Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-18 03:18:37

The many voices of Steven Seagal

I counted 3 different voice dubbers to loop Seagal's voice at different points in Flight Of Fury. I have not had the pleasure of viewing Seagals Sci-Fi epic Attack Force but by all accounts it's worse than this and that is an achievement. How exactly did Seagal get from under the truck to on top of it without being seen by the security guards walking around the truck, checking underneath with mirrors? It must be so unbelievably difficult to climb on top of a truck and hold on for dear life at a life threatening velocity of 15mph that security guards due to the craziness of such a prison break escape scheme no longer check the top of trucks before leaving the prison grounds. Prisons have guard towers taller than 6 feet, right? Dreadful fight choreography made even worse by horrible camera work. A gas station store is being robbed by several thugs while Seagal is innocently buying coffee & probably all the dounuts the shop currently stocks. Compare this scene to the opening martial arts corner store being robbed scene in Hard To Kill and this demonstrates just how far Seagal as fallen. Much of the next 10 minutes of the movie has Seagal sitting in a chair barely forming the words for the terrible dialogue he has been paid a few $million dollars to say, while expanding the minimum amount of energy to keep his eyes open and looking as bored as I feel watching yet another Seagal straight to DVD embarrassment. Stock flight footage is used throughout this movie. I couldn't help but laugh at the stock footage whenever the Stealth fighter is operating on the ground, the pilot appears to have his visor down over his eyes but yet every interior sequence shot for the movie, has the actor who is pretending to be the pilot with his visor up. The film makers could not even get that right. Unconvincing CGI sequences, a very nice but completely unnecessary lesbian scene (the best part of the while movie!!) terrible amateur acting from almost every cast member, wrapped up in a stupid plot mish mash of Broken Arrow, Firefox, and any random soft porn movie! With badly executed and filmed action scenes. What was up with the Seagal pipe fight one on one scene near the end? It looked like an attempt at a slap stick comedy sketch or something that would not have been out of place in Batman & Robin. I just can't take Seagal anymore in these direct to DVD turds or listen to him crying about how he is being screwed over by producers. Stop signing contracts with these people. A piece of career advice for Seagal, sign on for a low -mid budget action film for Lionsgate ala Crank or Rogue Pictures ala Assault On Precinct 13 and take a big pay cut and work up from there. I still think Seagal has the potential to make enjoyable action movies even at his current age and still has something to bring to the cinema going public but I no longer believe Seagal has any interest in doing so. He seems happy to put his name on anything that will line his pockets and dump all over his once large fan base. Flight Of Fury should not only be avoided but boycotted.

aminlv 2012-05-17 17:50:33

Awful Military Movie!

Not only script way to lame, story like bunch of ripoff from othermovies,and since when in Afghanistan talking in Arabic! writer of this filmnot even used Google to check accuracy! official language inAfghanistan is Pashto not Arabic.wrong outfit for afghans militia! dude at least watch news once a year!to see what they wear!second its not Gulf of Arabia it's (PERSIAN GULF).and generals talk w/o codes and talk like he lost his dog or something!and lower rank officer question his Superior Commander.in general not even worth watching its 1:34:06 waste of time!

rsimm 2012-05-09 19:14:10

A waste of Celluloid

I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he hasbeen reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. Iwatched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of somepeople the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a singlejudo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and theguy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse thevisuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wonderingwhy you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doingthis because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and noenthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footagefor cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic.The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenesthemselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder filmshowing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier andcleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing thismovie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man orexit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 milliondollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie stillcame in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientioustheatre owner would play this movie .

Paul 2012-05-09 00:47:27

A Weak Effort

Well, I promised myself I would avoid another direct to DVD Steven Seagal movie, but I am a glutton for punishment. Not trying to over speak, it is far better then his last movie, however, his last movie was so bad this is not saying much. The story starts out ok, starts to take some bad turns then folds on itself. A couple of points: The SR-71 footage is stock footage that I have seen many times, so it is pretty cheesy. The plane is then left to who knows were. The support troops are shown as incompetent and all die/.The navy is shown as unorganized and the dialog is very poor. An F-16's weapons systems can not track a F-117a, something the movie endorses. The bad guy is in the hangar one minute then the next he is chasing Seagal down in an F-16 for no apparent reason. The story line falls apart at the end and while some of the action was good it hardly makes for what would be considered a good effort. Sad to say it is an extreme distance from his best work, see it if you must, but do not expect much. Something I have been getting used too these days watching Seagals movies. I only rated it a C- because of how much worse his last movie was...probably worth more like a D.

2012-05-07 18:13:27

One of Seagal's Worst

This review is from: Flight of Fury (DVD) Let me begin by saying that I am a huge fan of Steven Seagal. I love his movies, even the newer ones; I thought A Dangerous Man and The Keeper were entertaining action movies. But Flight of Fury is horrible, downright devastating to watch. It took me three viewings to complete the film. It was slow-moving, and when there was action, most of it was stock footage of fighter jets dancing around in the skies. When I watch a Seagal movie I want to see Seagal breaking dudes' arms and tossing them, in slo-mo, through storefront windows, I don't want to see fighter jets doing stunts in the sky. For that, I'll watch Top Gun.Another thing that hurt this movie was Seagal was barely in the thing. You hear his voice a lot as he flies his jet, but then it's not even his own voice. It's a voiceover actor! I know he uses a voiceover actor in most of his newer movies, but some of them aren't too bad. Most of the time, they are used to correct the sound in scenes where it appeared his voice was too low and inaudible. But when you have a movie where you barely see his face, and you rely on hearing his voice, it does more damage than good. Hell, most of the time I didn't even feel like I was watching a Seagal movie.If you're a diehard Seagal fan, check it out; just to say you saw it. If you're not, stay away, stay far away...

Thomas Jolliffe 2012-05-07 05:47:53

Mediocrity, a step up for Seagal.

Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal couldonly have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Forcewould take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall,but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity isseemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into hismovie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plotlines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to postproduction, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someonesteals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemicalweapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the wholeworld 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 fartoo many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say thestorytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to sidecharacters is badly done for example.In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, andSeagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddlerwho's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, andso performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can weblame 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 anythingremotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (afterSeagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk ofit themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, thenI'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put theeffort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it'smade. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He'sseriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins anddub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs withsome efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in alltechnical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team)there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film riseabove its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few actionscenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth wedon't want to see.Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and onoccasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, butoverall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lackof time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Manwas a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent,jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more ofhim in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during thefilm. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, andre-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stockfootage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, butusing it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shotsof naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuityof 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 bestscene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, withtwo hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this maybe one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, butthat's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but theyshould bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget thisone's existence. **

jans-snowwing 2012-05-05 08:18:46

A video movie

It's an action video, that was okay. The acting was good for the storyline, a bit of the same ol' ordinary stuff though. Steven has writtenbetter, although I did enjoy some of those ol' words like Whoop, that'samazing, bad mojo..I would like to know what happen to the White Starproject? Great story and I know with the correct screenwriters/actors/directors it just might be a smash hit to get you backinto the theaters or make you enough money to live with your bluesretirement..it's just a thought, Steven.."now that you know who I amand 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.. Stevenis a one of a kind Master with an endless multi talent that has falleninto stereotype Hollywood..we just need to create fresh ideas and learna way to make them appealing to the audience..when a Bride gets marriedshe have something old, something new and something Blue..I Love youwhen you sing.. You look good every time I see you on the stage or in avideo..

jasmail99 2012-05-05 02:58:55

Another Crappy Segal Movie

Another typical (these days) monotone whispering, chubby stick up hisass walking wanna be action movie. The acting was lousy, the script waslousy and the cuts to stock military footage were lousy. The only goodpart was the brief gratuitous girl on girl scene and the many mistakesin the movie, which made it all the more laughable. My favorite is thescene where they cut the power to the electric fence. Who would everput the control box on the outside of the fence? Or Segal stepping outof flying an SR-71 across the world wearing construction work boots? Orthe nurse in the military hospital wearing a tight mini skirt? I couldgo on but you get the idea. If you want a movie that is mindless andmaybe slightly more exciting than having jury duty...then this is theone for you!

2012-05-04 19:39:29

Flight of Fury ~ steven seagal

This review is from: Flight of Fury (DVD) Steven Seagal is getting older and it shows, however, he still give the best action production on screen. While, if you are a Seagal fan, the movie is fairly predictable, it is still worth viewing. I highly recommend this movie.

lee nicholson 2012-05-04 04:47:14

Straightforward but padded

Whilst it's a marked improvement from the dreadful Attack Force (mindyou, you'd be hard pressed to make worse) Flight Of Fury still suffersfrom too much padding, and needless build-up. Seagal seems a littlemore energetic in the action scenes, and looks a little trimmer thanusual. However, he spend too much time in a cockpit (uttering "RogerThat!") or stood around, whilst the film-makers are tragicallyunder-using his (still) mighty star presence. The 'voice dubbing'problem is also very evident...again! And the endless (i.e, borrowed,flight and naval footage) could soon form the basis of a new 'drinkinggame' (down a shot of whisky, when a military H.Q of any kind, comesinto shot......you'll be drunk in 30 minutes) Seagal must retrieve an ultra-hi-tech Stealth fighter plane (withinvisibility cloaking) from the Afghanistan terrorists, after his ownstudent (and fellow pilot) steals it for the highest bidder. Onceagain, the synopsis (on paper) sounds exciting enough, but there arejust too many scenes of naval commandos discussing the whereabouts ofSeagal (probably to pad out Seagals limited involvement?) There's somenice (small) fights near the end (and in slo-mo, they all look likeSeagal) but as usual, these brutal fight scenes, are edited togethertoo quickly (when will a director ever zoom back, and showcase Seagalstechnique, to it's maximum potential?)All in all, with a bigger budget and less padding, Flight Of Fury couldhave easily slipped into theatres around the world. However, it'slimited budget (and sometimes limited imagination) forever consign itto s-t-v hell, which is a shame, because on paper (as previouslystated) it seemed an exciting change of pace for the stout sensei.All in all, i'd give it a 6, but to casual viewers, i'd give it 4 to 5

2012-05-02 17:08:32

Flight of Fatty

Now i must say that I'm a fat man. I'm at least 45 pounds over-weight but i don't make action movies and i don't ask people to pay good money to watch my fat self preform stunts and kung-fu moves. Someone please tell Mr. Seagal that he is past his action movie prime and needs to find new work.

revtg1-2 2012-05-01 22:11:05

bad vs good . good wins. nobody cares.

As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His bestwas just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, thenfalls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame.I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how allSteven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is asuper-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so theydecide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don'tremember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located byhis old general who needs his one man in a million experience to getback a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang inAfghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segaltrained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his duskygirlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in oneswell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Forceand Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoonsinstead.

kyle l 2012-05-01 10:24:25

Horrible

Flight of Fury was nothing short of horrible. It had the worst acting along with visual effects that I've ever seen. All I have to say to Steven Seagul is "sayonara".

perrin_mj 2012-04-30 23:14:56

worst kind of drivel imaginable

I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful thisfilm is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealthaircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I canhonestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick thanhave to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almostfunny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wideyou could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I foundout 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 thesepeople to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel.Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, andthey should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never evershow his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree tostar in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.

2012-04-27 19:04:08

So Dull

You don't need much time to realize how bad "Flight of Fury" is going to be. The first terribly boring 15 minutes where two "action" sequences are set up would be enough. One is about Steven Seagal's character John Sands escaping from some facility because someone thought he knows too much and his memories should be erased. The other sequence is about a newest model of Stealth fighter that literally becomes "invisible" (like someone has digitally painted), which is stolen during a military demonstration.And both scenes are dull, with the actor who looks bored and the scenes that have no tension. The rest of the film is just a mess with lifeless acting, slack actions shot somewhere in Romania and stock footages of aerial sequences that do not match with other parts of the film. The character played by Seagal, who looks increasingly tired these days, is given a mission to retrieve the stolen fighter, but he is rarely seen doing the jobs as other supporting actors are doing them for him. Among the numerous titles released from Sony, this is easily one of the worst, with no entertainment value whatsoever. (Oh, but there is one unintentionally funny scene where two ladies are seen hugging each other.)

Doctor B 2012-04-27 03:24:15

Pretty boring

The story is trying to be sensational, but it's totally unbelieveable. Nevermind that, even if the story was good, it's hard to get into it because of the poor acting that creates no emotion or care for the characters whatsoever. Cool flying scenes for the plane buffs, that's about it. Pretty boring overall.

tmbvd3 2012-04-26 06:35:07

Hmm... Where do i begin?

I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things ithought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing,special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed asthough the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie.Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy asuper advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for$75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and theycant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middleeast in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which Ididn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to seeit. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to randomscenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable ashell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.

2012-04-25 18:14:27

not as bad as most say here

Give the man a break! Yes, "Attack Force" was horrible but this one is worth to be watched.

Ann 2012-04-24 22:17:54

I was forwarding the whole movie !!!!

I watched the beginning but it didn't catch my interest at all, that's why I started forwarding, figured it's a waste of time, so I didn't watch it all.

aliyizaki 2012-04-24 04:25:42

review of flight of fury

flight of fury is an overall decent action flick.Even if it isn't inthe level of under siege e.t.c it is still satisfying if you arelooking for an action movie.it certainly has its flaws but if you skipthem you will have a good timedubbing:some in the beginning and a line in the end. acting:same oldwhispering from Seagal the rest of the cast is okayfights:hand to hand are few and the majority of them is in the end butthere are lots with knives,guns and even one with a pipe.the 20 minuteclimax is the best part in the movie with explosions,fights andairplane battles stock footage:90% the airplane shots are stock footage and are nothandled well, and also Seagal does all of his own stunts