Crap..


Is this the worst Seagal movie ever?

reply

Well.. Its the wrost Seagal movie I've ever seen

reply

i'm sure somebody told me this was really good.
I mean it does have real potential.. but yeah its my least favourite seagal film :(

reply

[deleted]

Damn that's harsh. I don't think this is the worst Seagal film there is, I would say that Fire Down Below, and Submerged were both worse than this.

"I say what I mean, and I do what I say. "

reply

*caugh caugh caugh* I liked this movie :P

reply

I liked this movie too - ok it was kinda corny in lots of places, but I only watched it originally because Philip Winchester had a small role in it, and I ended up surprised when I quite enjoyed it!! I just found the petals falling down from the sky at the very end a little bit much!! LOL

Fayesy

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/PhilipWinchester

reply

Into the sun was his worst movie....

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

straight to vhs.

reply

... excepting all the DTV ones he's done recently that I haven't got round to watching yet; On Deadly Ground is the worst Seagal film I've had the misfortune to see, and is a heck of a lot worse than this. At least in the case of The Patriot the person behind the camera had a certain measure of competence and knew what he was doing; plus, although the script does get a little bit preachy, at least there's no time reserved that I can remember for an interminable monologue from the ol' podgemeister himself...






I'm sorry, I don't speak monkey...

reply

[deleted]

My vote goes to Out For A Kill. Holy crap that was horrid!

Who says violence is not the answer?

reply

[deleted]

Nope. Not crap. Not Seagal's "worst." Not by a lo-o-o-ong shot. I've seen them all and The Patriot is nowhere near the "worst." It has good actors, good cinematography, good music, and was generally a glossy, professional, higher budget production--none of that can be said for his Direct to Video output.
That said, it could have been much more exciting and often seems like a widescreen TV movie.

A few things could have easily been done to make the film better:

1) They should have specified that Seagal's character not only worked as a scientist for the CIA, but also received combat training. This is implied, but not strongly enough to be obvious to all.
2) The final confrontation, either just before or just after the main villain's demise (or both), should have been much more extensive--more fighting or chasing or action of some kind. Perhaps a more exciting "race against time" like there was in Dustin Hoffman's "Outbreak."
3) Cut 10 minutes of yappin’ out of the middle.
4) add a couple of more fights after the midpoint, once we know the Doc can kick butt
5) Change that goofy ending. I don't want to have a spoiler here, but let's just say that dropping bags of flowers would have been much more efficient that showering down loose petals (hopefully that makes perfect sense to those who have seen the film and none to those who haven’t).

If those few things had been done, I think this flick could have easily played the theaters.

Anyone who says this is “the worst” Seagal flick has obviously not seen many of them. Maybe not many folk’s “favorite,” but it certainly had many good qualities.

reply

[deleted]