Reading all the negative reviews by professional movie critics makes me wonder. Fire Down Below had a great cast and Seagal is a very good actor. But this movie flopped at the box office. Why? I think that it was a cheesy production and not well directed. Had it been in more capable hands, it could have been a winner . That said, I still like it.
shareI like this one as well.
shareI think his drop started with on deadly ground. His movies didn't have an over bearing political agenda previously and many pro preferred his movies that way.
shareI think it's a very good Seagal Appalachian backwoods movie, albeit comic booky as far as the action scenes are concerned, but no more so than, say, Eastwood's "Pale Rider," and more believable than friggin' James Bond movies, which the critics typically hail. Go figure.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
007 is generally recognized as being as much fantasy as fiction (although Daniel Craig has restored some meat to the character). Seagal movies are usually over-acted, terrible writing and character development. I do think Marked for Death is pretty good.
shareI liked the movie and have owned few times on video. I think the movie bombed was because since GLIMMER MAN sucked so bad and his fight scenes were no good it affected this movie.