jessecrowder

Well, I have to say I am very disappointed. Again. I'd like to start this commentary by saying that I'm myself a fan of Mr. Seagal and have followed his career in motion pictures since I first saw the superb "Above The Law" back in 1989. This information is just to clarify, that I'm not here to bash Seagal just because it seems to be the "hip" thing to do.

It's fair to say that Seagal's cv hasn't looked very impressive since "Under Siege" over ten years ago. It's been a slow downhill with a few exceptions like fairly enjoyable "US 2" and dumb but entertaining "Exit Wounds". With his Hong Kong influenced "Belly Of The Beast" outing I dared to expect something of a comeback for our beloved thespian, but "Out Of Reach" sends him right back where he was with the dreadful "The Foreigner" and even more horrible "Out For A Kill". You could sum this commentary with one sentence: no more polish action films. The production values of "OOR" are minimal, script has holes for trucks to go through and the acting. Oh lord, the acting. Through out the entire film it is just plain torture to watch. Let's face it - Seagal has never been exactly Oscar material, but he has had his moments. Not in this one. I just don't get why on earth they have to dub his voice with these totally moranic voice overs? And this time it happens a lot, even in the middle of the scene in where he has spoke with his own voice in the beginning.

Seagal has dropped some weight, but it is still a stretch to buy him as an action hero. His moves are slow (still the show them most of time in slow motion!!) and he uses stunt doubles a lot. Action in "OOR" is quite minimal and fairly up to basic standards even for a movie this scale. The brothel shoot out is OK, but the final duel between Seagal and Matt Schulze is a major let down. And while speaking of Mr. Schulze it should be noted that Seagal's acting really isn't the worse in "OOR". Schulze, who delivered good performances in "Blade 2" and "The Transporter" is totally lost with the role of Faisal The Ultimate Bad Guy. His pseudo sophisticated character is probably one of the most lame villains ever supplied with incredibly stale dialogue.

Like noted, the acting in whole is pure crap and it seems that many of the polish actors don't even know English - they just repeat what the director or who ever tells them to say. There really are no good performances in "OOR" except the small cameo of Nick Brimble and momentarily the girl who plays Seagal's pen pal. There are numerous just idiotic scenes like the one where the little girl is held captive in the basement of a castle where villains are having a big party. She is guarded by one of the villains and asks him something like "Why are you not invited to the party?" The bad guy totally loses it and screams: "Stop trying to get inside my head!" Whoa. Then there are the goofy scenes where Seagal wanderers in the forest "looking for injured animals". It is of course a beautiful concept, but the guy looks like a lost-in-the-woods member of a motorcycle gang. And the final still picture before the end credits start to roll. What the heck were they thinking in the editing room? "Wow, NOW this movie works like it should!"

I did my best to come up with even one positive thing about "OOR", but it just seems impossible. How can talented(?) people mess up this bad and what in heaven's name did Seagal see in this project that made him want to get into it? Is he proud of his Poland era of film making?

If you are a fan of Seagal you have to ask yourself a question: did you like him as the arrogant ass kicker from his Warner Brothers days or do you prefer this independent (no big studio wants to touch him with a ten foot pole?) filmmaker -version of him? If your heart beats for his neat ponytail wearing, black leather jacket and jeans -period then do your self a favor and leave "OOR" alone. As sad as it might seem.

This was a stink bomb. Please, let "Into The Sun" be better.

Wow, was this something or was it something?

I'm speechless, I really can't believe that "Road House" was actually taken seriously at the time of it's release. I mean it has nothing, not a darn thing going for it. Except TONS of unintentional comedy provided mostly by the all around terrible supporting cast and then Mr. Mullets himself.

Swayze claims that he has studied martial arts and made this movie for "guys to enjoy his fighting skills". I'm no expert, but neither is old Patrick: Slow kicks - and only able to do them with his right leg, stupid looking posing in WHITE THIGHTS... What else? Of yes. The bad guy looks like the green insect from Walt Disney pictures, Marshall Teaque is making an ass out of himself with his little denim -thing and bear tooth ear ring, then there is this fat guy who sports the brown shades and cowboy boots. Whoa. If there ever will be a live action version of "South Park" - here's your Cartman. And then finally. The slogan that has no equal in even the cheesiest Chuck Norris/Seagal/VanDamme - movie posters. I don't remember it word to word, but it practically makes Swayze's Dalton sound like THE BADDEST Mother who's ever captured on celluloid. Trust me, he ain't.

Just bought myself a copy of "The Retrievers". First of all I must say that the trailer for this schlock is by far more entertaining - but that seems to be the case with many B-grade actioners. The plot isn't half that bad and maybe in hands of some real filmmaker, it could have actually worked. Now the only reason to watch this reasonably forgotten gem is it's undeniable cheese -value. Action scenes are slow but frequent so you don't have to press the fast forward in your remote all of the time.

There is one guy, whose name I didn't catch, who posses some martial arts skills. His kicks are fast and quite flashy - especially when he's fighting the hero in the end. This is mostly because Max Thayer doesn't manage to be even a bit believable in his action scenes. His kicks are knee -high and I've seen more impressive punches thrown by 5 -year old boys.

Acting is total garbage and I was expecting gratuitous nudity. There is none. Well, there was one female character who's supposed to be some kind of literary agent - I suppose. She looks like a contemporary adult film star and is having a bubble bath for no obvious reason in the middle of the film.

This balances on the level of "being just plain bad" and "being just SO plain bad that it's actually good". I'd be hard pressed to go through it again, but it's a good addition to your 80's STV - action movie collection.

PLUS Katey Sagal (aka. Peggy Bundy) sings the song over closing credits. Well, you have to start somewhere... I also noticed director Rowdy ("Road House", "Striking Distance")Herrington's name in the credits. I believe it was in the grip -department or something.

Avoid if you like to actually enjoy your movies. Get it if you have a soft spot for geriatric Kung-Fu and painfully bad acting.

I have to admit that when I inserted the "BOTB" DVD in my player, I was a bit afraid to get a similar experience than from Mr. Seagal's recent efforts. Notably the abysmal "Out For A Kill", which did not live up to ANY standards.

Well boys and girls, "OFAK" this one ain't. Tony Ching Siu-Tong knows a lot about directing action and it really shows. "BOTB" reminded me pretty much of an above-the-average Hong Kong -action flick with it's over the top action sequences and a very thin plot. This is no cinema classic, but if one puts this in comparison against many of Hollywood's recent actioners, it stands out surprisingly well. Seagal shows a good form with his newly found Kung Fu -influenced fighting style.

He still uses a stunt double, but hey, the guy is over 50 and his Aikido -material is as impressive as ever. The spinning back kicks done by the stunt men look a bit silly cause you KNOW that they haven't ever belonged into Seagal's arsenal.

Like said; the story is not exactly "BOTB":s selling point. It has it's usual seagalisms (ie. corruption, ex-CIA operatives and eastern religions), but acting wise it actually has it's moments. Byron Mann does fine work as Seagal's troubled partner Sunti and Mr. Jellybeans himself isn't as fed up with his lines as he has been in his recent outings. Cinematography is top notch and the musical score works quite well also. These are certainly not given facts in DTV -movies.

It's still pretty unrealistic to see Seagal to return back to being Hollywood's n:o 2 action star (which he was during "Under Siege"), but as long as his films keep up the level set by "BOTB", I'm happy.

In a scale from 1 to 10, I'll give this one a good solid 7,5. If you liked the old Seagal, you'll be happy to see this one.

...I would hate to say that it kind of sucked and I'm not gonna, it's just that it wasn't exactly my cup of tea.

I think it was very honest attempt to make laid back comedy which in Finland usually has something to do with heavy boozing or (male) nudity.

I didn't laugh one single time and I really had wanted to like this flick. I would like to say it was sympathetic, but it really wasn't.

It was way too long and it's pacing was most of the time off note. The whole mid section of the movie just kind of blurred and when the lame ass finale finally came, I couldn't care less for any of the characters.

Acting was over all mediocre - the little girl was very good though. The four brothers were natural, but quite uninteresting and stereotyphical. Taneli Mäkelä & the-guy-who-played-Sibelius were straight out of a goof ball comedy skit and really painfully stuck out. The bad guys were from a different genre also, somewhere between "Sopranos" and "Tankki täyteen".

Cinematography was like in many other finnish films: fairly up to TV standards. Not enough pictures and not enough cinematic vision.

The beautiful song sung by the kid was of course, well, beautiful BUT NOT THAT GOD DAMN BEAUTIFUL. I mean, jeez, everytime she sung it the camera gets close to her slowly, people's eyes get moist and the movie going audience is almost litarally forced to feel emotional. I was waiting for a "YOU SHOULD CRY NOW" subtitles appear on the screen the final time this happened. Once used this kind of overly overwhelming scene would've worked, but they wasted that ammo pretty early on.

Maybe I'm a cynic and should be happy with what I'm given, but I know that finnish filmmakers could do better. Perttu Leppä including, whose previous films (especially his great short films) worked a lot better in my oppinion. "Helmiä ja sikoja" is a hyper naive picture and you should follow the main characters' example and drink heavily thru the whole film. That might have helped me.