Ugh. It's a foregone conclusion that Seagal will never make anything again that lives up to his heyday in the 80's and 90's, but at least his DTV work up to this point had been quirkily interesting. As Seagal has aged and grown more portly, he's done less hand-to-hand combat and relied more on guns and knives, but the new trend seems to be that he barely appears in movies where he has the top billing. SNIPER: SPECIAL OPS was guilty of this, but at least that one had the good sense to be on the short and simple side. CODE OF HONOR is, quite frankly, one of the most cynical and shoddy pieces of work (and I use the term loosely) to ever have Seagal's name slapped onto it. Here, he plays Colonel Robert Sikes, a Punisher-like character who acts as a vigilante in his city to clean up crime. On his trail is a former protégé/friend who is trying to bring him in along with the help of the police. And, for some reason, there is a sleazy news team who follow them around trying to get a good story. So, you have elements of THE PUNISHER, SURVIVOR (the generic Pierce Brosnan movie from last year), and NIGHTCRAWLER, with none of the nuance or sophistication of each (at least the first and last ones). There are no characters with significant screen time to root for, as government, the police, and news media are all painted in such a bad way. Even Seagal who normally is likable, if stoic, is stuck playing a character who straight up murders people. Of course, I was with the movie for about two-thirds of it because it was kind of entertaining in a bad way. However, a third act plot twist completely ruined the film for me. It's like the filmmakers/screenwriter were like, "Just kidding!" It honestly angered me a little bit, making the last half hour or so a real chore to get through. As for the action, which is what most people will care about, there is a decent amount of it although it's mostly shootouts and some knife-fighting. Seagal gets very little to do, and I was disappointed here just like with SNIPER: SPECIAL OPS. The opening scene was probably the best, and there was a couple short fight scenes towards the end that partially made up for how dismal the rest of the film was. Seagal also gets one of his trademark speeches about halfway through, although the politics of it rubbed me the wrong way. Ultimately, I feel like I've been tested for the last time as a Seagal fan. These last two films were a whole new level of lazy, and I don't know if I can take it anymore. CODE OF HONOR is for Seagal fans only, and even then I'd still be cautious
Add a Review
-
Continuing my plan to watch every Stephen Seagal movie in order; I just watched Code Of Honor (2016)
Seagal does Death Wish, sort of, except it's not just muggers he kills; he actually blows up a strip club, where I'm sure there were innocent workers and customers in there!! The explosion at least looked real, unlike the rest of the CGI on display here. As for Seagal, he is as bland and uncharismatic as always; and I don't even think he even spoke until almost an hour in it. His character is as awesome and brilliant as always, the way he is spoken about is laughable!! Craig Sheffer comes off as a girly fan boy gushing over how awesome he is, there is a hint of it in the trailer, but the full thing is longer.
The movie hinted at a HUGE twist which actually peaked my interest in the final act, but then it didn't have the balls or imagination do it, so I was just left annoyed. -
kosmasp28 October 2016They do not need to worry. Not only because Steven Seagals character won't be after them (he's hunting criminals you see?), but also because this just tries to mash a couple of things and take a decent idea and make something out of it. I'd say it doesn't succeed, but at least it doesn't shy away from showing the violence behind it all (even if most of the blood, if not all is CGI).
Youz also get some nudity (a friend of mine told me that Steven Seagal movies nowadays have at least one scene shot in a strip club, haven't checked if that's accurate but wouldn't be surprised at all) if that floats your boat. And a story of sorts of someone being after a guy, although they have the same goal and ... well who am I kidding, you're not going to watch this because of a plot. Even when it sounds decent and made me reconsider my own recent ban on Seagal movies and watch this. He did worse, but if you're not a fan, you probably should just stay away ... -
closetdrunk4207 May 2016It's hard to describe what i just watched.
It's a Steven Seagal movie, so naturally my expectations weren't high, but what i saw... left me speechless. The horrid acting, the useless CGI in gunshots, the useless CGI in news playing on the TV, the useless CGI everywhere... you just don't see this quality in 2016 even in Indie movies.
Everything in this movie is just cheap. I would expect a Seagal movie to have the action he is so known for, but no. He barely says a word. Barely shows up at all.
The whole "plot" of the movie is just stupid and unbelievable. The so called action scenes are so slow, that the only thought you are left with is "really??". I have never in my life edited a movie, but if i did, this is not how i would do it. It's impossible to describe this movie, you just have to see it. If you have ABSOLUTELY nothing else to do.
Like me.
I only gave it 2 stars because i used to like Steven Seagal, back in the day. -
Steven Seagal plays a Colonel called Robert Sikes who's wife and son were killed in some sort of accident involving criminal activity.
Now, being the ever faithful husband and loving father, he spends the rest of his days mooching around unnamed cities killing absolutely anyone who commits a crime, much like Max Von Sydow in Judge Dredd.
Drop a cigarette butt, he will find you, and he will kill you, because he's got a particular set of skills...
He's not that extreme, but if your dealing drugs on the street, or meeting up in a car park at night, make sure you look up first, because there may be a bearded obese man with his sights on you.
Enter Craig Sheffer, looking disturbingly like he's actually wearing a Craig Sheffer mask, playing an FBI agent assigned to capture him. Trouble is, Seagal is just too fast and too good for him, so they only ever bump into each other in the one nightclub in the whole world, and it just happens to be run by bad guys, so he blows it up anyway.
But it's all not what it seems, Axel Foley's mate who got killed in Beverly Hills Cop is the main bad guy, and him, Sheffer, and the cops are all after Seagal.
Just look for the gigantic shadow.....
It's a step up from the debacle that was Sniper: Special Ops, but that's saying that breaking your leg is better than breaking your neck.
We all know, us the long suffering fans of Seagal, that he will never reach the giddy heights of Marked For Justice, Hard to Siege, Above Deadly ground, or even Out For Death, and we all know that he is phoning in his performance now, just like he's been doing for the last ten or so years.
And he knows this, that's why he's churning out as many films he can, because he's getting old, and becoming more ridiculous looking with every film.
Here, he doesn't utter a syllable units the 48 minute mark, when he bumps into Sheffer, and this is the best part, because he some random body movement to make it look like he's moving fast.
It's not a good film, the final fight is like watching two fat man swat a fly first, and when we get to see them actually doing some decent fighting, it's just two visibly skinnier men in the shadows.
And then it all finishes without any real closure.
But it's worth seeing for Seagal wearing his outfit ready for his next film, and to see just how hilarious Sheffer looks now. He actually looks like a creature from Nightbreed.
Not good. -
So it's another few months, and another Seagal DTV flick. Nowadays we have to get used to Seagal having even less movement that he did 10 years ago, and he's pretty sedentary in this one. He spends most of this film sniping, but does occasionally shoot some guys and gets into one hand-to-hand fight, so I guess there's that.
Honestly, the film is just so bland and like so many of his other stuff that he's done since the turn of the century that it's hard to differentiate between the films these days. Seagal plays Robert Sikes, an ex-special forces guy who is specialised in everything and is extremely dangerous, blah blah blah. Whenever they have Seagal play these characters and they try to give background, they should just put in R Lee Emery's line from On Deadly Ground about him drinking a gallon of gas and all that.
His character is a Punisher type thing where his wife and child have been killed so now he's a vigilante on a one man mission to kill any criminal he sees. This would be alright except there's very questionable choices of killing - he decides to snipe a group of drug addicts (because it's them that's the problem, not the dealers, apparently) at a point in the movie and also kill the mayor (whose major crime is cheating on his wife), with no real explanation. Seagal's supposed to be an antagonist in this, I suppose, but that doesn't mean he can kill people for no reason.
The other main guy is a guy called William Porter, who was under Seagal in the military and knows all about him and his mission, and is out to stop him with the help of the police. He is portrayed as the polar opposite to Seagal's character - a man whose wife and son abandoned him of their own merit because of his life of drinking, cheating, and crime but is now out to "atone for his sins" by stopping Seagal. Fairly generic, like everyone else in the film.
A lot of humour in this comes from the atrocious CGI. It has to be seen to be believed, with the blood in the film being the main culprit. The acting is pretty much universally terrible also.
So with all that said, it's one to avoid...unless. Unless the theory I developed is correct.
You see, near the end of the film the police guy believes that Sikes and Porter are in fact the same person, and that Porter is using the Sikes name to cover up his actions. This leads to a final encounter where the police kill Seagal as Sikes, but they believed they killed both Sikes and Porter as it was an alter ego. In fact, Porter had ran away never to be seen again. Of course, the fatal flaw in this is that when they take a look at the body they're gonna see a big fat old guy, not Porter. Then, when sitting on the toilet after watching this, I suddenly came to a realisation...
They could be right. Sikes could be Porter, and vice versa. It is a split personality disorder sort of thing - Sikes and Porter are these two polar opposites, ying and yang. Sikes and Porter are never actually seen together by any of the major characters. In the one scene when they're in a club together, Sikes said that Porter had a bomb under his seat which would explode if he got out, allowing Sikes to walk away unscathed. Turns out the bomb was just a ruse. Before he is killed, Seagal/Sikes jumps through a window and lands on a spike, putting a bloody hole through his hand. Porter gets shot in his hand earlier in the film - an injury that is exactly the same. There is a scene where it switches between Sikes and Porter sitting in the same position in a motel room that looks exactly the same. There's plenty more hints to this idea in the film which I won't go into, but if it is actually the case that they are the same person, it makes it a LOT more interesting. Just a thought. -
crutchfieldanthony30 September 2019Horrible acting, editing, cgi and everything else. Trash
-
Leofwine_draca6 September 2016CODE OF HONOR is the very latest in a series of star action vehicles for bloated and charisma-free Steven Seagal, the former great who has been making bad film after bad film for just under twenty years now. Bizarrely, this one's not been shot in Eastern Europe but Utah for a change, although ironically it's even worse than Seagal's previous Romanian and Bulgarian adventures.
The story sees Seagal as a high-tech vigilante who goes around taking down drug dealers and criminals with his sniper rifle. The police are on the case and so are various bad guys who want to take revenge for the slayings. What quickly becomes apparent is that Seagal is nothing more than a supporting player in his own movie. He gets little screen time and just one or two fight scenes which are laughably poor.
The film has plenty of cheesy CGI blood which looks even more ridiculous than that we saw in THE EXPENDABLES. Despite the violence it's a real bore to sit through with barely any plot, a distinct lack of characterisation, and irrelevant sub-plots. Craig Sheffer and James Russo are two of the tired looking actors who show up to pick up their pay and keep their heads down. The ridiculous climax is particularly poorly handled and leaves the viewer thinking "is that it?". -
I know what your thinking. It's a Seagal movie so it has to be god awful, right? Well the concept of the movie was actually pretty cleaver. Most of the plot had to do with Seagal playing a punisher- like character, a soldier who while was overseas thought his family would be safe, but they end up getting killed in a gang related shooting. His head snaps and he begins a vigilante crusade to kill organize crime.
One of the things that makes this an...interesting Seagal picture is that, technically Seagal is playing the Antagonist. He thinks he's doing the right thing, but the cops this movie really focus on are assigned to take him down.
That's another reason why this could have been a good Seagal movie, he's barely in it. Most of Seagal's scenes look like they were inserted after the movie was finished. It was like the filmmakers made a bad movie and thought they could make it better by finding the money to hire Seagal, film him saying some corny stuff and doing his once bad ass but now cheesy Akido movies, and edit it into the rest of the movie.
Code of Honor could have done for Seagal what JVCD did for Van Damme (not that it did so much), but unfortunately the film making looked very amateurish even for a Straight-to-Video film. It is a Seagal film, but I do expect better quality in sound and visual effect than what I got.
Even though you can see it coming before it does, the movie has a pretty decent plot twist that made it interesting, but it does not sit well because of all the really bad acting (and I'm not even talking about Seagal)
It had potential, but overall it's not even worth it to watch to make fun of Steven Seagal. Skip it. -
zardoz-1322 December 2016"Guns, Girls, and Gambling" director Michael Winnick's "Code of Honor" isn't as egregious as some Steven Seagal epics are these days. Predictably, most Seagal sagas qualify as potboilers, but writer & director Winnick really brings the pot to a boil with this exception to the rule. He stages several bullet-riddled firefights with high body counts and flying CGI blood spray. When Seagal isn't dispatching morally reprehensible villains with his well-aimed shots, Craig Sheffer wields dual knives and stabs away at his own adversaries. Aside from Craig Sheffer, "Code of Honor" features a better-than-average cast with familiar faces, including James Russo, Griff Furst, and Louis Mandylor. This movie amounts to an improvement over recent Seagal thrillers because it is not all about Seagal. Listed as a producer, too, Sheffer takes his share of screen time with Mandylor turning up more often than usual as a city detective investigating the killings. The ending will give spectators something to ponder, which isn't often the case in a Seagal movie.
Our soft-spoken, paunchy protagonist sports those distinctive orange-lensed spectacles, wears his boot-polish black hair slicked back, and doesn't waste a whole lot of time talking. He has equipped himself with an impressive arsenal of firearms, and he handles these weapons with confident expertise. Former Special Forces honcho Colonel Robert Sikes (Steven Seagal of "Exit Wounds') has "a laundry list of medals," and he is cleaning up the streets of an anonymous city. He prefers to carry out his work with a high-tech sniper-rifle, but he can sling a knife with nimble accuracy. This trigger-happy vigilante has embarked on a killing spree because his wife and son died in a random drive-by shooting incident while Sikes was in Afghanistan searching for terrorists. When the police conduct a background check on Sikes, they learn that the Army has Sikes listed as "missing in action, presumed dead." Initially, Winnick gets "Code of Honor" off to a bullet-blasting start with a nocturnal massacre. Sikes uses a long-range rifle from the safety of a high place to wipe out two gangs during a drug exchange in a parking lot. Sikes clashes with his old nemesis, Special Agent FBI Agent William Porter (Craig Sheffer of "Night Breed"), who is just as violent as Sikes.
One of the more amusing as well as brutal scenes occurs after a rendezvous between Sikes and Porter at a local nightclub owned by a gangster. Sikes shows Porter a portable detonator in his fist and warns the Special Agent that if he tries to rise from his chair that Sikes will blow him to kingdom come. Sikes exits the nightclub without fanfare, and then Romano's henchmen armed with machine guns come after him to kill him. Porter labors under the mistaken belief that Sikes has told him the truth. Porter swaps shots with his adversaries while clutching the chair, even after he has toppled sideways on the floor. Imagine his chagrin when Porter realizes afterward that Sikes has deceived him! Romano (James Russo of "Django Unchained") tries to kill Porter, but Detective James Peterson (Louis Mandylor) gets the drop on him. The nightclub scene is the most imaginative in "Code of Honor," and Winnick orchestrates the action without a shred of humor. The big difference between Sikes and Porter is that Sikes controls his encounters while Porter finds himself in the middle of melees. Eventually, about 81 minutes into the action, we learn Porter isn't a Fed, but an inactive soldier. Another thing that differentiates this Seagal movie from lesser efforts is the cast. Aside from the usual array of characters, "Code of Honor" has a stripper heroine, Keri Green (Helena Mattsson of "Seven Psychopaths") who escaped from an explosion at a strip club that served as a depot for arms. The confusing last-minute surprise resembles something about of "Fight Club." It seems that Sikes may in fact be Porter! Of course, Winnick refutes this during a rooftop confrontation between the two men. "Somehow everybody's thinking that you're me, and I'm you," Sikes tells Porter. Sikes whips Porter in a brief, close-quarters hand-to-hand combat sequence. Afterward, when Porter tries to escape, Sikes blows up a floor of the building where Porter fled. Meantime, the FBI has entered the fray and takes over the high-profile vigilante case from who has been on the case since the get-go. Ironically, at the end, Porter may have escaped the explosion because the stripper's son has a baseball glove that appear in Porter's motel room earlier.
The big difference between this Segal outing and others is that it is set in America and not Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, Seagal is still relying on stuntmen that are clearly thinner than himself. Comparably, "Code of Honor" ranks as above-average Seagal fare. -
According to IMDb, this movie had a budget of 8 million dollars. Steven Seagal must have gotten a large sum of that, because this is his cheapest looking movie to date.
1: At many places the dialog is looped very poorly, I don't even think that it is the actual actors voices that they used, and if it is it is done very poorly. (Fun Fact: I many Steven Seagal movies it is his voiced that is often looped, but not this time)
2: This doesn't feel like a movie! It looks like a TV movie, but with boobs. Poorly shot and edited.
3: Almost no squibs or blank shots! 99% of the time a gun is fired, it is poorly CGI and the blood effects are also horrible. The actors are not even trying to make it look like there is a recoil. And when they die it looks so silly. CLearly they were not given direction on how to fall down.
4: Plot twist: This must be the only Steven Seagal movie with a plot twist. But at the end you are just confused whether or not it is true or not. And not in a good David Lynch type of way. -
mattcroman10 May 2016This movie is ten out of ten for entertainment. It is so terrible it is actually entertaining in it's utter direness. Steven Seagal, overweight, mumbling intelligibly, sporting a horrible box beard and unreal jet black hair, is a magnetic presence on the screen. It's almost impossible to tear your eyes away from him.
The plot? Ridiculous. I can just imagine the meeting of z-list execs and Steven Seagal. Seagal: I just read the greatest script ever. Exec: Who wrote it? Seagal: I did it. Exec: What's it about? Seagal: It's about a good bad guy and a bad good guy. They're mirror images of each other. Ying and yang, baby. I'll play the good bad guy, he's an ex-special forces vigilante seeking to rid the city of criminal scum. No wait, I got it mixed around. He's the bad good guy, no, my bad, I confused myself, I was right the first time...What about the bad good guy? Well, I'm glad you asked. He'll be a fed, and one of my ex- special forces buddies with a deep relationship to my character. He'll speak like Christian Bale's Batman, at one point, he must utter the lines "I'm just a sinner looking for redemption." Also, he'll kill people with knives. What kind of FBI agent dual wields knives? I'm glad you asked...
Dialogue? Overblown. Seagal mumbles and grumbles his way through a script that seems to believe it posses some kind of philosophical credibility. It does not. He also seems to drift from one accent to another, I'm not sure where he is supposed to come from. Is he black? Cajun? What? The movie seems to hinge on the question: "If you could save the world but nobody would know you did it, would you do it?" I suspect Seagal and whoever wrote this thought they were being unbelievably deep...in a word. No.
As for the fight scenes, these were comical and clumsy. Seagal is not the man he was. And seeing him trying to recreate fight scenes from earlier movies is painful to watch. Fast hand to hand combat devolves into comical slap fights. The gun-fights are all characterized by terrible CGI blood splatter and gunfire.
The end twist? Well, I don't want to spoil it too much. But entertaining to say the least. You must watch this movie. -
namashi_111 May 2016Steven Seagal is in Badass mode in his latest 'Code of Honor. This low-budget Action B-Movie is a routine watch, although a few good scenes & a nice twist in the end, make it work somehow.
'Code of Honor' Synopsis: Colonel Robert Sikes is on a mission to rid his city of crime. As a stealthy, one-man assault team, he will take on street gangs, mobsters, and politicians with extreme prejudice until his mission is complete. His former protégé, William Porter, teams up with the local police department to bring his former commander to justice and prevent him from further vigilantism.
'Code of Honor' is a fair watch. Its the regular good versus bad story. However, there is twist in the end, which works & makes the action-fare a bit more than just remaining to be an action-fare. The Writing is okay, although its interesting to see Seagal take on the baddies one-by-one. Michael Winnick's Direction could've been sharper. Cinematography & Editing are passable. Action-Sequences are good. The Graphics, however, are tacky.
Performance-Wise: Seagal is back at what he's been doing since years: Kicking Ass & being a Badass. And although he has very less dialogue & also not much screen time (I wish there was more of him), he remains tough enough to continue his quest & blowing up heads. Craig Sheffer has a larger than Seagal & he does the acting bit well. Others lend adequate support.
On the whole, 'Code of Honor' is a one-time watch. -
Rat_273 June 2016There is nothing redeeming about this movie. I didn't have great expectations for this movie, but they were failed nonetheless. This movie has ... NOTHING. It gets a zero in just about every possible category, and should be avoided at all costs.
I try to separate movies into two main subject first, story and presentation, and this one was poor on both sides of that coin. The story is The Punisher. There is nothing creative or unique there, and it is presented in a very basic manner.
There is no acting to speak of, there is an excessive overuse of the slow-mo cam (especially in the strip club), and for some reason, Steven Segal wears ear-protection when he is shooting a suppressed rifle.
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. -
This is definitely a Punisher rip-off, as fatboy Seagal is referred throughout the film as the "super vigilante". However most of Seagal's scenes are him sitting in a chair while the majority of the action is carried by his co-star. It's a typical roll for Seagal...ex military, expert in everything, never gets touched, ect. There is a predictable plot twist toward the end, but most likely you won't care by that point. Oh, and the CGI blood and gun flashes were cringe worthy. The film started off with potential, but quickly faded into another forgettable Steven Seagal movie.
-
tommya-4464429 August 2016I'll give this a 3 because generally I like Steven Seagal, but it could easily have qualified for a 1. Slow moving and dull, without very good acting - in fact some of it downright bad - without a compelling story line, and without any particularly sympathetic characters. I mean, even the doe-eyed-cute mother, who should be sympathetic, is little more than a caricature. And not enough of the beautifully choreographed martial arts fight scenes that Seagal built his reputation on. These are why I watch Steven Seagal movies, and they were sadly lacking.
And the clichés. Oh my god. If you like clichés, you need not watch any other movie. Ever. Just watch this one over and over because it has every bad cliché that has ever been in any movie. Any movie. Ever. So bad that I was saying lines out loud before the "actors" said them! There went an hour and three quarters of predictability that I will never get back. -
See the review of this garbage move done by Mista GG on Youtube. He did the best review I have ever seen of any Steven Seagal movie. I literally could not add anything here that describes what is wrong with this move than what Mista GG says in his video review.
Far as I'm concerned, Steven Seagal and Donald Trump are the SAME person! Just look at their tans! LOL -
seriously?! this is only good for action and shoot em up, but even at that it fails, every bad guy in the movie can't hit anything at all, emptying full magazines on full auto at point blank range... such unbelievably bad shooting along with a script written with clichés from every B action flick in history... unbearable acting could be tolerated for what this is, but bad guys with 3 bullets in each leg still shooting and wildly missing, are just too poor to be accepted... absolute waste of time... Steven Segal, just does his usual bad ass performance; the agent, is in reality a 55 yr old actor with a bad hairpiece!; the stripper is not even on coke, yet babbles her lines incoherently anyway!; the detective is so dumb, you can't even buy a cop that dumb!; ...it is funny, I mean, the fact that anyone still makes corny stuff like this,,, oh boy, then some more smart agents come to take over the super vigilante case, oh I won't spoil the plot twist though! it is so stupid, you must enjoy the brain freeze!
-
sergemattheyssen1 May 2020As a fan of the genre, i always give it a fair chance. But when you try to inject something intelligent or nuanced or some form of surprise-effect, then ... do it properly. Seagal looked old (despite the truckload of black hair dye) and overweight, but .. he is, ... so that doesn't bother me. The screenplay does not deliver, acting is pretty basic and uninteresting. Movie title is a real 'shocker'. Craig Sheffer deserved something better. All characters that COULD bring something interesting, were all killed within minutes. When it appeared they were trying to pull a 'usual suspects' theme out of their hat, that's when it all fell apart. Who actually did die in the end, who really?? ... Pfff, who cares! Because he's a legend, ..... 2 stars.
-
jonsimon-132-1320529 July 2019Well directed, good editing and acting. CGI was OK, but could have been better. Decent action scenes. Supporting cast do well in their roles. A Twist you don't see coming.
Overall a good solid effort. Worth a look. -
Lssah20064 April 2017The credits start to roll, it says, "Steven Seagal - Executive Producer" and I am already thinking I should probably turn it off. But I thought I'd give it a go anyway. Then I see that Steven is an actor in the movie too.....sigh....."I'll still give it a go I guess"
I should have gone with my gut feeling, it was awful. I remember the good 'ole days when Steven turned out a few good movies (Like 'Under Siege') but since then it's been one turd after another.
The movie is cheesy, flawed, utterly ridiculous and poorly acted....and that doesn't even cover the plethora of clichés either!
You know you are on a winner when the budget for the squibs was so low that they had to rely on SFX for the bullet hits (fyi, I use the term SFX incredibly loosely). I think I gave myself a migraine just from the eye rolling.
Everyone deserves a bravery award simply for making it to the end. It may not be the worst movie I have ever seen, but it's certainly up there!! How this got a score of 4 is a miracle - I am sure there is a minus symbol missing from the score
Waste an hour and 40 minutes watching paint dry instead. -
NijazBaBs11 December 2021I liked this because of main idea, which is revenge and justice, fighting for something, which strongly resonates with my faith and belief system. Also I liked that this is mysterious and lots of action. But I don't like that it is too mysterious and towards end getting more and more confusing or unclear, that actually in the end it leaves me with lots of questions. In fact in the end I don't even know who survived, who is dead, and bit unfinished.
-
P3n-E-W1s323 February 2017To be clear, I am a Steven Seagal, fan - I even liked the albums he did with Thunderbolt and even caught him live (one of the best gigs I've been to) - controversial, HUH!!!
So you would think I like all his films... well I don't - there have been quite a few stinkers in his career. Code of Honor though doesn't give off too much of a stench. Though I do believe that Steven Seagal's name shouldn't be top billing as it's Craig Sheffer (who I've liked since Nightbreed) who is the star of the show and has more screen time.
The story revolves around a serial killer, Colonel Robert Sikes (portrayed by Seagal) who is intent on killing gang members, being judge and executioner all-in-one, and the FBI Agent sent to help out the police in apprehending him, William Porter (played by Sheffer).
Seagal gives his usual moody, dark, and brooding acting stereotype (you always know what you get in a Steven Seagal Movie) as the armed forces trained serial killer. No stretch there and I do think that he has his character wrote around his clichéd style.
Craig Sheffer, however, does a decent job of portraying a helpful agent pursuing his once army buddy come friend. Though something doesn't seem quite right about Agent Porter.
The story, written and directed by Michael Winnick, keeps a good pace, gives the viewer enough action to keep them entertained and a couple of twists that you don't see coming until they are revealed. As for the action, there's not a lot of martial arts in the movie and when there is you're not sure if Seagal is doing his own moves. There's a couple of knife-play scene's, though none come close to the sparks-flying speed spectacle of Under Siege. Most of the action is based around gunplay which allows for lots of head-shots, blood splatter, and oodles of blood mist. If you like a good body count film you'll like this.
If you like action films, you should like this as the story is pretty strong with a couple of twists, decent action and good direction. I recommend to all. -
shakercoola23 September 2018An American action thriller; A story about a former special-ops operative who turns vigilante after the drive-by killing of his wife and son. His former protege, an FBI agent, tries to find his vigilante friend before the police or a maniacal mobster are able to. This is an old-school styled action thriller set in Salt Lake City. The central theme is, what happens if a vigilante begins to destroy all the crime lords and murderers which plague a district. How far could he go before a people's champion becomes too grey for the general public'? Gratuitous for its violence, nudity and sleaze scenes, the film is also poorly acted in parts with ham-fisted exposition dialogue which is delivered by the supporting players. Clearly, it is meant as a Seagal vehicle so it's a pity he doesn't speak for 47 mins. Some scenes look fake with poor exection of CGI too. There's just nothing compelling about the story and it ends up with a diabolical twist at the end. Nevertheless, the film features a terrific explosion in one scene and there is plenty of action and aikido skills on show, as you might expect. All in all, there are no characters with significant screen time to root for, as government, police, and news media are all painted in a bad light.
-
William_x_Lee7 August 2016Just attempted to watch Steven Segal's Code of Honor. Spoilers coming, but it's not like you won't get anything that Seagal has ever done before. He's a former agent, he's mad at the world, the cops are hunting him. There, did that spoil it for you? Seagal spends most of the film sitting on the same rooftop perch shooting down thugs. James Russo picks up a quick paycheck as a mob boss who walks around a dark room scowling menacingly at photos of his enemies, and the co star,Craig Sheffer, who plays an FBI agent who eschews standard issue hand guns for a pair of knives, which predictability leads to a poorly choreographed battle with Seagal. Props to the news anchors who give newscasts while using overly dramatic dialog which rivaled the writings of Shakespeare. Jesus. I'm not sure what the hell I just watched. Oh. Lots of strippers, and stereotypical Hispanic gang members. Do yourself a favor and get drunk and eat cheese curls on your couch instead of frying your brain with this incomprehensible vomit bath of a movie. Holy crap.