By Fred Venturini, PWTorch Wrestling Movie Specialist

"I happen to think it's the best action movie to come down the pipe in ten years," said Stone Cold Steve Austin on Raw a few weeks ago. This was just before he sprayed Santino down with a "beer bath" and dished out a few stunners.

I mention this occurrence because it bears on the film itself - "The Condemned" is an action movie, alright. But much like the most recent beer bath, movies such as "The Condemned" have been done before, and done better.

Jack Conrad (Steve Austin) is an inmate in a seedy overseas prison "purchased" by a wealthy producer seeking to outdraw the Super Bowl with his newest survival game - ten convicts will fight to the death, with the last man standing getting his freedom. This may be a mild spoiler (consider yourself warned) but Austin's character turns out to be a special forces agent who was imprisoned during a mission. He may as well wear a shirt that says, "I'm the good guy." This type of characterization simply tells me that the writer / director, Scott Wiper, was doing screenplay 101 by assuring that we don't turn on Austin's character by making him basically, a good guy. To this I say, ho hum. The fundamental problem with the movie is that the character doesn't change, so we're running on a brutally violent treadmill.

Steve Austin [artist Grant Gould (c) PWTorch]

An example for how this works better is in the Richard Bachman (Stephen King) novel, "The Running Man." The movie was average at best, but the book plays this perfectly as a satire of how television paralyzes us as a society, our lust for violence, and the best part of all is that Ben Richards, the main antagonist in the book, actually undergoes a change from wannabe do-gooder to a man equally vicious as the foes arrayed against him - so much so that the final image of the novel will stay with you long after the conclusion.

"The Condemned" is eerily similar to "The Running Man," with a few parts of "Surviving the Game" and the short story "The Deadliest Game" thrown in for good measure.

Steve Austin might genuinely believe that this is a great action movie. So may Scott Wiper, or Vince McMahon, or many film fans, but the truth is this folks - it's action without a purpose. The hero isn't heroic enough (just doing his job). The villain isn't evil enough (who is the main villain? Oh, there's more than one?) The plot isn't innovative (nine will die - almost all by leg bomb). A bad action movie, or even an OK one is like a bomb going off three states away. It has no impact. A great action movie is like a bomb going off down your street - is everyone OK? What happened? What will happen next? The timeless action films have characters we care about, plots that can surprise us with their intelligence and humor, and a big dose of blowing stuff up real good.

The hallmark action film is Die Hard. The stakes are high and the obstacles are higher. McClane must not only survive, but save his wife and as many hostages as he can. He's just a regular cop against 12 terrorists who are united against him. He finds innovative ways to outsmart them and reduce their number, and reveals a bravery he didn't know he had and a love for his wife she thought he had forgotten. All with a glossy action sheen that no one had ever seen before.

Vince McMahon, Wiper, and Austin seem to have forgotten that the underdog babyface is crucial to film - even more so than wrestling.

Austin himself challenges us to find a better action movie in the last ten years. Well, I won't bore you with a list, but Casino Royale and Man on Fire come to mind as two superior films that make this one look bush league, the former for look and style, the latter for character and emotional impact.

From my research into the film, I learned that Vince McMahon had an issue with Lion's Gate's marketing of the movie and blamed it for the film's failure at the box office. Despite his talent for shifting blame, this is a hollow argument. I'm not sure what his criticism of their marketing was, but I thought that lots of folks knew exactly what kind of fare they were getting for their movie ticket. No one was selling this film as an opera. It was sold as bloody action. And no one was buying, as the movie did 7 million total and was gone from the theaters in four weeks. I'll tell you why.

For one, Lion's Gate is not responsible for the incredible number of bad reviews (17 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes composite score). Good reviews create buzz even without great advertising. People will usually find a good movie. So no dice there. Secondly, Austin's star power was relied on to carry the film - nice choice if he's at peak popularity, bad choice if he's been out of the spotlight for several years. The hardcore wrestling fan will buy a ticket to an Austin movie, but little was there to attract a casual audience. When Vinnie Jones gets second billing, you have no star power. When Nathan Jones who was a bad actor as a wrestler for God's sakes has a role in your movie, you have no star power.

Finally, it's just poorly constructed. The performances are fine, and Austin delivers as he has on film before. But when the reins are handed for writing and direction to one guy, Scott Wiper, that tells me there wasn't enough rewriting, there wasn't enough attention to craft, there wasn't enough care for the details, and there wasn't enough talent behind the scenes to pull this off. I have not seen Scott Wiper's movies - of which there are only two others during the last 10 years. The measure of success in Hollywood are how much you makin' and how much you workin'? This guy isn't doing much of either. But I do not trust anything affiliated with WWE to come up with a writer of caliber.

And I will temper this criticism by saying, yes, Mr. Wiper has won more (ahem, student) awards and had more films made than I have. But only 3? I'm only three off the pace, folks, with time to close the gap.

As for Mr. Austin's performance - thumbs up. He's got character and charisma and can connect with an audience. His performance here is over the top when required, dialed down in just the right spots. He's a likable badass, as he's always been. There's only one problem - his shot to carry a film by himself is over after the colossal bomb that this movie turned out to be. He'll never have a chance to star again in a major production unless McMahon pays for it himself. Austin's next move should be to get his stock back up with niche roles that show off his talent in small doses (such as The Longest Yard) and hope to snatch a meatier, secondary role he can parlay into another chance (the Rock's performance in the dud "Be Cool" comes to mind).

And as an Italian, I must close this review by saying . . .

Those are the bottom lines . . . because Fred Venturini . . . say it be so!

WRESTLING MOVIE SCALE: Measured against wrestling movies, this is a major production with a solid lead performance. Oh, and lots of blood, and a strong attempt at making a good movie. 3 OUT OF 4 STARS

WIFE-O-METER: He's the guy with the beer hose? I like him better when he's drinking and having fun.

OVERALL: Measured against all movies, this is pedestrian at best. A disposable action movie that offers nothing new. 1.5 OUT OF 4 STARS

If you have any wrestling films in mind that you'd like me to chew on, please deposit them here: monster_of_the_midway@yahoo.com

We suggest these recent related articles...

10/5 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Natalya vs. Paige, Owens vs. Cara, Stephanie McMahon, Sasha Banks, Xavier Woods

COLLECTIBLES COLUMN: The History of Foam Hands in Pro Wrestling

9/28 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Kane's Split Personality, Divas Revolution, Heyman & Big Show, Reigns vs. Wyatt