scene with his stupid daughter getting carried away. What the hell is that supposed to be, they ran out of budget or something? Grillo is infamous for carrying very strong characters in past film so why can't he at least could stand up and defended himself against Statham? Yes sure, it's a different movie with Statham as the main hero and all and he supposed to be unstoppable in almost all of his movie but hell, it's freaking normal for people to at least expect some awesome beatdown between actors that always carried the persona of strength. But in the end, all that were displayed is pure nonsense and disappointment.

[–] SausagePourVous 9 years ago

What really made that fight suck ass was how,despite it not being a long fight,cut back and forth to Winona talking to the little girl,like 34 times,ruining what little momentum the fight had....Grillo was good as Cyrus Hanks,though.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (62963595) 8 years ago

I know this is a super old post but I just watched this movie again. I actually really liked this fight. I watched it twice because I liked it so much. It had a real MMA feel to it, instead of being a high flying Transporter-esque fight, it was down and dirty, with some legit fighting techniques being used.

In fact this whole movie was kind of an "anti-Statham" movie, so to speak, with his character being more down to Earth and relatable than usual, and the fighting more realistic and aggressive instead of fancy and flashy.

I do get what you're saying though, Statham's best choreography does seem to happen when he's clearing rooms as opposed to fighting one on one.

[–] TerraFirma69 8 years ago

Nah, I like fights that aren't labored. It's too much of a cliche when the good badass and the bad badass have a drawn out to-do.

Look at Steven Seagal and Tommy Lee Jones in Under Siege. That was a good 'boss-fight'. No nonsense, no pandering. One of them was clearly outclassed and it was over quick.

...then whoa, differences...

[–] cyguration 8 years ago

Yeah but the Seagal and Jones fight was a lot longer and better choreographed than the fight in Homefront.

[–] TerraFirma69 8 years ago

I was sure that fight in Under Seige didn't last long, I've always remembered it that way because it really made an impression on me at the time for just that reason. It made a nice change.

lol I know I'm a dork, but I've just compared the two.

The fight in Under siege lasted 50 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki4hl7NRjWs

and the one in Homefront lasted about a minute and fifteen seconds. I think the one in US looked better because the one in HF was annoyingly in the dark.

I haven't seen the US one in quite a while, and now I remember what also impressed me was that Tommy Lee hardly landed a blow (or cut). Nice, and again quite original for an actioner.

...then whoa, differences...

[–] cyguration 8 years ago

Yeah I occasionally go back and watch some of Seagal's fights... all his older stuff really does hold up. Under Siege looked especially good. He had some great choreography in that, and the final fight looked legit AF.

I think that was the biggest issue with the Homefront fight -- that you couldn't see anything and you know both Statham and Grillo are bada$$es. Awful, awful editing/choreography.

[–] steve-1570 8 years ago

In reality, a fight between a person of Broker's background and some Hell's Angel type would last no longer than a few seconds.

[–] chilone (17875) 4 years ago

^^^This^^^