1. Complex plot.
2. Good fights. (seagal himself)
Good use of Aikido againts villains.
3. Good use of doubles for seagal.
4. Home-made explosive device.
5. Serious tone.
6. No obvious voice dubbing.
What the hell is so bad about this film?
The - and I use this term loosley - acting
shareWow, for a Simpsons fan, you sure have BAAAAD taste in films...
"Good" ? Would you say that... hmmm, I dunno, 12 Angry Men - for instance - is a good film ? Of course, it's not just good, it's a great film, one of the all-time greats, and for your sake I can only hope you concur (if you don't, there is no hope for you), but if that's a great movie, and this pile of assorted steaming dog turds is - according to you - a "good" movie, then what sort of scoring scale are you working from ? Do you not see there is practically nowhere else for any other films to fit on there now ? How can almost the entire collected film works of humankind since the inception of the cinematograph fit in that narrow space between your definition of "good" and "great" on this scale ?
Get some perspective.
I believe you forgot to qualify that "good" assertion. What you SHOULD have said was: "Good for a bloated, over-the-hill former action movie star working to an incomprehensible script with supporting actors that make his wooden acting look competent - if by "good" you mean substandard straight-to-video tosh."
Ha ha ha ! "Good" !
Are you serious? I'm a huge Seagal fan, but you must have watched it while high if you think this movie is good.
1. Complex plot - Far TOO complicated.
2. Good fights. (Seagal himself) - Er, no. Speeding up and slowing down as well as extreme closeup so you usually can't see what's going on does NOT make for a good fight scene.
3. Good use of Aikido againts villains - Kindly provide examples.
3. Good use of doubles for Seagal - lol.
4. Home-made explosive device. - I....what?
5. Serious tone - Far too serious.
6. No obvious voice dubbing - lol. There was loads of it.
---
Invention is 93% perspiration, 5% electricity, 4% evaporation and 10% Jack Daniels.
If you are serious, then you know absolutely nothing about movies, and in that case I feel terribly sorry for your dumb ignorant self. I'm guessing you must be about 16 or really don't know a good movie when you see one. I recommend you look at the top 100 here on IMDB if you want to see what ACTUAL Good movies are. Then come back and rate this absolute piece of garbage what everyone else has rated it. You will be glad you did.
[deleted]
Theres always someone who says something good about a complete load of crap,
Its nice to see such optimism can still exist in the world but i prefer to hold out my optimism for something like world peace and not waste it on this total utter load of segal diaper dump rubbish!!
I think segal saw the bourne identity and thought "yeah i can be bourne, steven bourne", and came up with this pale turd of an imitation!!!
I love segals older stuff, 1985 to 2000 was segals best period, its no suprise that everything he has done in the last seven years has been straight to video,
I agree with drew23. Hell, I'm 16 years old and I surely have an "idea" of what a good movie is. And I surely have an idea of what makes a "great" movie, and an "excellent" movie. And for a "perfect" movie - in my honest opinion - would be "The Godfather Part II". Others may not agree with me, but that's just my opinion! I mean, the reason why I pick it as a "perfect" film is because, it kept me interested, and I loved it after watching it. And soon after I watched it, and how I loved it so much, I was hungry to watch it again, right then and there! There has never been another movie that I've seen before that has made me want to watch it a second time right after already seeing it! Usually it takes me about a week before I'm eager to view a movie a second time. The only reason why I didn't view it right them was because it's so freakin' long and I didn't have the time! And I've made a point once before that sometimes the longer the film, the better it is!
Anyway. Take a quick look at my Top 20 movie list - including my scores. Not quite identical to the 250 IMDb list, but you can notice minor similarities. And for that, I actually have a personal opinion and that I'm not copying anything. :P Also note that there are many films on the 250 IMDb list that I have yet to see.
1. The Godfather Part II = 10 "Perfect"
2. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly = 9.9 "Brilliant"
3. The Shawshank Redemption = 9.8 "Brilliant"
4. Pulp Fiction = 9.8 "Brilliant"
5. Once Upon a Time in the West = 9.8 "Brilliant"
6. The Godfather = 9.7 "Excellent"
7. The Departed = 9.6 "Excellent"
8. Goodfellas = 9.5 "Excellent"
9. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King = 9.5 "Excellent"
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring = 9.5 "Excellent"
11. The Treasure of Sierra Madre = 9.4 "Excellent"
12. American History X = 9.4 "Excellent"
13. Crash = 9.3 "Excellent"
14. Pan’s Labyrinth = 9.3 "Excellent"
15. Kill Bill Vol. 2 = 9.3 "Excellent"
16. Kill Bill Vol. 1 = 9.2 "Superb"
17. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers = 9.2 "Superb"
18. Sin City = 9.1 "Superb"
19. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back = 9.1 "Superb"
20. The Professional = 9.0 "Superb"
However, I haven't seen "The Foreigner", and I don't plan to! I've only seen a couple of his movies and that's enough to know not to view another one EVER again! These are the most horrible films I have EVER seen. I've never thought it was even possible to make films this horrible!
And while I'm at it, here are my bottom 10!
1. Open Season = 1.0 "Appalling!"
2. Attack Force = 1.1 "Appalling!"
3. End Game = 1.1 "Appalling!"
4. XXX: State of the Union = 1.3 "Dreadful!"
5. Mercenary For Justice = 1.3 "Dreadful!"
6. Cobra = 2.3 "Terrible!"
7. Ice Age: The Meltdown = 2.4 "Terrible!"
8. The Poseidon = 2.4 "Terrible!"
9. RV = 2.4 "Terrible!"
10. American Wedding = 2.4 "Terrible!"
Btw, what makes a good film to me, is the quality of the film! It's also the concept of the film, if it doesn't have the concept, it doesn't even have the potential of being a good film. Sometimes films have the concept, but doesn't have the quality. Also, there are often certain scenes/sequences in films that I like to call "highlights" of the film. And it brings the overall "picture" of the film together. Depending on if it's a good film or not is the overall picture! Which is often found in good films, such as the ones I've listed in my top 20. If a film doesn't have these sort of "highlights", they aren't good films!