I mean, I know this movie isnt exactly a classic like Die Hard or anything but how the heck did it get on the bottom 100?! Ive seen way worse. Id expect it to get at least a 4. I personally give it a 6 (i usually rank a little higher than what is given).
shareI'd give this a 2, this movie is just plain terrible from the piss-poor acting to the overly tricky editing. Everything in this movie screams "cheap" even though the budget was about 20 million, more than in the extremely slick and well done Submerged.
I suspect there were some serious problems during the shoot of the movie, that's the only reason I can think of. Also, making of-documentary shows several scenes (car crashes, explosions )that haven't been included in the final film, incredibly, since the scenes shown were WAY better than any of the stuff in the movie itself .
I gave this *beep* of a film 1 and would have given it less if I could. It is the worst film I have ever seen. I cannot believe how crap it was. How could they make it so crap without trying?
You give it 6? 6???!! For WHAT??!!! Two crappy fight scenes in which Seagal doesn't even get tagged once and then a whole-heartedly rubbish and incoherent plot with almost no story and absolute confusion throughout. It was crap! A complete waste of time.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep* is coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
As per what Steven Seagal is making from last few years, its rating should be 6. I wondered when I saw "Ticker" got higher rating than "Out for a Kill". People who call this movie stupid probably have not watched "Today You Die", "Ticker" or "Half Past Dead".
I think movie like "The Foreigner", "Urban Justice", "Driven To Kill", "Pistol Whipped" and "Fire Down Below" were also good as compared to the crap I mentioned. Why doesn't he just spend 4 years into making one full-fledged, better directed action movie with lots of hand-to-hand combat rather then creating 4 cheap ones on 4 years ?
The point is, when he makes it, it’s crap. Simple as that. When someone else makes it, and tells him what to do, where to go, what to say *cough Under Seige cough* it turns out alright. His acting is adequate when he’s saying half-way realistic things, his fighting is cool when he doesn’t get carried away and just chuck ever mother *beep* who comes near him to the floor, and he looks the part when the part is not him strolling around in that damned black leather jacket with that same bloody pistol he’s always touting in every movie (you know, the one that seemingly has a different ammo capacity every time ranging from six shots to about sixty six). He’s an actor, not a director and most definitely not a producer. I just wish he’s learn that.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
From a purely technical standpoint, I think this movie was actually very well-made for a Segal film.
shareI though it was funny in a goofy kind of way, and it certainly didn't bore me.
shareFrom every standpoint imaginable this movie is total and utter crap. If you enjoyed it I can recommend 'The Foreigner' from the same director, also starring Seagull.
_____________________________
Contemplate this on The Tree of Woe
Uhm..
It sux big time!
Acting sux, and there is no storyline :x
"Is this toothbrush approved by the American Dental Association?"
That old peace of sh*t needs to stop acting like he's 20 and start getting out of movies.This film should of been #4 on the bottom 100 list, i whould give it a 1.6/10.00
sharethe sexlife of mother theresa was probably more exciting
share[deleted]
" two crappy fight scenes..."
your forgetting the WORST movie title in the history of cinema
[deleted]
After reading everyone's comments on this site, I was expecting Out For A Kill to be an absolutely terrible film. All I can say is "HOW CAN YOU ALL BE SO WRONG". I enjoyed this film and thought the fight scenes were very well done, especially the monkey man vs seagal fight. This film is much better than Submerged(worst seagal film ever), Ticker, Foreigner, etc. Out for a kill is good viewing.
shareHaHaHa...spot on.
What I particularly liked about this film was how the top villian uttered all his lines as if he was taking a monster dump at the same time.
I actually like SS's films, accepting them for the varying degrees of schlock that they are; but this one's a real bottom scrapper. This director/lead actor combination is a real winner. Their other film 'The Foriegner' (also 2003 - obviously a vintage year for Seagal) runs this effort a close second. Avoid at all costs...
I, too, think that's wierd. I'm not saying this movie is any good, though... But look at "9 Deaths of the Ninja" for example, a truly, breath-takingly BAD movie (but in a hilarious kind of way..). It has an average of 1,6 out of ten stars. Why isn't it on the bottom 100 while Out for a Kill is with it's 2.6 average? Something to do with the number of votes, maybe?
-------------------------------------
Does the noise in my head bother you?
2.7 is a bit too high!
shareHands down the worst movie I've ever seen. I can't believe it got a 2.something out of 10. I think it deserves a 0.3/10.0
shareman people this movie is bad but worst movie ever? than people have missed movies like carrie 2, the omen IV, alexander lou movies and death race and so on. movie is actually decent but storywise nothing new. Still not bottom 100 movie.
shareYou are right, 2.7 is WAY TOO MUCH!!!
shareIt was awful in every way, but whats with the black guy in prison that was smuggling weed over the kazak border? I mean seriously do you really have to go so far for some petty low profit weed?, and he starts telling seagal why he is tin jail and then it goes dark and steve is getting set free? stupid.
I would like to see a list of his best movies I would say
Under siege/2, marked for death, the one about inuits is good in a corny way, watching michael caine say "*beep* these animals stink" is the best bit. and afew more of his other early ones are pretty good. The ones with Ja rule and DMX sucked though.
To be honest I gave it a 1/10.
The acting was terrible, the story was so damn rushed and messy. The fighting sequences where boring and Seagal looked like a god damn clown when he moved around. And another thing with this movie, it jumped from cities around the world all the time. It was sometimes hard to know if they where here or there.
The only good thing about this movie is that it was unintentionaly funny.
!SELPOEPDIPUTSUOYTIHSLLUBSIYASIGNIHTYREVE
[deleted]
It is terrible believe me. I feel asleep less than halfway through and this was in the afternoon
My Voting history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?votehistory