Flight Of Fury Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A flight plan to freedom...
Shot at Castel Studios in Bucharest: John (Seagal), is sent in to recover a stolen Stealth Bomber. His trusty sidekick Rojar (ALki David) and John's ever faithful Jessica (Ciera Payton), fight the rebel forces of Banansistan, led by the vivacious Ellianna (Katie Jones).
| Steven Seagal | John Sands |
| Steve Toussaint | Ratcher |
| Angus MacInnes | General Barnes |
| Mark Bazeley | Jannick |
| Ciera Payton | Jessica |
| Alki David | Rojar |
| Tim Woodward | Admiral Pendleton |
| Vincenzo Nicoli | Stone |
| Katie Jones | Eliana |
| Bart Sidles | Captain 'Fox' Hinkle |
| Cristina Teodorescu | Liza |
| Rares George Panfil | Williams |
| Noah Lee Margetts | Eliana's Soldier |
| Karen Shenaz David | General Barnes's OPS Soldier |
| Daniel Rymer | Detective #1 |
| Michael Keusch |
3.50 out of 10 (931 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Dire
posted on 12 Aug 2009Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.
Way better than i expected!!!!
posted on 18 May 2009First Words So, if i only would watch the first hour, the movie would be OK but not really entertaining, but if you watch the showdown, its really a cool movie. Way better then most dtv's and much, much better than Attack Force!Story: OK, thank god (or better thank Joe Halpin) this time the story is great. For the first 10 minutes i thought it would be again a weird story, but it isn't. After the first 15 minutes everything is pretty easy to follow, no subplots, no weird stuff. Just easy to follow. Not especially interesting, but i don't care, im so happy that there is an easy story!!!5/5Action: Yeah. In the first hour there isn't much action. There is some flying, some shooting, and really 1 or 2 extremely short fight scenes. Its not that much but its OK, i can live with it. But then the last 15 minutes are full packed with action. Explosions, big shootouts with a lot of terrorists on an airbase. The classic b-movie showdown, really a lot of gunfights and so on, the last 15 minutes are excellent, and everything is done better than in Attack Force and better than in Shadow Man (as example this time the car-hunt is not so bad like in Shadow Man). The action is really well done. Thank god they made a big showdown, that was exactly what i needed after not sooo much action in the first hour. At the End after a 10 minute long showdown at the base Steven flies with his stealth bomber against his enemy in a F16, it was entertaining4/5Fights: So, were not back to the good old times There aren't much fights... I think about the same amount of fights than in Shadow Man. 2 or 3 short knife fights with Seagal, then some 1 punch fights (im sure you understand), but in the showdown there is a cool big fight scene where seagal uses a knife, a pipe and so on. It's not that much, but all fights are made OK and are really watchable. Don't' have to expectations, the fight quality isn't something special, but its OK to watch, and i think it was fun. (Again thank god for the showdown). Normally i would not give so many points, but comparing to Attack Force or some movies with horrible fights (as example Out of Reach) this was pretty decent. I really wished for some more, but it was OK!!!4/5Dubbing: There is some dubbing. But not the whole movie, just some lines... About 10-15 lines in the movie i think.3/5Stunt Doubles: I didn't saw a single stunt-double. I think there aren't any stunt doubles. All short fight and action scenes are made by Seagal himself i think, but i didn't look sooo closely.5/5Acting/Shape: Steven looked great. He really looks healthy, and man he really lost a lot of weight. He looks awesome. The acting is typical Steven pretty decent, and all other actors made too a very good job.4/5Humor: Its not a comedy, and there aren't the same amount of cool one-liners that were in the old seagal flicks, but there were some cool dialogs without Steven, and 3 or 4 cool One-Liners with Seagal. Oh yeah, and when he shoots down the enemy-airplane at the end he said "Sayonara" (like in the Orange commercial). Not much humor, but more than in the last few dtv's.3/5CGI_Effects/Stock Footage: So first, i didn't saw a lot CGI. The explosions were all REAL. And if there are cgi scenes with planes, they look fantastic because i didn't saw them. To the stock footage... There is really a lot of stock footage, and a good viewer see's always when stock footage comes on. BUT the stock footage is really, really great put together. Even the flight action scenes (like the last fight at the end) are made very well, and were put really good together. So even the stock footage scenes made suspense, and they made fun. Good work!4/5Cinematography: Was really OK. Somewhere between Mercenary for Justice and Shadow Man. Way nearer to Mercenary. Was pretty good!4/5Music: Great orchestral score. Nothing extremely special, but way better than in most dtv's. Typical action-b-movie soundtrack, but sometimes it goes to A-Quality. Pretty good.4/5Overall Rating: First... All my ratings are based on the last few dtv's. So compared to movies like Out for Justice or Glimmer Man this movie would have something around a 3 or 4. But compared to the last movies this is entertaining funny ride. An awesome showdown, good gunfights, great using of stock footage, Steven looking better than ever, good actors, some pretty decent fights and a really easy to follow straight forwarded story. Really a step forward. I can't wait for Once upon a time in the hood. Sayonara
They don't come much hotter than Ciera Payton
posted on 26 Apr 2009You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)
worst kind of drivel imaginable
posted on 22 Apr 2009I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.
More DTV crap from Seagal.
posted on 02 Apr 2009Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?
Seagal making a comeback
posted on 29 Mar 2009This one was pretty good i thought,, the plane footage was great,, and contrary to popular belief, this is not a ripoff of Blue Thunder. you gotta love the girls going at it in this one,, what a way to get the opponent off-guard,, i know i would have died for sure,, this one is better than the last couple of flops, this one along with Pistol Whipped, and Merc , for Justice,, his films are slowly getting better Seagal fans,, this movie, kinda starts off like Broken Arrow,, but goes in a different direction. Seagal does have some good fighting scenes,, especially with knives, not much dubbing his voice this time. The plot was pretty typical,, but i think that the action more than makes up for it, i think it will only take 1 movie to go to the theatres for Seagal to get back on track.
The toy you don't let anyone else play with
posted on 15 Dec 2008When a stealth bomber with the latest technical secrets is stolen, a general must get his best pilot John (Steven Seagal) out of prison to bring it back. Fortunately, the plane is meanwhile hidden in Afghanistan where you can bomb anything anytime you like without any consequences (except the occasional reviewer's sarcasm). The 60 terrorists are even polite enough to attack one after another and not all at once, so it is easier for John to kill them. Remember, this is the same guy who got effortlessly arrested by 2 cops for fighting with shoplifters earlier on. Of course the movie provides a traitor who has to be defeated in a battle up in the sky, heroes never leave a show without that. Seagal may be miscast as a pilot; he was more convincing in the good old "my fist, your face" fight movies. "Flight of Fury" would probably have been better if it had a sense of humor, but even the ridiculous "girls only" scene during the raid tries to be serious. And they couldn't even resist to include something about saving the world from a biological weapon, absolutely unnecessary in my view.
Should never been made....
posted on 06 Oct 2008This movie should have never been made.What a shame of the budget.Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie.... Definitely not worth watching.They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.His movies are getting worser every time.Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.
what they all said
posted on 14 Sep 2008he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie .
Terrible Movie Even For a Huge Fan
posted on 02 Sep 2008I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.
Don't waste Your time.
posted on 02 Sep 2008I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...Simply... don't bother...And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????
A waste of Celluloid
posted on 10 Jul 2008I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .
Borderline Unwatchable
posted on 25 May 2008Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.
Flight of Fury
posted on 17 May 2008Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).
Mediocrity, a step up for Seagal.
posted on 16 Mar 2008Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **
Incorrect fighter
posted on 02 Mar 2008I am the one who like the movie star by Steven Seagull and I always follow his movies. I had a chance to see flight of fury from our UBC, I could say I've seen it more than 2 or 3 times, I could say it was good but there was something that bother my mind every time I looked to this movie, almost at the last part of the movie when the admiral decided to order the fighter to make bombard to the location where they put the powerful stealth aircraft, from the movie I could see the fighter left the carrier, If I am not wrong, I would say it was F14 Tomcats were departed the carrier. However, later on, before the fighter reached the destination, it was appeared in the movie of 4 or 5 fighter and IT WAS F16 instead of F14 Tomcat (the 2 tails fighter - whilst F16 got only 1 tail). I knew it is a tiny mistakes that could happened in any movies but its disappointed.
A Little Entertaining
posted on 29 Feb 2008Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.
Don't waste 98 minutes of your life!
posted on 03 Feb 2008Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.
awesome
posted on 19 Dec 2007OK yes this is a direct to video movie but you know that not all direct to video movies are bad especially Steven seagals they just like his other ones lots of action good fighting scenes got a good story to it etc the only thing different is that it was not in theatres. And yes the other acting in this movie are bad but that is just because they are only in a few movies before this one and just to let you know one of the best scenes in this movie is a sex scene between two girls. So the next time you see this movie make sure you buy it or rent it because it is really good.So I give this movie 8 out of 10 stars.
- 1
- 2
A video movie
posted on 30 Aug 2009It's an action video, that was okay. The acting was good for the story line, a bit of the same ol' ordinary stuff though. Steven has written better, although I did enjoy some of those ol' words like Whoop, that's amazing, bad mojo..I would like to know what happen to the White Star project? Great story and I know with the correct screen writers/actors/directors it just might be a smash hit to get you back into the theaters or make you enough money to live with your blues retirement..it's just a thought, Steven.."now that you know who I am and I know who you are..I'm going into town..can I give you a lift?" lol dialog from "Fire Down Below" I needed to add my own humor.. Steven is a one of a kind Master with an endless multi talent that has fallen into stereotype Hollywood..we just need to create fresh ideas and learn a way to make them appealing to the audience..when a Bride gets married she have something old, something new and something Blue..I Love you when you sing.. You look good every time I see you on the stage or in a video..