terrible movie - Out of Reach (2004) Discussion

I saw it too and it was REALLY BAD!! just awful!

reply

This have to be the worst Seagal movie ever! It's so bad that words can't subscribe it!
By the way, looks like there is a gallon of botox in seagals face! His face is so expressionless.

reply

[–] top_althani 19 years ago

botox and a poney tail, I think Seagal is trying to attract the wrong gender! and this movie may I say is so bad that I thought it was filmed in the 80's ! the worst movie by far to me I slept in almost all acton seens he seemed to repeat him self and trying just to gain some quick profit out of this movie!

reply

[–] Mikie1950 19 years ago

Irony:

This IS a bad movie but it shines when compared to "Submerged".

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Milevskiy 19 years ago

Botox? How about fat?

He's hardly able to move. Only two fights that are over within 10 seconds and one stupid shootout. Please start breaking bones again Steve!

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eagle30233 19 years ago

This is not his worst movie, actually i found my self enjoying it. I really could NOT watch submerged, turned it of before i can finish it.

reply

[–] the ninja moomin 17 years ago

aw you will have missed vinnie jones legendary final scene with the rose petals. words can not adequately describe.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jackoolate 19 years ago

Horrible writing.

Plus, Segal phoned it in.

reply

[–] xenodrone 18 years ago

This flim was beyond bad it didnt make any sence. It looked like they ran out of money or time.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gregforttmags 18 years ago

And Segal criticises films like V for Vendetta...?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] adirtyshame14 18 years ago

I loved this movie. Probaley one of his best.

Even though i love Steven Seagal movies "Submerged" did suck big time...

Made from whole rip nuts-Confessions of a Teenage PeanutButter Freak

reply

[–] Snape_in_Lurrve 18 years ago

I loved this movie. Probaley one of his best.

I loved it too! Now, it's nothing on Under Siege, but people are acting like it was some kind of vile scum.
I didn't even hate Submerged that much...

reply

[–] Jalladoode 18 years ago

It is not that bad. It was actually better than I anticipated. I had a few laughs and got a fair share of action. Besides, Agnieszka Wagner looked pretty hot =D

3/10 from me
_____________________________
Contemplate this on The Tree of Woe

reply

[–] silicondoc 18 years ago

If anyone had noticed, the organization referred to in the movie is "United Alliance of Nations" which is merely a play on the name United Nations. This movie was released in 2004, time enough to be produced after the human trafficking that was exposed and hit the news channels that was perpetrated by "peacekeeping" military and NGO groups associated and paid with and by and through the United Nations.

So in many senses this is follows a common theme coming form Hollywood to make people aware of wrongs going on in the world, it's a political statement and exposure, and attempt to make the world a better place.

For that reason it is a movie to be respected in the sense that it tries to highlight a real issue and make more people aware of it so that some forces can be brought to bear against it.

How successful it is in that sense is anyone's guess.

reply

[–] the ninja moomin 17 years ago

interesting to see matt schultz play a very similar character than he did in the transporter, still a bit camp and not adverse to a bit of people trafficking!

reply

[–] YankeeDood 13 years ago

Yeah, this movie is as dumb as it gets! very unrealistic too.

Miss The Old USA Network?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oldusanetwork

reply

[–] FridayOnElmStreet 9 years ago

I seen much worse.

reply