You cant say that there is ever a drought when it comes to Seagal. Unlike JCVD, Stallone or Arnold who are a little more selective in the movies they make and we are lucky to get 1 or 2 movies a year from the action heroes of yesterday, Seagal has had 3 releases in the past month and i think 4 or 5 this year. The problem with such a high output of product is the standard isn't very high. Biggest complaints with Seagal is that he is marketed and billed as the star of the movie and then he ends up in the movie for a total running time of 20 or 30 minutes (if we are lucky), and even then he is usually heavily doubled with the body and voice. I never understood this lack of quality control or respect for his fans to put out something so substandard. But in recent years we have occasionally got a decent one that reminds us that if Seagal is in the hands of a capable director, he can still put out a decent action film. Unlike the releases this year Sniper, Code of Honour, Asian Connection, Killing Salazar & The Perfect Weapon (Both in the last week), Seagal is actually the lead, i would say he is in at least 70 minutes of the 90 minute running time and there is minimal dubbing. He seemed interested in the movie, it was set in Paris and he gets a couple of decent fights (even if the doubles are still present). A couple of smart one liner jokes, this was a decent effort and would say, skip his other 6 releases this year (particularly Killing Salazar and Sniper) and support this one with a purchase. Keoni Waxman is a DTV director that knows how to shoot action, he knows how to get the best out of Seagal. Seagal should make every movie with him. As a DTV release I would say 7/10... compared to every other Seagal movie released in the past 12-15 months, this one is definitely the best one.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Forced to Fight
(2011)
Nothing original but Highly Entertaining Gary Daniels Fight Flick
6 December 2012
It has been a while since UK Martial Artist Action Star Gary Daniels has headlined a movie in a starring role, but it was worth the wait. After turning in great bad guy performances in Expendables 1 (having one of the most memorable deaths courtesy of a jet Li axe kick to the head), and arch nemesis to Wesley Snipes in Game of Death & Steve Austin in Hunt to Kill, it was time for Gary to return to where he is best. The kick ass action hero bent on revenge (this time for his brother). Set in similar scenario as many bloodsport type events, much of the film is stuff you have seen before and while this could dangerously lead the film to be boring...it isn't. From the start, it is clear all the actors can actually act and Gary turns in a good American accent, father and husband who is "Forced to Fight" to protect his brother. Robocop Peter Weller is a great addition as the main villain "Danny G" who orchestrates the fights and is holding Gary's character to ransom. The story never gets boring, the fights have some great moments (a couple of shots could have chosen better angles) but overall an enjoyable Gary Daniels actioneer for a Friday or Saturday night with the boys. Or in my case with my 3 year old martial arts enthusiast daughter. It isn't the best Gary Daniels film ever, but its great to see Gary Back where he belongs - front & centre of the DVD cover, in video shops as the main star. Out on Video on Demand, Blu Ray and DVD in the US now and other parts of the world to follow.
Before I Self Destruct
(2009 Video)
BISD Is a great first directorial debut by 50 cent. Surprisingly Good
12 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After appearing in various films, this is good film and 50 makes a decent directorial debut. With his own music on the soundtrack, it could have been a very C-Grade Gangster in the hood movie, but 50 adds plenty of depth with some humour, touching moments when his mother dies and the genuine pride he seems to have when his little brother Shaka gets accepted into all these prestigious schools. The girlfriend is hot, the biggest downfall is the length of the film, unless there is a part 2, it seems to come to a fairly abrupt end which leaves you with a "that's it?" moment. There are a few scenes where the characters just seem to waffle on, suggesting that both the script and editing could have been tighter and the screen time used more effectively, but again its only minor.
I hope there is a part 2, cause there are some decent characters, good acting and does warrant a sequel. 50 as a Hit-man is a dope idea and could make a big budget movie franchise. Well done Fif! PS> Lloyd banks as a teacher was hilarious. But where was yayo and WHOOO KIDDDD? On a side night - saw 2012 last night and the main character's name is JACKSON CURTIS...Yep who would have thought John Cusak playing CURTIS, JACKSON. lol.
I hope there is a part 2, cause there are some decent characters, good acting and does warrant a sequel. 50 as a Hit-man is a dope idea and could make a big budget movie franchise. Well done Fif! PS> Lloyd banks as a teacher was hilarious. But where was yayo and WHOOO KIDDDD? On a side night - saw 2012 last night and the main character's name is JACKSON CURTIS...Yep who would have thought John Cusak playing CURTIS, JACKSON. lol.
Mission: Impossible III
(2006)
Awesome Sequel.. What, I'm a plant - cause i liked it??
5 May 2006
I find it hilarious that when a "Cruise hater" or any other hater of any film sees a positive review - its automatically "a plant" or fake review..
well its been out for 2 days in Australia now - and i can tell you from the cinema i attended and the winding queues outside "in the cold" for the late session - that this movie will be HUGE and do extremely well at the box office - and it deserves too..
i wont rehash the story, plenty of reviews up there now for that... but if you just want my thoughts here they are..
1. great action - big budget with excellent stunts 2. Unoriginal story - but made fresh with great actors & exciting locations... 3. Excellent bad guy in Phillip Seymour Hoffman - bit more screen time would have been nice though - so much more character could have been fleshed out 4. Awesome gadgets this time round 5. Much darker in tone & content than the first 2... 6. Its irrelevant as to what the "rabbit's foot" was - it could have been a bomb, a disease, a poison - it didn't need to be told. 7. Well paced..it never got boring in 2 hours/ 8. Nice twists & unexpected turns.. i liked it, and never saw a few things coming..
Excellent - easily the best of the 3 - not without faults, but still great summer entertainment
enjoy & bring on the next one..
Dan
well its been out for 2 days in Australia now - and i can tell you from the cinema i attended and the winding queues outside "in the cold" for the late session - that this movie will be HUGE and do extremely well at the box office - and it deserves too..
i wont rehash the story, plenty of reviews up there now for that... but if you just want my thoughts here they are..
1. great action - big budget with excellent stunts 2. Unoriginal story - but made fresh with great actors & exciting locations... 3. Excellent bad guy in Phillip Seymour Hoffman - bit more screen time would have been nice though - so much more character could have been fleshed out 4. Awesome gadgets this time round 5. Much darker in tone & content than the first 2... 6. Its irrelevant as to what the "rabbit's foot" was - it could have been a bomb, a disease, a poison - it didn't need to be told. 7. Well paced..it never got boring in 2 hours/ 8. Nice twists & unexpected turns.. i liked it, and never saw a few things coming..
Excellent - easily the best of the 3 - not without faults, but still great summer entertainment
enjoy & bring on the next one..
Dan
Hard Rain
(1998)
Hard Rain - Great fun
29 December 2005
This was a movie i loved at the cinema and supported purely because it was an action film getting bad reviews- when do they ever get great ones? Well - movies like Batman Begins was rated very highly amongst critics and although it was well made and filmed and acted etc.. it made a great FILM but not necessarily a great action MOVIE.. MOVIE is pure entertaining, a film is technically brilliant but not necessarily a stand out scene (or scenes)...
anyways, Hard Rain is a wet action film, with a great cast. It looks great, has a get score and there has been NO FILM LIKE IT.. from start to finish, its filmed in a flood! No dryness at all...
No sun at all - all done at night, all done in water - technically would have made it a fortune to make. Surprisingly it got very bad reviews upon release, however it was the era of Dante's Peak, Twister etc.. all the disaster films - and to be honest, the all had great special effects but lousy scripts- yet hard rain copped it worse that the rest from audiences and critics..
I don't really understand why though. i loved the music and the action, and had a recognizable cast. I wound pay to see a sequel at the cinemas..
HARD RAIN 2: RAIN HARDER d
anyways, Hard Rain is a wet action film, with a great cast. It looks great, has a get score and there has been NO FILM LIKE IT.. from start to finish, its filmed in a flood! No dryness at all...
No sun at all - all done at night, all done in water - technically would have made it a fortune to make. Surprisingly it got very bad reviews upon release, however it was the era of Dante's Peak, Twister etc.. all the disaster films - and to be honest, the all had great special effects but lousy scripts- yet hard rain copped it worse that the rest from audiences and critics..
I don't really understand why though. i loved the music and the action, and had a recognizable cast. I wound pay to see a sequel at the cinemas..
HARD RAIN 2: RAIN HARDER d
Submerged
(2005 Video)
Submerged? It probably summarizes Seagal's career pretty Well!
2 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, as a previous reviewer stated - the old seagal is gone, so i guess we have to be fair and compare this with the last glut of Seagals DTV efforts. Lets start , just so you know my tastes and quality of standard by prioritising seagals latest films in order of least favorite to favorite - if you agree - then we are on the same wave length. OK
1. The Foreigner (slower boring, very minimal action, voice overs) 2. Out of Reach ( Slow boring, too much voice-over) 3. Out for a Kill. ( more action, a couple of nice fights, low budget) 4. Into the Sun ( well directed, bit less action but was step in the right direction) 5. Belly of The Beast ( much better, excellent action, fights, minimal dubbing)
Where does Seagal's latest SUBMERGED fit in, probably between 3 & 4..so its definitely one of the better ones, but could have been the BEST if it wasn't for so many damn voice-overs! i just don't get why you hire seagal and don't put it in his contract that one day is set aside for looping ( redoing voice overs for scenes as necessary) - it really does break the flow of the film. To make it simple, i will give you the pro's & the cons to this film
PRO's -----
A fine directing job by Anthony Hickox - the film was bright, fast moving, well paced and you got some great acting by the support cast. Vinnie Jones would be great as a new terminator i think !
Storyline was simple, it is a bit of a Mancurian candidate rip off, mixed with Undersiege -- although the storyline is a bit muddled and loses focus in places.
Seagal looks great, i didn't think the body doubles were obvious, he seems interested in the movie and there was some great action, fist fights and seagal with his trademark pistols.
Gary Daniels - dies half way through, but was nice to see him in a vicious, if a bit short though, fight with seagal.
The Action was tops, brutal and for once, not filled if "stock footage" from other films/ Nice shootouts, some martial arts and the obligatory car chase scene at the end.
Some new action scenes, particularly with the tank in the tunnel & the excellent helicopter smash at the end. Also seagal's one ALMIGHTY kick to the bad guy at the end was very stylish . as was the fight with the dude at the elevator .. BRUTAL !
Cons ---- story a bit muddled
too much of seagals voice dubbed over ( maybe 50-60%) ** Seagal take note, if you are not going to do your own loops, then just be the SILENT BADASS, the film would be better if you say NOTHING rather than actors re-dubbing you!! Your voice is so unique, why let anyone badly imitate you **
Could have used a more simple story
So thats about all, if seagal's voice appeared more often it would have been ALMOST his best in recent years, for seagal fans, BUY IT, but only if your up for the voice-overs...for everyone else, its one of seagals better, so rent it and get a beer & pizza and enjoy. The action will definitely please. Submerged is a prophetic title as its kinda on top of the water and some underneath, meaning it looks flash, but misses seagal's voice, it shows PIECES of brilliance, flashes of style, glimpses of the old seagal, small tastes of seagals fitness and nice fights.. but thats it, lots of reminders of what seagal used to be Consistently like....
Seagal gets a couple of nice one liners too...
7/10
Later Dan
1. The Foreigner (slower boring, very minimal action, voice overs) 2. Out of Reach ( Slow boring, too much voice-over) 3. Out for a Kill. ( more action, a couple of nice fights, low budget) 4. Into the Sun ( well directed, bit less action but was step in the right direction) 5. Belly of The Beast ( much better, excellent action, fights, minimal dubbing)
Where does Seagal's latest SUBMERGED fit in, probably between 3 & 4..so its definitely one of the better ones, but could have been the BEST if it wasn't for so many damn voice-overs! i just don't get why you hire seagal and don't put it in his contract that one day is set aside for looping ( redoing voice overs for scenes as necessary) - it really does break the flow of the film. To make it simple, i will give you the pro's & the cons to this film
PRO's -----
A fine directing job by Anthony Hickox - the film was bright, fast moving, well paced and you got some great acting by the support cast. Vinnie Jones would be great as a new terminator i think !
Storyline was simple, it is a bit of a Mancurian candidate rip off, mixed with Undersiege -- although the storyline is a bit muddled and loses focus in places.
Seagal looks great, i didn't think the body doubles were obvious, he seems interested in the movie and there was some great action, fist fights and seagal with his trademark pistols.
Gary Daniels - dies half way through, but was nice to see him in a vicious, if a bit short though, fight with seagal.
The Action was tops, brutal and for once, not filled if "stock footage" from other films/ Nice shootouts, some martial arts and the obligatory car chase scene at the end.
Some new action scenes, particularly with the tank in the tunnel & the excellent helicopter smash at the end. Also seagal's one ALMIGHTY kick to the bad guy at the end was very stylish . as was the fight with the dude at the elevator .. BRUTAL !
Cons ---- story a bit muddled
too much of seagals voice dubbed over ( maybe 50-60%) ** Seagal take note, if you are not going to do your own loops, then just be the SILENT BADASS, the film would be better if you say NOTHING rather than actors re-dubbing you!! Your voice is so unique, why let anyone badly imitate you **
Could have used a more simple story
So thats about all, if seagal's voice appeared more often it would have been ALMOST his best in recent years, for seagal fans, BUY IT, but only if your up for the voice-overs...for everyone else, its one of seagals better, so rent it and get a beer & pizza and enjoy. The action will definitely please. Submerged is a prophetic title as its kinda on top of the water and some underneath, meaning it looks flash, but misses seagal's voice, it shows PIECES of brilliance, flashes of style, glimpses of the old seagal, small tastes of seagals fitness and nice fights.. but thats it, lots of reminders of what seagal used to be Consistently like....
Seagal gets a couple of nice one liners too...
7/10
Later Dan
Batman & Robin
(1997)
Excellent fun entry into the series - B& R rocks!
3 May 2005
I saw this film a couple of times when it played cinemas June 1997 and actually had the pleasure of meeting George Clooney when he came to Australia for the premiere at Planet Hollywood Melbourne ( now defunct restaurant). Batman 1, Burton's Batman will always be the best, except perhaps for Begins ! However, compared to Forever, this is a much better film. Yes its campy in bits ( thats Schumacher's gay influence), yes most of Arh-nuld's lines are one liners and get annoying, however the action was good, the colours vibrant, and there is actually numerous witty lines throughout the film, and some strong acting by Clooney, O'Donnell , hingle and support.
This is Definitely not the worst movie ever, and should not be in the bottom 100. There are plenty of worse films for that. ( Amityville remake was a disappointment, as was xXx 2, Tomb Raider 1, AvP and more , but i cant be bothered thinking... you get my point.
I would really rate this about a 7.5/10, however, due to the ridiculous low scores of others, i have over rated to make up for it..
My kids will love it in years to come, as a 19 year old when i saw it in 1997 i had fun, and saw myself as a kid again... Big sets, big colours, big musical score and action set pieces, its definitely worthy of a look if you haven't seen it...
And a flop people say??
107 million Us box office 130 million non USA box office
$59 million in US video/DVD rentals & sales
$70 million in non-Us video/DVD sales & rentals
-------- $ 366 world wide total income, not bad for a flop! -----------
PS> the reason i think Schumacher & the studio went lighter & humour for B& R was because Forever was so successful and was already heading down the campy/fun path, so when its popular, they followed the trend, obviously too much..
At least this didn't have tommy lee jones, he was the worst over acted batman villain ever, when people wake up to this the better...
And it had Aussie Elle MacPherson in B&R - how could you go wrong?
Dan
This is Definitely not the worst movie ever, and should not be in the bottom 100. There are plenty of worse films for that. ( Amityville remake was a disappointment, as was xXx 2, Tomb Raider 1, AvP and more , but i cant be bothered thinking... you get my point.
I would really rate this about a 7.5/10, however, due to the ridiculous low scores of others, i have over rated to make up for it..
My kids will love it in years to come, as a 19 year old when i saw it in 1997 i had fun, and saw myself as a kid again... Big sets, big colours, big musical score and action set pieces, its definitely worthy of a look if you haven't seen it...
And a flop people say??
107 million Us box office 130 million non USA box office
$59 million in US video/DVD rentals & sales
$70 million in non-Us video/DVD sales & rentals
-------- $ 366 world wide total income, not bad for a flop! -----------
PS> the reason i think Schumacher & the studio went lighter & humour for B& R was because Forever was so successful and was already heading down the campy/fun path, so when its popular, they followed the trend, obviously too much..
At least this didn't have tommy lee jones, he was the worst over acted batman villain ever, when people wake up to this the better...
And it had Aussie Elle MacPherson in B&R - how could you go wrong?
Dan
Into the Sun
(2005)
into the sun? unfortunately more like..into the boredom
23 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Let me get these things out of the way first.
1. I watched an average quality screener, and before you jump on me- i will buy this as an original when its out to support Seagal. Not because this is great, but because his last 2 films are heading in the right direction.
2, I love Seagal and early his early films. Except for Belly of The Beast, its been a disappointing last couple of years - Out of Reach & The Foreigner were the worst of the lot.
3.When i heard about the reviews for Into The Sun on ain't it cool- i was excited, very excited that this was gonna rock. The reviewer made it sound better than belly of the beast, and the best thing seagal has done in years- unfortunately i don't see what has warranted these new-found views that its brilliant and different to the last loads of average films.
OK so the pros-
1. Seagal doesn't look that fat ( maybe its the coat) 2. Finally a film without other actors doing the voice overs, 3. The action - when it does happen is very good. Good hand to hand fights, sword fights and well edited, 4.Seagal looks interested in being in this film 5. An effort has been made to get Japanese culture, people, humour into the film- although that stand up comedian bugged the crap out of me. 6. Exciting first 2 minutes, & last 20 minutes
The Cons - 1. A storyline that has been done before- and better 2. Took 70 minutes to get through a 20 minute storyline. 3. The Pacing - first 70 minutes, about 3 minutes of action scenes. 4. Not enough action 5. Asian gangs talking in poor English to each other, with no other English people around. No real need to speak English, but they do. 6.There was no attempt to develop characters, or care for seagal's relationship with his fiancée. 7. Paying William Atherton to be in this movie, then have him sit behind a desk the whole movie, for his full 10 minute screen time.
8. From minute 3 to minute 70, its pretty boring, it would have been better with more action and had it spread.
Come on Seagal golden action rules - get the storyline out of the way in the first 20 minutes - then kick arse for the next 80 minutes.
If you wanna have so much dialogue, have a 10 minute action scene at the 1st minute, 40 th minute and 70th minute. 3 big actions scenes - 1 every act of the film. How could film buffs and action fans know the rules but you not???
I did give it 7/10. 5 cause its seagal, 2 for effort & i knew what you were trying to achieve, it just didn't execute well...
Better luck next time
Dan
1. I watched an average quality screener, and before you jump on me- i will buy this as an original when its out to support Seagal. Not because this is great, but because his last 2 films are heading in the right direction.
2, I love Seagal and early his early films. Except for Belly of The Beast, its been a disappointing last couple of years - Out of Reach & The Foreigner were the worst of the lot.
3.When i heard about the reviews for Into The Sun on ain't it cool- i was excited, very excited that this was gonna rock. The reviewer made it sound better than belly of the beast, and the best thing seagal has done in years- unfortunately i don't see what has warranted these new-found views that its brilliant and different to the last loads of average films.
OK so the pros-
1. Seagal doesn't look that fat ( maybe its the coat) 2. Finally a film without other actors doing the voice overs, 3. The action - when it does happen is very good. Good hand to hand fights, sword fights and well edited, 4.Seagal looks interested in being in this film 5. An effort has been made to get Japanese culture, people, humour into the film- although that stand up comedian bugged the crap out of me. 6. Exciting first 2 minutes, & last 20 minutes
The Cons - 1. A storyline that has been done before- and better 2. Took 70 minutes to get through a 20 minute storyline. 3. The Pacing - first 70 minutes, about 3 minutes of action scenes. 4. Not enough action 5. Asian gangs talking in poor English to each other, with no other English people around. No real need to speak English, but they do. 6.There was no attempt to develop characters, or care for seagal's relationship with his fiancée. 7. Paying William Atherton to be in this movie, then have him sit behind a desk the whole movie, for his full 10 minute screen time.
8. From minute 3 to minute 70, its pretty boring, it would have been better with more action and had it spread.
Come on Seagal golden action rules - get the storyline out of the way in the first 20 minutes - then kick arse for the next 80 minutes.
If you wanna have so much dialogue, have a 10 minute action scene at the 1st minute, 40 th minute and 70th minute. 3 big actions scenes - 1 every act of the film. How could film buffs and action fans know the rules but you not???
I did give it 7/10. 5 cause its seagal, 2 for effort & i knew what you were trying to achieve, it just didn't execute well...
Better luck next time
Dan
Daredevil
(2003)
director's cut- do yourself a favor. See it
16 January 2005
First of all, i was never a reader of the comics, and didn't know much about daredevil before venturing into the cinemas to see the original when it was released. At the time, there wasn't much action out and i like most of Ben Affleck's movies, so though i would give it a go. Although i liked the theatrical release ( but didn't love it) i still bought it when it came to DVD...and to be honest, when i watched it the 2nd time on DVD, i didn't think as much of it, as when i left the cinema.
So when i heard the directors cut was out, and people who hated the first release, but liked the 2nd one, i thought wow, i didn't mind the first, perhaps i will really like the new version. and guess what? I did ! Its absolutely fantastic. After the characters were fleshed out more, the storyline was more involved and filled in the plots- you actually cared about what happened and got more into the feel of being apart of what was going on in hell's kitchen.
If you watch the "featurette" : giving the devil his dues, you will understand that Mark Johnson the director, absolutely loves this material, loved the comic, and was disappointed himself with the theatrical release. He understood why the critics & fans alike didn't support it, and really wanted to fix the problems with this DVD. When will Hollywood studios & executives learn, a 100 minute movie, does not mean a better movie - and when will they learn that audiences DO want more than just action - we can think, you morons! And can hold our attention for more than 100 minutes. Here's a simple plan for your money making schemes - and this goes to Gary Foster ( producer who still says the theatrical version of daredevil is better) If you make a GOOD MOVIE, that gets good reviews, and that fans & critics enjoy, then more people will see it, more people will see it a 2nd time, more people will recommend it to friends, and that means a bigger audience, a repeat audience and bigger dollars for your pockets ! So while the first was a quick paced movie that made quick bucks, a longer - more thought-out MOVIE, would have garnered longer life at the box office.
in a word - RECOMMENDED !
So when i heard the directors cut was out, and people who hated the first release, but liked the 2nd one, i thought wow, i didn't mind the first, perhaps i will really like the new version. and guess what? I did ! Its absolutely fantastic. After the characters were fleshed out more, the storyline was more involved and filled in the plots- you actually cared about what happened and got more into the feel of being apart of what was going on in hell's kitchen.
If you watch the "featurette" : giving the devil his dues, you will understand that Mark Johnson the director, absolutely loves this material, loved the comic, and was disappointed himself with the theatrical release. He understood why the critics & fans alike didn't support it, and really wanted to fix the problems with this DVD. When will Hollywood studios & executives learn, a 100 minute movie, does not mean a better movie - and when will they learn that audiences DO want more than just action - we can think, you morons! And can hold our attention for more than 100 minutes. Here's a simple plan for your money making schemes - and this goes to Gary Foster ( producer who still says the theatrical version of daredevil is better) If you make a GOOD MOVIE, that gets good reviews, and that fans & critics enjoy, then more people will see it, more people will see it a 2nd time, more people will recommend it to friends, and that means a bigger audience, a repeat audience and bigger dollars for your pockets ! So while the first was a quick paced movie that made quick bucks, a longer - more thought-out MOVIE, would have garnered longer life at the box office.
in a word - RECOMMENDED !
Ocean's Twelve
(2004)
NOT BAD, BUT NOT GREAT. Another sequel too rushed! Style over substance.
10 December 2004
Its just opened here in Australia. Here are my thoughts.
1. Not a bad caper movie, and although the first was excellent, a sequel was not really necessary or asked for by audiences.
2. Julia Roberts is in the first 2 minutes of the film, then shows up for the last 10 minutes or so. She really is just thrown in there to add to box office & pick up a big paycheck for very little work. Did anyone else think she looked very skinny and unattractive in much of her scenes? She has definitely lost a lot of Hollywood clout i feel. The whole storyline of her playing *******SPOILERS**************
Julia Roberts! was funny at first, but tired quickly, and the whole Bruce Willis thing seemed to drag out.
3. The storyline in general was very weak, and many of the jokes fell flat and just were not funny. I think they loved hanging out, George wanted to have parties in his waterfront mansion in italy, so it seemed like a good idea to film in europe, all cast hang out cause they are best mates, then make a fortune on a poorly thought out script & story.
4.Bernie Mac was completely wasted. Why is Hollywood putting a great comedian in such a minimal role & non-funny scenes such as this (and mr 3000). listen up movie exec's BERNIE MAC IS A COMEDIAN - let him shine & do what he does best - WHICH IS MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH !
5. The bad guy wasn't really "bad" and the whole heist caper was about ego's about whose the best thief. You NEVER felt they actually felt like they were scared or were worried about Andy Garcia's threats.
6. Hadn't we already seen someone Dance through the laser lights in slow motion? Oh yeah, it was CATHERINE ZETA JONES in Entrapment !
7. Definitely one of Soderbergh's weakest film. Anyone agree?
There were some great things about the movie though
1. The Cast 2. The locations 3. The comedy that did work ( which was mostly unwritten & unsaid)..more like reactions to scenes & impressions etc.
4. Catherine Zeta- jones. Damn she looks great & beautiful. She DESERVED the main female billing. Out acting & out starring Roberts.
5. Some of the action 6. Matt Damon was great 7. Brad pitt looked awesome in the suits- my girlfriend was happy
that's all
anyone else's thoughts?
Dan
1. Not a bad caper movie, and although the first was excellent, a sequel was not really necessary or asked for by audiences.
2. Julia Roberts is in the first 2 minutes of the film, then shows up for the last 10 minutes or so. She really is just thrown in there to add to box office & pick up a big paycheck for very little work. Did anyone else think she looked very skinny and unattractive in much of her scenes? She has definitely lost a lot of Hollywood clout i feel. The whole storyline of her playing *******SPOILERS**************
Julia Roberts! was funny at first, but tired quickly, and the whole Bruce Willis thing seemed to drag out.
3. The storyline in general was very weak, and many of the jokes fell flat and just were not funny. I think they loved hanging out, George wanted to have parties in his waterfront mansion in italy, so it seemed like a good idea to film in europe, all cast hang out cause they are best mates, then make a fortune on a poorly thought out script & story.
4.Bernie Mac was completely wasted. Why is Hollywood putting a great comedian in such a minimal role & non-funny scenes such as this (and mr 3000). listen up movie exec's BERNIE MAC IS A COMEDIAN - let him shine & do what he does best - WHICH IS MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH !
5. The bad guy wasn't really "bad" and the whole heist caper was about ego's about whose the best thief. You NEVER felt they actually felt like they were scared or were worried about Andy Garcia's threats.
6. Hadn't we already seen someone Dance through the laser lights in slow motion? Oh yeah, it was CATHERINE ZETA JONES in Entrapment !
7. Definitely one of Soderbergh's weakest film. Anyone agree?
There were some great things about the movie though
1. The Cast 2. The locations 3. The comedy that did work ( which was mostly unwritten & unsaid)..more like reactions to scenes & impressions etc.
4. Catherine Zeta- jones. Damn she looks great & beautiful. She DESERVED the main female billing. Out acting & out starring Roberts.
5. Some of the action 6. Matt Damon was great 7. Brad pitt looked awesome in the suits- my girlfriend was happy
that's all
anyone else's thoughts?
Dan
Wake of Death
(2004)
The Comeback starts here!
3 November 2004
I am a huge movie buff, and have enjoyed IMDb.com for years. This is the first time i have bothered to register to voice my opinions- and it is with good reason. I am a huge Van Damme fan, but i am also a realist. His last few films have not been great - particularly Derailed & Knock Off. However credit to Jean Claude for TRYING to do other things such as IN HELL and WAKE OF DEATH. Unlike his co-action hero's Steven Seagal who can't even be bothered hanging around to loop his on voice on his movies- VAN DAMME is making a comeback.
This film marks a great, stylish, action movie- driven by revenge in a yakuza environment. It reminded me of early John Woo movies, Seagal's Hard to Kill and early dirty harry films. JCVD's acting is only getting better with age, the action is short,sharp & powerful. Bloodsoaked action scenes & being hardcore (women shot in the head/guy is shot in head by shotgun) shows this is ANYTHING but "standard/watered down/pg action" that is all to common today. Do yourself a favour and SEE IT THEN OWN IT! If you are a JCVD fan & have been disappointed by his recent films, give this one a go- you will enjoy. Cheers, Dan
This film marks a great, stylish, action movie- driven by revenge in a yakuza environment. It reminded me of early John Woo movies, Seagal's Hard to Kill and early dirty harry films. JCVD's acting is only getting better with age, the action is short,sharp & powerful. Bloodsoaked action scenes & being hardcore (women shot in the head/guy is shot in head by shotgun) shows this is ANYTHING but "standard/watered down/pg action" that is all to common today. Do yourself a favour and SEE IT THEN OWN IT! If you are a JCVD fan & have been disappointed by his recent films, give this one a go- you will enjoy. Cheers, Dan
Tell Your Friends