dolemite72

Took me three sittings...but I finally managed to watch/complete/endure/survive this abomination.

The cast are probably the worst actors ever (zero emotion and non existent line delivery) Every (bad) black stereotype is on full display here (perma-scowling obese black women, replete with false nails and bad weaves...tooth-sucking whilst snapping their fingers admist moment of spontaneous dancing/twerking) and the men are equally useless (think Robert Townsend's 'Black Acting School' skit from 'Hollywood Shuffle'...mixed with Dave Chappell 'Tyrone Biggums' character)

I'm baffled as to why (in 2023) the people behind this are so mentally/socially backward, lacking basic cohesion ...and under the assumption that audiences (are as equally backward) and want long, protracted, meandering, ebonic-strewn third word dialogue (that makes up around 90% of this movie) This isn't even a black and white issue...the people behind this seem completely 'alien' to the most basic behavioural norms (despite the fact that they all seem to be American citizens?)

Seriously...I've seen 'Nollywood' movies, where the cast and crew seem more westernized/rational/coherent than the people behind this car crash?

And because it's so jaw-droppingly bad...I recommend this to all Bad-Movie buffs.

Neil Breen has some new competition methinks?

About ten minutes into this movie, it became apparent that the makers weren't going for a minimalist vibe...and that the performances (and dialogue) are stilted to the hilt.

Despite the many (fake) positive reviews on IMDB (presumably made by cast & crew) the dialogue (and delivery) is full of amateurish pauses by a cast of well-spoken toffs (replete with plum accents) attempting to act tough and street-wise.

The (much-praised) 'period-detail' was also highly inaccurate too (the fashions were all over the place, the bank notes too modern and the 'needle-drop soundtrack far too random to give the film any kind of identity)

According to other reviews, this film is supposedly a 'comedy/drama'...yet, other than laughing at how amateurish it was...it's comedy extends no further than unconvincing swearing and punching.

The plot is all over the place. First it concerns a young lad (who's fine thieving from others) but suddenly acts all virtuous, when someone steals from him. Then it introduces his (supposed, tough) brother (another plum-voiced RADA reject) getting mixed up with the most unconvincing bunch of (toff) criminals.... Eventually, both characters come together and absolutely none of it rings true.

Even the (likely forced) diversity cast members, all sound like Noel Coward wannabes.

The whole sorry endeavor reminded me of another British movie from 2017 called 'BORSTAL', which featured more bad acting from Enid Blyton rejects with plum accent alongside equally lousy period details.

Director has aspirations to be the next Shane Meadows or Guy Ritchie...sadly, he's more Shane Ritchie.

Very uncharacteristic episode of this (otherwise) great series, which is (as the other reviewer mentioned) largely overblown sequences of Budgie and Hazel rowing...over a dog (which becomes very repetitious) A lot of it feels rushed, un-finished and (at times) ad-libbed (but not necessarily in a good way)

This episode is made all the more worse by Charlie Endell being a (uncharacteristically) selfless 'soft-touch' with Budgie this time round...with little or no financial gain/agenda of his own.

But even running at 'half-strength' (so-to-speak) I still prefer it over the (deathly-dull) 'Fiddler On The Hoof' two-parter (from series one) or the overly comedic 'Jump-Up-Boys' and 'The Story So Far' episodes (from this series) Thankfully, the series got back on track in the following episodes (namely my favourite 'Twenty Four Thousand Ball Point Pens')

Tommy Robinson still has a 'marmite effect' with the British public.

To be fair, he hits middle ground for me.....in that, despite his honest intentions, he can't quite seem to shake off his (cringe-inducing) hooligan fanbase, replete with their hooliganistic chants and demeanour (that his detractors love to play up on) But despite this (minor) gripe, Robinson has a steadfast, earnest (dare I say...'noble') approach to his causes. Whether it's (literally) fighting his corner (sometimes against multiple attackers) or his knowledge on matters pertaining to religion (which have gotten him out of several televised 'hatchet-job' interviews) But like him or hate him, he does seem to raise awkward questions, that others are affraid to ask.

3 years after his 'Panodrama' documentary (in which Robinson highlighted how BBC news stories could be shaped, moulded and manufactured) comes 2022's 'The Rape Of Britain' The title alone, will likely immediately divide audiences (and as per usual, it has done) Given Robinson's unfair treatment by the media, you don't need a crystal ball to predict thoses that will deride the documentary, and those that'll support it. The problem here is, is that the presentation is highly unlikely to shift opinions or convert anyone to it's message.

You see, whilst this documentary *should* be seen by one and all, structurally 'The Rape Of Britain' (from a technical perspective) is a huge step-back (in both scope and execution) to 'Panodrama' (which itself was already rough round the edges) The problem (I found) was it's (lengthy) over-reliance on the same accuser (a girl named 'Nicole', now 22 years old) who had been systematically groomed and raped by several Muslim men in Telford since she was eleven years old. The bulk of the running time is spent on her horrific tales.....to the point that, despite feeling her pain, can (and does) become a little repitious) The common denominator to these tales woe, invariably keep leading back to two Muslim brothers (who despite, an already scarce police investigation at the time) have faced zero criminal charges (despite one of them being actually proven by DNA to have impregnated the girl when she was 13.... Yet was let off scot-free) Waters are further muddied, at the suggestion that the police were compliant in these crimes (they are accusations of police pay-offs, also) One of the ex-officers silence on the matter, speaks volumes.

Perhas if Robinson had at least interviewed the (reputed) five other accusers, it wouldn't have felt as sluggish (although to be fair, this documentary is apparently the first chapter, in a set of five upcoming investigations?) But as it stands, it would have likely strengthened the accusations, had the other girls stories interacted and gave these grim-tales more validity?

Matters pick up a little (around the 50 minute mark) when Robinson (armed with names and addresses) of the accused, decides to try confront them (to give them their "Right to reply", as he calls it) but as you can imagine, these guys remain tight-lipped (and counter-accuse Robinson of "Racism")

But unfortunately, it's the slack 'pacing' (and ultimate lack of any kind of clousure or immediate pay-off) that hurt this documentary (which is a cying shame) Perhaps future chapters may feature more than just one series of recollections (per documentary) to add more weight to the allegations (as opposed to it becoming another 'She-said-He-said' affair)

Any faults in this documentary, are purely technical (and can be overlooked, given the obvious budgetary constraints found in independent journalism) Pacing aside, this is an important issue, that seems to get constantly brushed under the carpet (for fear of being labelled 'Islamophobic') Tommy Robinson (no stranger to such 'labelling') seems to be the only person willing to ask such questions (so, to an extent, you have to take the extremely rough with the smooth here) The pacing wasn't that much of a deal-breaker to me (but may likely be off-putting to any possible converts.....and that's who Robinson needs to be targeting)

Sadly though, two thirds of the country cannot (and more importantly will-not) seperate the man from his message.

I look forward to (and wish all the best for) his future documentaries...I just think he needs to balance out (or at least mix-up) the accusations with more actual questioning of the accused (irregardless of their deafenning silence on the matter)

Muscle' finally hits UK shelves (after a 2 year wait) I'm not entirely sure if this was down to distribution, budget, Covid or editing.....Either circumstance could explain the abrupt ending and eleventh hour tonal-shift?

When a aimless forty-something tele-sales worker, Paul decides to join the local gym, he is soon approached by a larger-than-life trainer, Terry (who offers to take our protagonist under his wing) but from the outset appears to have a sinister agenda?

Minus a few details, that's pretty much the plot in a nutshell....and it's in the movies first half, that the characters, dialogue and scenarios feel hyper-realistic. Every little touch rings true and because you know from the outset it's all going to end in tears, the impending (largely implied) 'dread' is almost unbearable, helped along nicely by the black & white photography, destorted (James Wong Howe-style) visuals and a cracking hypnotic soundtrack....Think 'Seconds' (1966) but without the body-swapping.

Alas though, somewhere past the midway mark, such carefully orchestrated threat is replaced with outright menace and pornography. Which is a crying shame, because the performances (Fairbrass, especially) are first rate. The earlier scenes at the gym (nervous glances in mirrors from members both old and new....feel TOO honest) deftly highlight the vanity and insercurity of all those that frequent such establishments.. Most want to change themselves for the better...and some aren't what they appear to be. It's an interesting, fresh observation, but, not unlike a punishing work-out, it runs out of steam near the end.

It's a shame that the film-makers didn't trust it's audience to correlate the time-honoured 'thin-line' between uber-masculinity and homosexuality (without litterally having it spelt out for them) sometimes less is more....and it's a shame that this movie didn't follow it's own message (and reigned it in a touch) The tonal-shift is telling.

As it stands though, for most of it's running time, 'Muscle' is still a powerhouse of a movie, that might have benefitted from implying more than it actually shows. The 'hardcore' sex scenes did little to further the plot (but I guess controversy sells?) Fairbrass should capitalise on the fact that he's much scarier when 'playing it nice' and could easily move up a rung or two in Hollywood as a genuine pressence (as opposed to just playing thugs and bullies) He works much better in the earlier half (a combination of Ben Kingsley's 'Don Logan' mixed with Paddy Consindine's 'Morell') before (sadly) descending into shouty, drug-dealing 'Pat Tate' territory in the final third.

Still highly recommended (despite an unresolved ending and descent into outright theatrics in the final third)

Lower your expectations (let's face it, this *IS* a 2020 Bruce Willis DTV effort) and this movie (regardless of it's budgetary limitations) is quite effective in it's own goofy way. it's faults become it's strengths.

The limited set design, adds a sense of claustrophobia (that the actual script can't muster up) and the sparse FX (especially the barely glimpsed final monster) evoke The sense of 'accidental-suspense' that Spielberg utilized back in 1975 with 'Jaws'

Of course, it's almost sacrilege to even mention 'Jaws' and 'Breach' in the same sentence....but the (behind-the-scenes) parallels are there....if you look hard enough (and at very least there's no malfunctioning 'Bruce' in *this* movie) Willis doesn't seem to be phoning it in this time around (and certainly earns his star-billing on the DVD cover) and he features throughout the movie (instead of his usual 10 minute glorified cameo work ethic of late) Bottom line is this.....The movie needed a much bigger budget to make a dent against the majors.....but for once (given it's lofty intentions) it's budget was adequate here (and matched it's likewise 'scope') Fans of 'Alien' (1979) will be sorely disappointed....Whereas fans of 'Inseminoid' (1981) might get a kick out of this movie (and the bare-bone 80's synth score, doesn't hurt either)

I enjoyed it, anyhow

Although a fan of Borat (and to some extent, Sacha Baron Cohen) I went into this movie with the full knowledge that it was going to be a one-sided hit-piece on all things 'Trump' At very least, I expected Baron Cohen to try pull 'something' (anything?) out of the bag, and make me laugh, despite myself......Sadly, not here.

I'm fully aware, that Baron Cohen (and 'Borat' specifically) are quite well known to western audiences, so there's little anonymity to his 'schtick' this time around....but this movie still carried on as if it was all secretly filmed, on-the-hoof film-making (when it clearly wasn't)

Everything here was staged (right down to briefest viginette) and all the (paid) actors and/or onlookers needn't have had to worry about 'corpsing' on camera....because the material here was (worryingly) dire. If this is the best they can do 'scripted', then perhaps Baron Cohen needs to look elsewhere in future?

Nothing (at all) rang true (not even the so-called 'shocked-reactions') This was a stale, lazy and predictable 'hit-piece' and (apart from chuckling slightly at the 'period-gag') the only 'funny' thing about it was the 'agenda' behind it.

Amazon have put this out just before the election (and it shows) The finished product, could have (conceivably) been written, rehearsed, performed, filmed and edited over a wet weekend (it's simply *that* lacking and allround 'meh')

Whereas Baron Cohen once used his 'stereotypical' (albeit, incestuous, fish-out-of-water) foreigner, to (cleverly) prank his prey into revealing their own (real) cultural prejudices/eccentricities....he instead targets the individual (Trump) .....and to a lazier extent, Conservatives and Christianity (primarily, because it's a lot safer than mocking the polar opposite, I guess?) There was a minefield of material Baron Cohen could/should have used, had he kept it on a level-playing field. Which is a crying shame, because I could envision the (publicity-thirsty) Democrats actually being a lot more susceptible to pranks of this nature....but of course, actual comedy and entertainment take a backseat here, over political bias (and the public are sick to death of celebrity opinions as it is.....even moreso, when it's supposed to be a comedy)

The (oh-so) 'controversial' Rudy Guiliaini sequence was about as forced and staged as everything else beforehand. Employing doubles, inserts and dubbing to pad out the flimsiest of scenes of the former Mayor lying down on a bed to remove his microphone pack. I hope Guiliaini sues both Amazon and Baron Cohen....which would produce the one genuine laugh from this deeply, unfunny mess (Rounded off by sickening self-advertising from Amazon and a smug Tom Hanks cameo) that'll likely help cement Donald Trump another four years in office.

Sure, it's (largely) free of the 'filler' that infested his 2003-07 output, and (more importantly) it's heart *was* in the right place.....But the overall result was a rather disjointed affair, that couldn't quite make it's mind up on what it wanted to be (i.e, a 'traditional' Martial-Arts movie or a 'Tooling-Up-Mercenary' shoot-em-up?)

I was hoping for a ('Beat' Takeshi) 'ZAITOCHI' vibe to proceedings....but was met with a sub-par INTO THE SUN knock-off (but nowhere near as good)

To be fair, it works better in the opening 30 minutes, due to a more 'languid' pace (which came across as genuine thoughtful character-building and atmosphere, as opposed to mere filler) But as more and more plot contrivences piled up, the movie lost it's initial character, and started to resemble a 'greatest hits' package from his other movies. The earnest beginning (that hinted at a complete change of pace for Seagal) soon gave way to him being sat round a table (briefing his team) and talking about 'Intel' (etc) like we've seen him do so many times. Not just the pace, but also Seagal's character suffer from a complete about face (which pretty much killed it for me)

Seagal starts off as some 'Special Op' leader, who becomes disillusioned with humanity and retreats to Thailand (to practice herbology, acupuncture and medicine amongst the locals) At this point (despite the modern-day setting) the location itself lent great character to the movie (giving it the look and feel of a latter-day Shaw Brothers flick) Seagal (trying to ape Donnie Yen's IP MAN) plays it fairly humble (and kept his dialogue likewise) But around the midway mark it unfolded into a 'Seagal-Leads-His-Team-Into-Battle' movie (that's been the mainstay of most of his previous output for the last decade or more) and it's here the movie flounders into regular, generic DTV fodder (not helped by shoddy CGI blood that seemed tacked-on as an after-thought, to push for an R-Rating)

And the team that Seagal assembles are no sooner introduced (with nary a line of dialogue between them) before they're immediately thrust into battle (so characterisation, takes a backseat) Any sense of tradition and spirituality are thrown out of the window as soon as Seagal's character suggests that a female member of his team should (quote) "Dress Sexy" (in order to infiltrate the bad-guys club......which is also frequented with several topless dancers) As pleasant on the eye as these ladies are....it did tarnish the movie somewhat. All of a sudden, the lush Thai landscapes (and the villagers) give way to the same old strip-club scenario (that we've seen countless times....predominantly in Seagal's other movies)

The fights (whilst brief) are not so much better....but at very least 'different'....so I applaud Seagal for mixing it up a little and giving us a bit more variation. The doubles are there (should you wish to spot them) but they don't intrude or detract from the scenes themselves. I don't think there's any Aikido moves at all in this movie. Seagal seems to be going full-on Wing Chun with the fights (in an attempt to somewhat emulate Donnie Yen at times) He doesn't embarrass Yen (or himself) but (and I hate saying this) the movie needed a few more more fight scenes in my opinion (and longer ones at that) But as they stand, Seagal still acquits himself well for a guy in his mid-sixties (the sparing with the butterfly on his sleeve, was probably my favourite of his 'scenes')

Before it seems like I'm just outright ragging on the movie....Let me explain, that I think my sense of overall disappointment stems from the overkill of waiting well over a year to actually see this movie. The various trailers, photo-shoots, hype around 'Attrition' has painted a mental picture of a more traditional martial arts movie (that only halfway fullfilled such promise) The first trailer for Attrition is pretty much the movie in a (2 minute) nutshell (i.e: the plot, it's sequencing and all the 'good-stuff' are present and correct in the trailer) the other 85 minutes (whilst not exactly 'filler') don't really enhance the movie as a whole (and like I said earlier, I actually prefered the slow, languid opening) Unfortunately, Seagal seems to be hung up on recycling his 'Haunted-Mercenary-Looking-For-Absolution' character (that we've seen in his last 5-6 movies) and despite 'Attrition's' exotic setting, there's little much to differentiate between them (despite Seagal or 365Flix claims stating otherwise?)

The one sequence I was genuinelly impressed with, concerned the main bad-guy's penchant for mincing his enemies into little glass containers. And this one artistic flurry was presented to the audience in reverse (starting off with the jar, then the meat, then body parts reversing out of a mincer......ouch!......and so on and so on....culminating/beginning in his capture) It was an innovative touch and the movie (IMO) should have taken more chances like this (and perhaps played with the actual time-frame more) but alas, it did not (but a great scene nontheless)

The less said about the blues song performed over the end titles, the better. Which neatly brings me back to Takeshi's 'ZAITOCHI' (2004) which (for all it's ropey CGI blood) knew how to present a song and dance finale (unlike Attrition's....which felt out-of-place and tacked on) :(

Whilst It'll no doubt improve on repeated viewings (as do most Seagal movies that I'm not initially impressed by) I'm not entirely convinced by the claim that it's Seagal's best movie in 20 years (personally, I preffered both CONTRACT TO KILL and especially CODE OF HONOUR as more recent examples, plus a handful of others, over this movie)

The Plot: Seagal plays ex C.I.A operative john Harmon. His character seems like an off-shoot of Jonathan Cold (more 'The Foreigner' than 'Black Dawn' though) Harmon is lured back into taking out an Islamic terrorist, who is brokering a deal with Mexican Gangsters in Istanbul (?) for safe passage into the U.S. in order to activate (previously planted) 'cells'

As part of a 3 person team, Harmon utilises technology and surveillance to play both fractions off against one another. When given an eleventh hour change in plan by his handlers, Harmon disobeys orders and together with his team, take the fight to the badguys on the night of their meeting.

Action: Despite a rather talky start, the movie moves along at a fairly brisk pace, and is pretty much non-stop carnage, for the final third of the movie. However, the action is rather low-key (so don't go expecting any huge set pieces) what you get is about 2 or 3 explosions, a brief car chase, multiple shoot-outs and about 6 or 7 quick (but brutal) fight scenes for Seagal. The quick cut editing is on display (as per usual) but there's a few longer shots of Seagal dishing out punishment. The doubling is kept to a minimum. He bends a lot of arms (no snaps, sadly) flips a few guys over, kicks a couple, punches most of them, crunches one guys head open with a metal pole (ouch!) and shoots the rest (although, to be fair.....Seagal doesn't actually shoot too many people, preferring to actually fight them.....which may please those sick of the over-reliance on gunplay in previous movies?)

Production Values: For a lower end DTV movie, it looks pretty polished. As previously stated, there's no big set pieces, but the cinematography is crisp, and the locations colourful enough (if sometimes uninspired) The green screen employed in the car chase actually look stylish (for a change) The editing is good (albeit, erratic during certain fight scenes) and the soundtrack has a cinematic feel to it.

Performances: Seagal (as with 'End Of A Gun') is extremely profane throughout this. At one point, whilst giving a briefing to his team, he likens the mess of a mission to (quote) "A monkey trying to fcuk a football" (which not only raised a wry smile from myself....but also to the actual characters he says it to) Seagal isn't as 'quiet' as usual in this movie.....but speaks very slowly. Which is just as well, because most of his dialogue consists of abbreviations for various law enforcement agencies and terrorist groups and other organisations. The first third of the movie is very dialogue heavy....and if you're willing to endure a bit more exposition than usual, there's a pretty good thriller for the remaining hour. The other performers are competent enough (no one embarrasses themselves, I guess?) and Seagal's team also kick a lot of ass also (but not as much as the big guy)

Final thoughts: Whilst not perfect, Contract To Kill is a competent enough thriller. The problem being that it's marketed as an 'Action' movie. If it was sold as a thriller, it would be an action-packed thriller. But sold as an action movie, it probably doesn't have enough "kiss kiss bang bang" for jaded millennial audiences. It's problem might be that (even for a Steven Seagal movie) it's actually (scarily) plausible? Playing like a downscalled 20 minute 'Mission Impossible' segment (with a touch of 'Eye In The Sky' added for good measure) Contract To Kill isn't likely to give THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR sleepless nights, but I do think the recent bad reviews it's received have been rather unjust. It's fairly complex, but not at the expense of 'filler plot & characters' Had the exact same movie starred a bunch of A-listers....I'd wager critics would probably praise it. Unfortunately, critics seem to expect every new Seagal movie (however low the budget) to be 'Under Siege' (and quite frankly those days, not to mention 'budgets' have long gone, I'm afraid) Fans of Seagal would do well, to ignore the negativity of the critics (let's face it, they pretty much slammed all his earlier movies as well) and give this movie a chance. The key to enjoy recent Seagal movies is to like them for what they are (and not for what they aren't)

What I love about THE LOW DOWN is the complete lack of narrative (which in turn becomes a narrative) The movie feels hyper real. As previously stated, there seems to be a real sense of lingering menace to the movie (not because of any great impending danger...although there's a few tense moments) I seriously can't find one scene that rings false. The end sequence, as Frank looks up to the aeroplane sent a shiver down my spine (and I can't quite put my finger on it) is it Frank thinking of leaving....Is it Ruby leaving....Is it a metaphor for time passing him by. As the credits roll (and Groove Armada's "At The River" kicks in) we're no wiser as to the future of Frank, primarily, because he isn't either.....and that (to me, anyhow) is the crux of the movie. We all seem to be travelling at different speeds in life, and sometimes we're either going too fast (or slow) for people (Partners, Friends, etc) to stick around. 

I think this is an amazing movie. Haters miss the point, when they say stuff like "It's boring" or "Nothing Happens" 

I don't expect everyone to like it (like I said it's all about "Different Speeds") but I'd hope at least they understand it? I feel biased towards the movie, because I can identify with the lead character. We're of a similar age, and I pretty much had similar experiences and friendships, during the timespace of the movie (I'm 43 now, and still plodding along, unsure of where I'm heading in life) Although I often find myself looking up at the aeroplanes.

Another month another Seagal release. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, except that 'Deadly Crossing', is in fact, a two episode compilation of Sensei's latest TV show 'True Justice' (Which although a bit of a con, may either gain interest, or warn off potential viewers) Sadly to say, i don't think it'll gain Seagal any new fans, but the (ever-forgiving) die-hard Seagal buffs, may find something to enjoy here.

Seagal stars as Elijah Kane, head of a Seattle unit of undercover cops, that use 'Unconventional methods' (Tm) to take down various bad guys (usually Russians) from Crimes (usually drug deals) in a variety of 'glitzy' locations (usually strip clubs) The plot (already hard to follow, due to the fact that it's been edited from two 'open-and-shut' episodes to resemble one full case) is strained even further, by not giving Seagal enough screen-time and instead concentrating on secondary characters (who mostly resemble 'Sunset Beach' rejects) Seagal looks in OK shape (we've seen him look heavier) but seems to constantly doubled in any shot that shows him from behind (i'm not entirely sure why this is?) But there's no audio dubbing of his voice. The other actors (as mentioned) seem more like 'models' and 'clothes pegs' rather than characters...but Seagal interacts OK with them.

Now being a TV show (and more importantly not a H.B.O TV show) the profanity and nudity is non-existent The fight scenes (despite the expected 'erratic' shaky-cam) still contain a few 'trademark' Seagal moves, but lack the brutality of recent fare (like Driven To Kill or A Dangerous Man) Some of the more basic stuff looks doubled, yet more of the better moves are Seagal (he even throws a kick or two) but rarely does any scene last longer than a few frames (fights or otherwise) One plus point, is that the production values of this show looks more professional than some of Seagals movies (of late)

The one big annoyance being the whole 'sped-up' and 'Fast Zoom' camera techniques, that punctuate the beginning of nearly every scene (seriously guys....move on, 'Nypd Blue' finished years ago) Any fans expecting this show to be a C.S.I rival, can think again. The plot occasionally has a bit of police procedure and cop-lingo.....but little running time goes into solving the case, other than receiving tip offs, or being at the right time at the right place. Hopefully, this show will have more genuine 'detective' work, if it intends to have a second season.

As a whole, 'Deadly Crossing' should have been released in a £5 price bracket, as it's not a genuine movie, yet is rather misleadingly advertised as one. Casual punters paying full price for a TV show, may resent and unjustifiably overlook any future projects, due to feeling shortchanged with this one. Optimum DVD (who seem to be releasing most of Seagals recent offerings) don't even offer up a trailer (despite a trailer actually existing) and the cover art features 'Helicopters and explosions' (very 'Out For A Kill') despite the fact that none are featured in the movie.

After the (dissapointing) Born To Raise Hell, this release is a misleading misfire, and it's deception/pretension of being perceived as a genuine release, won't win any Seagal new fans (nor help drum up any interest in future stuff) I'd have sooner Seagal knocked out a genuine 'quickie' dtv movie, than to follow up 'Machete' with a TV show (but hey, i guess these decisions are way out of his hands)

Big Lee gives this movie 6 (and a half) out of 10

Just watched BORN TO RAISE HELL, and i've got mixed feelings about it. I won't bore you with the plot (partly because they wasn't much of one, anyhow)

But first off, let me say the cinematography was good. The locations and camera work were crisp, sharp and better than most DTV releases. It could have done with less of the (as VERN calls them) "Avid Fart" technique (of jump-cuts, speed-ed up, slowed down shots)

Seagal was OK (extremely foul-mouthed, i might add) but (and as usual, with these Eastern European releases) he only had about 70% screen time (as the rest was filled up, with either semi-naked female dancers, "Avid Fart" stuff, or other character plots)

The dubbing (as previously mentioned) is rife throughout (not as bad as ATTACK FORCE, but almost near enough) The doubles are also there, in the movies 4 (or so) fight scenes, not particularly noticeable, but for nearly every shot of Seagal fighting, there's another 'Below the neckline' or 'From behind' to match it. And it's all the more infuriating, because Seagal does some fast handy-work, punch kick and flip combos himself, in this movie...so the doubles weren't really needed. The fight scenes also consist of a lot of fast (close-up) edits also.

The plot is (like i previously stated) wafer-thin....which consists of Seagal leading a strike force police unit in Romania...getting the drop on some drug dealers, who rat out an even bigger criminal (not to mention psychopath) to get a lighter sentence. This Psychopath likes to commit 'home invasions' on rich couples, and rapes the wives before killing them both.Then Seagal teams up with another mobster, and they both go after the psychopath.......The end.

Despite the fact, that this is a by-the-numbers Seagal effort (nowhere near as good as A DANGEROUS MAN, URBAN JUSTICE or DRIVEN TO KILL) it does have a few interesting points. The plot (however slim) has parallels to early 70's Italian 'Polizia' movies (in that it shows the Law teaming up with the lesser evils to bring down the greater ones)

And Seagal adds real police procedures to the 'raid' and 'arrest' sequences (probably picked up from his stint as a real life deputy) A mixed bag for sure, but not without interest....but a step back from A DANGEROUS MAN. The one good thing about a less than memorable Seagal movie, is that, when i watch it again (in about 6 months time) i'll barely remember a thing about it (thus, it's like watching a new movie) and chances are, i'll either see something i didn't notice before, or it'll just plain grow on me. Either way, it's far from the turkey it could have been, but could have been better. I suppose it's A DANGEROUS MAN's fault, for being so good

THE PLOT Seagal stars as Shane Daniels, who we first see defending his wife from a car-jacker (within the first minute or so of the movie) and after beating him up a little, Shane gives chase after the crook. Skip forward to the next day, and the car-jacker is found dead (not to mention, brutally mutilated) and Shane (given his 'special forces' history) is imprisoned for the murder. The opening titles kick in, and they're pretty stylish (showing scenes from the movie, to introduce the actors, and giving them a kind of pastel coloured background around them)

Fast forward 6 years, and it seems that Shane's wife can't wait any longer for him, whilst he's still in prison, and writes him one of those 'Dear John' letters. Daniels is now all alone, but the good news is that vital evidence in his appeal, proves that he did not actually murder the car-jacker, and he is released (although, understandably angry)

It seems that whilst this is going on, a gang of Chinese crooks are smuggling immigrants into the U.S, and they take one special refugee aside (more on that later) Anyhow, Daniels now released calls into a liquor store, and is soon back in trouble, when two (foolish) hoods try to rob him. Despite pleading with them to "leave him alone, before he (quote) "f**ks them up ugly" Daniels gives them both a severe and brutal beating, drives off in their car, bottle in hand, and heads to (what he thinks is) a deserted wasteland to remember about his wife (with some quite 'sexy' flashbacks....so prepare to get jealous, girls!) Also driving through this wasteland are two Russian youths, who stop to unload empty beer cans from their van. Suddenly a deputy sheriff in his police-car pulls up another car, and interrogates two Chinese drivers, who are reluctant to say whats in their boot, and promptly shoot the officer dead, and notice the two witness Russian youths. One of the young Russian men is killed, Daniels intervenes killing one of the Chinese criminals, and knocking out the other one. Looking in Chinese car boot, Shane finds a carry-case full of money, and a tied up Chinese girl. Daniels, the girl, and the surviving Russian drive off with the money. The Chinese girl wakes up, and tells Shane that her uncle is an important business man, who has been smuggled into the country by the Chinese gangsters, but (upon realising that he's a VIP) they've double crossed his niece, and are now holding him hostage. Daniels agrees to help her, if her powerful uncle can secure him a visa out of the U.S. The grateful Russian man, also thanks Daniels, and points out that his father is a powerful Russian mob boss, who will gladly help him out (should he need it?) Daniels and the girl, part way with the Russian, but soon realise that there's a 'tracking device' in the bag of money, and Shane finds himself killing more Chinese hoods, intent on retrieving it. The Chinese hoods, are also working with a corrupt U.S cop, who's only one step behind nailing Daniels himself. With the net closing in, Daniels visits the Russian mob boss (who thanks him for saving his son, and swears undying loyalty) but soon the Chinese hoods are blasting the mob bosses mansion, so Daniels, The Girl, the mob boss and his son, take the war to the Chinese, and attack their HQ to rescue the girls uncle.....

THE MOVIE A Dangerous Man is a fast-paced action movie, that even in the non-Seagal scenes moves along at a brisk pace, with rarely a dull moment. The cinematography is crisp, and the camera-work is great. As previously mentioned, the opening titles are really good (and get the viewer pumped up for the next 90 minutes) The film has numerous fight scenes, explosions, profanity....everything a good 'Seagal-movie' should have

SEAGAL Steven gives an OK performance (better than THE KEEPER, on par with DRIVEN TO KILL) He performs most of his fights and dialogue (read more about that later) and still has amazing hand-speed, and his usual 'baddass persona' is present and correct.

FIGHTS As mentioned there's a well spread out series of fight scenes (again, probably on par with DRIVEN TO KILL) and more (basic) 'bang-for-your-buck' action than THE KEEPER

DUBBING Probably the worst aspect of the movie. Seagal is dubbed throughout (although not as bad as KILL SWITCH or ATTACK FORCE) it's all the more infuriating that the dubs are actually the same dialogue that Seagal is wording anyhow (i think the directors should tell him to "speak up" during takes?) I'd say about 20-30% of Seagals dialogue is dubbed

DOUBLES Yes, we tend to know that when you see a shot of Seagal from the back, it's usually a 'double'. This happens quite a lot, and in a few of the fight scenes. But it seems to be SEAGAL doing most of the good stuff.

OVERALL A dangerous Man is another good movie for Steven Seagal (had the dubbing/double issues not arisen....i'd rate it higher) As it is, the casual viewer would probably not notice these gripes, and enjoy it for what it is....a simple-minded fast-paced action thriller. It's nowhere near as good (or as flashy as UNDER SIEGE 2) but for a DTV release it's a pretty good movie. If BORN TO RAISE HELL is 80% as good, i won't consider it a failure, and gladly welcome MACHETE when it hits the big screens.

Big Lee gives this movie a solid 8 out of 10

Just watched THE KEEPER and was pleasantly surprised. Sure, it wasn't 'Out For Justice', but it was a lot better movie, than it's distributors give it credit for (can't believe they printed an earlier draft of the script on the back cover......don't the people at OPTIMUM have proof-readers for these things?)

THE PLOT:

Anyhow, the story gets straight to the action, with Seagal as Roland Sallinger, a cop with 25 years on the force, teamed up with an over-ambitious (and greedy) partner. After a drug bust, Sallingers partner is Keen to pocket the drug money. Sallinger (a good cop) hates this idea, and is promptly shot by his crooked partner (who then phones it in a gang-shooting)....Only thing is, Sallinger is rushed to the hospital, wounded, but not dead. The crooked partner turns up at the hospital looking for Sallinger, who has a visit prior by a female colleague (and lifts her gun from her handbag, in order to defend himself) As the lady cop leaves the hospital, she realises her gun is gone, and races back to Sallingers ward. The crooked cop tries to suffocate Sallinger with a pillow, and is promptly shot with the gun Roland stole (never take a pillow to a gunfight, i say!)

Much time passes, and we witness Sallinger (banished from the police, due to injuries) taking medication, lifting weights, throwing knifes (we also get to see his many, many awards, medals and trophies, earned during the line of fire) We also notice a picture of him and a wealthy Texan millionaire (but more on that later.....) As he mends his injuries, aided by his female colleague, the scene shifts to the glitzy night-life, of a wealthy young (Paris-Hilton- like) heiress (named Nikita) who's saddled with a playboy boxing womaniser (NOT a football player, as the cover states) who we know from the outset is rather crooked, as he flees the scene of an attempted kidnapping on the heiress. Sallinger is slowly getting better, when a surprise phone call, from his texan millionaire friend, asking him to fly over and help him with a problem. Feeling better, Roland agrees, and is met at the airport by a cop, who warns him from causing trouble, and reminding Sallinger that he's no longer a cop anymore. A mutual respect is brought about, and Sallinger and the cop, part ways. Driven to the Millionaires ranch,Roland also strikes up an off-beat friendship with the chauffeur, andis quick to help out en-route, defend the drivers sister against twogangster types. Sallinger kicks the s**t out of them, and finally meets up with his millionaire friend. He explains that his daughters life is in danger, and would Sallinger be her bodyguard? Roland agrees (but senses that his friend is not giving him all the 'intel' required) Sallinger has the security updated/modified/changed at the ranch, and puts his 'bone-breaking' skills to good use, on his first nights work (as he defends the Heiress, against two heavies at a bar) whilst Nikita's boyfriend is smooching with another girl in a back room. Nikita feels safe with her new bodyguard, and she regains her confidence again. But unbeknown to her, her cheating boyfriend has been 'leant-on' by her earlier (would-be) kidnappers, and plans to assist them in her kidnapping, next time they are out alone. Sallinger almost thwarts this kidnapping, but is arrested, after a crunching car-chase, and brutal shoot-out, leaving the kidnappers to get away with Nikita, and sending a ransom note to her wealthy father. I've gave away enough for you to guess that Sallinger, won't stop until he saves the girl, and kills the bad guys.......

THE ACTING:

Seagal is fine (although some of his dialogue is quiet) but i didn't notice any dubbing (other than the opening scene....which was an overhead shot of a car) He drops a few 'F-Bombs' from time to time, and is basically a (soft-hearted) bad ass throughout.The supporting cast are capable enough (no big names) but efficient enough, to keep ones interest. The Chauffeur gives the best secondary performance (emoting a lot, just through his looks and gestures)

ACTION:

Once again, i wasn't expecting UNDER SIEGE 2, but thankfully the movie had a fair few shoot-outs (about 3) a few fights (mostly a few quick moves) but brutal enough, and well spaced out (about 4) and a half decent car chase.

VERDICT

THE KEEPER was a good solid DTV movie. A lot better (and easier to understand, than say) KILLSWITCH or AGAINST THE DARK And coming after DRIVEN TO KILL, it's fine as a companion piece to both URBAN JUSTICE and PISTOL WHIPPED. Fans of non-stop action, might feel a little short-changed (but luckily, this has a coherent plot to fall back on, and it's pace rarely sags) But fans of Seagal himself, will enjoy this modest thriller (especially if they enjoyed MAN ON FIRE?

My rating 8 out of 10

I like Ricky Gervais (not so much THE OFFICE, but i love EXTRAS) and (having skipped GHOST TOWN) i went to see THE INVENTION OF LYING tonight at the cinema, expecting at least a few 'squirm-inducing' belly laughs.

Panic sunk in immediately, as Gervais feels the need to voice over the plot set-up, during the titles. The movie would have been a lot better, had Gervais had a bit of faith with his audience (who are probably aware of the synopsis, anyhow?) or at least, it would have added a 'quirkiness' to the unsuspecting cinema-goer. It could have had a whole 'David Lynch' like quality, in that, it focused on a town of petty, nasty people, all speaking their minds. No need for the "Oh yeah, and everyone had to tell the truth", almost apologetic explanation, for what was soon to become, a one joke movie.

And creating an environment were everyone told the truth, obviously blinded Gervais into lazily assuming that that *only* means...'people being rude to each other' (one of the many plot holes this movie had me pondering,throughout it's running time, partly due to the fact that it is not *at all* funny)

And herein, lies the main problem....it isn't funny (nor interesting) Gervais seemed content to 'dumb' down his usual 'put-down-upon-everyman' shtick, to the point were it merely became a question of people disagreeing with him. No well-written (or thought-out) lines, no depth, nothing at all to think about later on......just lazy writing and performing. The movie reminded me of the Garry Shandling fiasco WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM, in that it was a comedy without any form of humour whatsoever (other than watching an ego, failing at a 'message' movie)

I know that Gervais, has been accused of being 'big-headed' in the past, but i found it insulting (and slightly narcissistic) that he not only attempted to mock religion, but to also imply he created it (and i thought Messers Carey and Sandler had 'god complexes?)

All in all, THE INVENTION OF LYING was a terrible movie (Shaun Williamson had the best 30 seconds in it.....so that sums it up) and given Gervais' star power, i'd strongly advise him to try something new, or at least make any kind of effort, when rehashing his usual 'act' and to ditch the preaching ego.

Easily the worst movie....ever!

Where do you start with such a lazy movie like this? First off Guy Ritchie is so divorced from the 'gangster' lifestyle that he tries to portray in this wretched movie (not that he was ever a 'part' of it in the first place) that his dialogue, characters and scenarios are stilted and forced to the extreme. Secondly, it borrows heavily not just from his own back catalogue, but also from classics like THE LONG GOOD Friday and PERFORMANCE.

The plot centres around (the charisma-free, smug, self satisfied) Gerard Butler, and his gang of RADA-trained 'mockney' cohorts (all spouting un-hip cockney slang, and pretending to be something, they're clearly not) getting mixed up in stolen mob money, and a missing painting.

The cast is rounded off with (the equally dire) Jeremy Piven, and a near skeletal Thandie Newton (how this woman gets 'work' amazes me?) Ritchie (in a final act of desperation) throws in every camera trick, to compensate his second (third and forth) hand material. And just like it's cast, it's pointless and nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is.

The end result is an instant (ahem) 'cult' (did i spell that right?) movie, designed for wanky fan-boy types, favouring second hand style, over (any kind of) substance, other than to shift t-shirts, cds and books. The fact that it didn't shift nearly as much of either, is maybe an indication that audiences are wising up to Ritchie, and possibly demand more from a movie (like maybe a smidgen of 'heart' or 'soul'?)

The sweetest victory for a disgruntled viewer (like myself) is the movies finale which promises that a sequel. I (for one) hope this never happens. But if it does, i hope that the money-men bankrolling this 'one trick' pony's 'mockney' wish-fulfilment, finally have the guts to tighten Mr Ritchie's reins, and force him to add some substance to proceedings (and maybe a cast that consists of genuine 'talent', and not just the 'flavour of the month brigade'?)

This movie would make sufficient grounds for a 'divorce' (oh....wait a minute....it probably did?)

Seriously....what is it with this trend of remaking classics, and replacing the casts with Benetton models? This movie was weak, compared to the 1972 original. It copped out on all the 'sleazy' elements that MADE the original such a hit, and replaced it with silly macho heroics, a cast devoid of ANY personality, and pointless gore. Look at the 1972 version.....that was a nasty movie, that earned the criticism it provoked. The cast was excellent, haunting music, just enough on-screen violence to get it's point across, but plenty of what Hollywood is too scared to replicate nowadays......NASTINESS. At least the original portrayed what actually happens to people taking the law into their own hands, in a realistic manner. This remake gives the impression that it's OK to torture people, afterwards (losing all of what made the original movie so dark) Look at the end of LHOTL (72) the father and mother are morbidly disgusted by their actions (however justified) and are soon to be carted off to prison for their actions. The remake has no connection with reality at all, and even feels the need to tack on an extra amount of added brutality, as if to keep up with HOSTEL 2, whilst forgetting that it's missed the point completely and portrayed the parents as even bigger psychopaths (hell, their daughter doesn't even die in this one!!!!!)

In the original, i actually felt sorry for Mari and Phyliss (they came across as ordinary-looking, young girls) which made the actions of Krug & Co, even more deplorable. The (ahem) actresses in this one were vile, Hannah Montana wannabes (with zero personality, character or dialogue) Don't get me started on the Krug from 2009 version either.......

All-in-all, another nail in the coffin of genuine 'horror' cinema, by the hacks at Hollywood (who treat it's audiences with the contempt, you obviously deserve)

Shame on Wes Craven, for having anything to do with it (he surely has enough money, these days?)

I'm a huge fan of Ken Loach, but LOOKING FOR ERIC felt forced (and a bit 'rang-in', performance wise) I'm fully aware that Loach was going for a more fantasy approach with this movie. But when nothing at all 'rings true' how are we supposed to know where the fantasy begins, and what makes it so fantastical in the first place (i'd sooner believe that Eric Cantona could appear from nowhere to dispense advice.....over thinking that a bit of red paint and a few smashed television sets, would deter a local crime boss from seeking any kind of retribution?) And none of this would matter of course, unless we weren't discussing a movie from the master of realism himself, Ken Loach.

Now don't get me wrong, Loach has had enough solid gold 'hits', to forgive him of a 'miss' now and then....but sadly it seems that this movie (despite easily being his worst) will probably turn out to be his most profitable? The one thing that annoyed me the most, was the humour (or lack of) because most Loach movies (however bleak) usually contain a high amount of (sly) humour underneath proceedings. LOOKING FOR ERIC however, tried too hard, and settled for scenes of random swearing and shouting, over an actual ounce of anything 'natural'

The ending (however 'far-fetched' the plot synopsis was already) was completely unbelievable (and felt tacked-on) but i suppose the subject matter (football....which i hate) and the 'lighter-touch' is what granted LOOKING FOR ERIC a cinema release at all. Multiplex-goers are treated to past Loach themes, wrapped (rather badly) together as a 'Ken Loach' greatest hits package. But i expected more from the man who gave us CATHY COME HOME, KES, RIFF-RAFF, RAINING STONES, LADYBIRD LADYBIRD and THE NAVIGATORS.

Oh yeah, plus it reminded me of SCULLY (am i the only one to think this?)

I wanted so much to like this movie (loved the first one) and i'm quite a Statham Fan, but this movie was pure overkill. Now before the internet geeks jump down my throat saying "duh.....it's meant to be over the top" let me say that "less is sometimes more" Taking off, pretty much after the first movie, CRANK 2 sees hero Chev Chelios, waking up to find that his heart has been stolen, and his replacement heart needs bursts of electricity to keep him alive (cue: lots of lame gags involving electricity pylons, sockets, etc)

The first Crank had a knowing energy, that winked at it's audience, but kept the other eye of a semi-clear plot, and narrative. What we get here, is too much of nothing. Rehashed gags, characters and scenarios from the first movie, all wrapped up with pointless, unfunny "let's swear....how funny is that?" scenes, that might impress children who aren't legally allowed to see such a movie.....but it's 2009 folks....i'd prefer something a little wittier than "c**k gags" and a dire Geri Halliwell cameos.....if that's not too much to ask?

2 out of 10 (for Statham alone)

This extremely bleak episode from 'Tales Of The Unexpected' is the epitome of what ALL the episodes should have been like (because many TOTU episodes were a bit drab, hit-and-miss affairs) but 'The Flypaper' hits the nail on the head, and wastes none of it's 25 minute running time.

The story opens with police finding the dead body of a missing young girl, in a nearby lake. The tale then moves onto a rather unhappy young orphaned girl, who lives with her overbearing, uncaring, pompous grandmother. The Grandmother also forces (it seems) this downtrodden young girl to attend piano lessons (which she hates) and if all this wasn't downbeat enough, the young girl starts catching glimpses of a creepy middle aged man, following her every move. As the episode progresses, we witness that this man does, indeed, harbour unhealthy interests in this girl, and all things come to a claustrophobic head, when the creepy guy strikes up a (forced, one-way) conversation with the poor girl, on the bus, as she heads home from school.

To give away anything else, would surely spoil this excellent, and highly recommended way to allow a mere 25 minute episode, get under your skin, and stay with you for weeks.

I have never seen anything on UK TV so bleak (except for THREADS, perhaps?) What makes this episode so dark and hopeless is the fact, that the young heroine of the episode, is such a lonely and despised young girl, long before she receives the unwanted attentions of the creepy old guy. She is a victim, long before the creepy guy, comes into her (rather sad, unloved) life. Her Grandmother and piano teacher belittle her. She has (it seems) no friends. And the sense of her being alone and having no-one to turn to, only adds to the creepiness of this episode. Her 'voice overs' in her head, only add to this tension. Many have said, that they have foreseen the 'twist ending' of this story, coming a 'Bus ride' away.....but yet it doesn't detract from such a strong, and undeniably powerful episode, of a show, with more misses than hits.

I wholeheartedly recommend that ALL parents/teachers show their children/pupils this rather disturbing (but ultimately 'educational') piece of classic TV (that in the current climate, and however more relevant than ever, would never be made these days)

A lot of doubts i had with AGAINST THE DARK were confirmed when i watched it. It's general ideas are outweighed by (obvious) budget restraints. Although, for a low budget STV release, it was OK. The look of the movie (cinematography, music and FX were all competent) It just needs tighter editing, and maybe a few more 'sub-plots (something i thought i'd never ask for, given the over-abundance of 'filler-plots' in more recent 'Seagal' movies) For once, a bit more plot wouldn't go amiss (other than people wandering around corridors, waiting to be attacked....then rescued....the end) David Cronenberg pulled off a similar trick in SHIVERS, by adding 'offbeat' dialogue and situations. The director of AGAINST THE DARK, is no Cronenberg And i'm sure you know by now, that although billed as a 'Seagal' flick, his screen time amounts to about a third of the running time (although, the fragmented plot ensures that nearly most of the cast, are only ever seen roughly the same length also) Seagal is fine in the role of Tao, master swordsman and vigilante, and one can only sit back and wish that he had more screen time and more 'ass-kicking' to do (but he does do a fair amount here) The other actors around him, are OK, but nothing to right home about either.

I was surprised at the 'gore' factor (quite Romero-ish, in places) but hardly anything to keep KNB awake at night. With a little bit of editing, and more 'choice' dialogue, this movie could have easily held it's head up amongst the likes of lower ranked 'zombie-fare' like DIARY OF THE DEAD or 28 WEEKS LATER. As it is though, it's (sadly) a horror movie, whose 'sole' attraction is a 'star' (who is hardly in it) It's still a lot better than KILL SWITCH though! Big Lee gives AGAINST THE DARK a 7 out of 10 (only for the presence of the 'Stout Sensei')

First off, i'm a big fan of Burt Reynolds (and his movies) and i was amazed to see (that after what seems like an eternity of DTV movies) he's finally back on the big screen (were he belongs) Reynolds plays a has-been action movie star, who simply can't get any decent roles. Upon threatening his shrewd agent (Charles Durning) that either he be found a good acting project, or be fired...Reynolds is given a dream chance of playing 'King Lear' in England. Reynolds hops on a plane to the UK, expecting to be pampered and working with the likes of Dame Judi Dench....only to find that, he's not in Stratford upon Avon....just plain Stratford (in Suffolk) with an amateur group of would-be thespians. What then follows is the usual 'fish out of water' gags, of a 'Yank in the UK'....and slowly but surely, Reynolds forms a bond with the group (who had once been skeptical about)

As a fan of Reynolds, i could watch him in anything, but i will admit, that the movie could have been funnier (although i did howl with laughter at a few of Burt's foul-mouthed retorts to the earnest thespians) There's no real huge 'laugh-out' moments in the movie, but it does leave you with a big smile afterwards. The rest of the cast are good too (with a special nod to Derek Jacobi, sending himself up, just a little) Charles Durning (Burt's usual sidekick) has a small role as his bankrupt agent/manager (He does look very frail throughout the movie though, but still occasionally has that 'twinkle' in his eye)

All in all, A BUNCH OF AMETUERS won't win any awards for originality (but it did receive a 'royal premier' in the UK last month) but it IS a warm feel-good movie, that should hopefully put Reynolds in good favour with projects more worthy of his talents....I hope?

Just watched it.

I found EDEN LAKE to be a turgid, wretched waste of ninety minutes. I take small comfort, in that it was nowhere near as realistic, or socially aware, as people think it is. From it's RADA reject 'yoof' cast (and a complete waste of the usually great TURGOOSE) and it's disjointed plot (not to mention, all over the place character motivations) the movie still managed to sicken me.......sicken me, because people find this garbage interesting.

Yes, i'm aware that some teenagers are mindless thugs, with little or no thought for human life, but this movie, was a check-list for 'cliche's' regarding lower class families. The (Hammer House Of Horror-style) adults (either, shagging, swearing, fighting drinking....or all four) was surely an after-thought, to attract the similar idiots who watch SHAMELESS....and the "We look after our own" ending was laughable (in a LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN kind of way)

I'd read that other reviewers, thought the couple shouldn't have provoked the gang (i saw no provocation, other than confronting the gang, and asking for their car keys back) The killing of the dog, was merely 'self defence'.....and if the gang were as psychotic (as they were later portrayed to be) they'd have hardly:

A) Been too bothered about a dog, anyhow.

B) Given the couple a few minutes head start, before deciding to kill them.

Also the geography was all over the place. Characters would wander around in various directions (through a huge wood) yet hear any minor sound, or happening , and arrive on the very same scene in seconds. The cop-out excuse, concerning the irrational behaviour of the youths, could be put down to the 'kids being very mixed up'....but i see it as nothing but lazy writing, from a team of (ahem) 'film-makers' capitalising on an already messed up country (and it's soft laws on young offenders) I see the director has writing credits for MY LITTLE EYE (another boring soul-destroying catalogue of pain and misery) and intends to write THE DESCENT PART TWO (wow, this guys got a vivid imagination)

The add-lines for this (rancid) movie, state that it is (quote) "One of the most provocative and terrifying thrillers of the year".............The only thing i find 'provocative' is the 'terrifying' prospect, that people find this sh*te to be 'thrilling'?

When you watch the news, and the newsreader reads about some horrible story about a murder, your heart sinks (allbeit, for a few seconds) you quietly 'tut' to yourself, and then (thankfuly) get back on with your own life. I don't need some ninety minuted long 'tut', to entertain me, and (enough of the 'fence-sitting' guys) i feel deeply sorry (and ashamed) for anyone that does.

Where do i start, pointing out the many problems, this movie has?

First off.....the plot. I've come to expect over-complex plot points in recent Seagal movies, but in KILL SWITCH it's not overly complex....it just doesn't make any sense. The flashback to Seagal as a child (witnessing his brothers murder) serve little purpose to the storyline, but i guess they help pad out a few minutes of screen time. And believe me, this movie felt padded. It doesn't even have the (so-bad-it's good) camp value of ATTACK FORCE.

Secondly....The editing. This was some throwback to the days of film-making in the 80's. Occasionly, Jackie Chan (or Tony Jaa) may employ this 'repeated' camera angle stuff, but it's usually to highlight an extremely choreographed fight move or stunt. In KILL SWITCH however, it once again feels like padding (and given that it runs throughout the movie, it feels like it's makers have only got 45 minutes of actual footage, and therefore NEED to show everything twice, thrice and even ten times) Seagal is chasing a suspect at one point, and he comes to a doorway. The viewer is treated to about 20 different shots/alternative angles of this 'monumental' moment.

Thirdly.....The fights. To me it seems that Seagal was not trying to make a martial arts movie at all. Apparently, the makers of KILL SWITCH attempted to beef up (what would usually be a four second fight scene) with extra stuff involving stunt doubles. This is all the more annoying, because Seagal's actual fighting is better than his stunt doubles. The final fight (against the serial killer) is all Seagal (and it shows) it's quick, brutal and efficient. Yet all fights before it, are heavily padded out with lazy punches, reversed shot of Seagal (sometimes wearing a different jacket, because it came from another scene) URBAN JUSTICE and PISTOL WHIPPED have proved that Sensei Seagal can still mix it up as a fighter. But these shoddy film-makers are tarnishing his rep, with these underhanded tactics. It(in turn) makes Seagal look weak, as he'd usually demolish his opponents in 5 seconds (such is why we like the guy) but here, the 'padding'implies that Seagal can punch a guy 30 times (in the face) and STILL not put him down. And i also want to see Seagal break an opponents arms and legs with HIS hands....not a hammer. Don't even get me started on the shoddy (couldn't hit a guy two feet in front of him) gunfights.

Finally...Steven Seagal. He actually puts in a good performance (once you get over the 'southern' drawl) and looks in good (allbeit heavy) shape. He rarely mumbles, and seems genuinely interested with the project (unlike say...FLIGHT OF FURY?)

KILL SWITCH is a step back for Seagal (just as he was regaining some well needed credibility) after URBAN JUSTICE and PISTOL WHIPPED. Although the movie is U.S lensed, is well lit, and crisp cinematography, the god-awful (quick cut, repeated shot) editing, and unnecessary doubling, betray whatever potential this movie may have had. The supporting cast is OK (Rest in peace Issac Hayes) and the music is quite good also. Now that (it seems) Seagal is regaining his passion for acting again, he needs to associate with better film-makers in the future. His next movie RUSLAN is also directed by Jeff King (director of this) so i won't be (honestly) expecting anything special of that one. But as long as they don't start interfering and chopping up their filmed product, it won't need to be great to be better than this movie. My theory on KILL SWITCH is that they've only had limited screen time with Seagal, and (hopefuly?) HAD to cut and paste this movie, to pad it out. If they think that repeatedly showing a guy fall out of a window 12 times, or making pointless scenes last four times longer than needed to be....is cutting edge film-making then (to quote Seagal) "Lord have mercy")

Big Lee gives this movie a 5 (only for Seagal's screen presence, and a OK final fight scene)

After the excellent URBAN JUSTICE, it seemed that Steven Seagal had his work cut out to keep making good movies. Let me tell you from the get-go, PISTOL WHIPPED is as equally good, with (despite it's lower budget) better production values (although i suspect Urban Justice was given a grittier, raw look on purpose?) Seagal plays Matt, a disgraced ex cop, who been sliding off the tracks, since his suspension. He's been gambling and hitting the bottle, and most importantly, ignoring his estranged wife and daughter. It seems that, despite his shortcomings, Matt is still a proficient bad-ass, but he's more of a bad guy, than he'd care to admit. Suddenly his gambling debts have caught up with him, in the shape of a shady businessman (great cameo by Lance Henrickson) who offers to clear the debts, if Matt will 'terminate with extreme prejudice' some wise-guy mafioso type. Being of dubious morals, Matt undertakes this job (fearing for the safety of his daughter) and in true Seagal-style, opens up the required whup-ass on said contract. But it doesn't end there......Matt's new mysterious employer wants more people 'taken care' of....including his ex-wife's new husband (a fellow cop, and one of Matts friends) But is his friend everything he seems?

Seagal fans will enjoy this one, as it give the stout sensei a chance to relax, let it all hang out, and play (as in OUT FOR JUSTICE) a scummy anti-hero, who's far worse than the bad guys he's taking down. Yet there's a genuine warmth between Seagal and his on-screen daughter (proving he can be a good natural actor, when he drops his defences) Seagal plays the part perfectly (a crying shame he's been making duff movies in Romania) when PISTOL WHIPPED is one of the lowest budgets he's worked with. Director Roel Reine has a good visual eye, and if anything, it proves that Seagal can work in the confines of a low budget, provided (as we've always known) he ditches the 'wrong element' around him (the 'yes' men) These people have gladly cashed cheques as Seagal has been involved in some truly dire projects of recent. Good to see you back on track Steven....stick with directors/people that give a damn.

All in all, PISTOL WHIPPED is a great Seagal (biff-em-up) thriller, with it's lead showing (as Stallone has done likewise) that age is nothing but a number (some of the fights here are extremely brutal) and Seagal has lost none of his trademark speed, or for that matter, wit (check out some of his dry dialogue....very funny for fans of the genre) and it's comforting to see Seagal playing a flawed (allbeit, still untouchable) character, who's not a straight-laced good guy. Once again, i have a SEAGAL movie, that survives repeated viewing, and one to show off to my mates. All in all, Big Lee gives this great movie 10 out of 10