"Street Kings 2: Motor City" Review

"Street Kings" is an interesting movie because it appears to be the only occasion on record in which Terry Crews has worn Sleeves for the whole time he was in a film:

"Yo Ludlow - What is this shit covering my arms, man? I gotta let these guns BREATHE, son."

It is also a clever police thriller, with a lot of twists, and some really decent action. It makes you think, and also contains some really well written characters: some of them just cool, and some with whom you can really empathize. Street Kings was the first movie I saw Chris Evans in and thought he was half decent (so well behind the curve of that one: should have watched "Sunshine" when it came out, really, since the Ads ruined it on TV anyway), and despite the ending being a slight let-down, the story up to that point is solid, with every new twist being as exciting as the last, and the audience never knowing what is going to happen next. It had its moments of retardation: the scene in which Reeves and Evans kit themselves up with shotguns, which then disappear completely in the next scene so they only have handguns when they get into a firefight is just ridiculous. But all in all, it was a very entertaining movie.

Not to mention the poster is fantastic for trolling. I mean, come on, there's a guy in it named "Common".

Not only this, but Street Kings finally allowed me to crack "The Keanu Code". You see, a lot of people complain that Keanu Reeves can't act: he's very wooden, has a monotone voice, and doesn't seem to be very expressive. However, after watching Street Kings, I finally realized why this is. It's not because he is a bad actor: it's because he is typecast in the kind of movies where the character would have these traits. Think about it: In "Street Kings" he is an overly-paranoid alcoholic cop. In "Constantine" he is a depressed addict who has actually seen hell. In "The Matrix" he is an anti-social hacker who works a job he hates and probably has autism, who becomes unsure of whether or not he is living in the real world. And in "The Devil's Advocate", he plays a Southerner. In every one of these films, it makes sense that the character wouldn't show any real feelings, and Street Kings therefore proved to me that Keanu Reeves can, in fact, act: just only in very specific roles.

Perhaps.

Street Kings was also nice in that it appeared to have been made by a fellow "House" addict. When Hugh Laurie (who plays the captain of the IA team investigating Forrest Whittaker's outfit) is introduced, he is in a hospital, and spends the entire scene sitting in a chair - you know, because of his limp. And whilst Liotta's character being shot in the leg and developing a limp in "Street Kings 2" may have been an homage to this (if you squint) - it just didn't have the same epic feel as the original.

Or the obvious sexual tension. Speaking of which, aren't they remaking Top Gun?

The main problem Street Kings 2 has is that it shares its name with "Street Kings". Unfortunately, this inevitably leads to you comparing it to the original movie the whole time you are watching it, even though it was almost certainly written as a completely  independant movie, and simply had the "Street Kings" name tagged on the front of its actual title, "Motor City" in order to sell more copies. And whilst this will result in people like me buying it because they enjoyed the first Street Kings, it also is gonna result in a lot of disappointment, because quite predicatbly, it does not live up to the hype which the title creates.


"Street Kings 2: Motor City" starts just terribly, with a necessary but badly shot and badly set-up scene at the start in which we see Liotta getting shot in the leg, then proceeds to get even worse. We see Liotta teaching a group of schoolchildren about police work whilst dressed in a dog suit, and it feels as though we are already straying into "Big Mommas House 2" territory only 3 minutes into the film. As Liotta meets his new partner, the stereotypical young go-getter cop who makes fun of the old ways, we start to worry about just how cliched and dull this movie is going to be, and when the murders and suspicion around which the rest of the movie revolves begin to unfold, the audience is left bored to tears - literally nothing interesting happens in the first half hour or so of this film.


Things get a little more interesting, however, when during the murder of the third cop involved in the deep cover narcotics team we open on, is murdered. The reason things become more interesting is that we see his killer: Ray Liotta. Now, this may have been fairly predictable, and I had a hunch that Liotta was going to turn out to be the killer in the end. However, revealing him as the killer so early on in the film changes the dynamic of things, and the movie is then allowed to unfold in a far more interesting fashion than if it had focussed entirely on the solving of the case, with the killer's identity being the big ending "twist". From this point on, the movie certainly becomes more interesting, as we learn more and more about Liotta's plot to get rid of the cops he thought were going to rat him out to Internal Affairs, and take revenge on the dealer who got away at the start by framing him for these murders. However, this story arc too is ultimately fairly cliched and predictable, and whilst far more enjoyable than the first quarter of the movie, still does not manage to save it.


Don't get me wrong - this film has some absolutley golden moments in, which were well worthy of the "Street Kings" branding. The discussion between Liotta and Sullivan (our hero for most of the movie) in front of the captain when the two are first paired together has one of the most inspired pieces of dialogue to come out of a straight-to-DVD release in a long time:


Kingston: I worked homicide for one year and in that time I put away more criminals than you have in your whole life!

Sullivan: I've only been on the force 9 months.

Kingston: Exactly.


And the scene on the train in which the criminal who Liotta has framed for the murders is cornered, and then taped by a passenger, is incredibly well done, and was very enjoyable. And yet, this movie is lacklustre at best in the end, and didn't seem to reward the viewer with much. Whilst "Street Kings" had a plot which unfolded like an intricate web, with twists and turns being thrown in constantly, and the audience always being left in suspence right up until the finale, "Motor City" has just the one twist, and not an overly complex plot to help back it up. And whilst it is decent for a movie obviously shot on hand cameras with a very low budget, it really shouldn't have aligned itself to a much better made movie, because the comparisons just kill it.

Just like Terry Crews, amirite?

There were other things that bothered me about "Motor City" besides the plot and Cinematography as well. The acting is fairly hit-and-miss at the best of times, and Armand Benoit, who plays Sullivan (Liotta's new partner, and the main hero of the piece) doesn't seem to be able to get into character properly - he is very clearly trying to act, rather than trying to portray a person. The head cock he does with his one liner in the closing scene is probably the worst example of this, but there are other moments throughout the film where he does this as well. Of course, he has his moments too: such as when he is in the hospital waiting room after his wife is blown up by a car bomb - but for the most parts he really doesn't seem convincing. Plus, it's fairly distracting that he looks just like a fat Shia LaBeouff.

According to Wikipedia, he played Nicholas Cage's partner in "The Bad Lieutenant", which is odd, because I'm fairly certain Val Kilmer was Cage's partner in that film - unless he has multiple partners in that film, though I must admit, I don't recall Benoit being in it. Hell, if you had just told me that Benoit was in "Bad Lieutenant" and asked me to guess who he played, I probably would have thought he was the guy who was drowning in his cell near the start, and who we see working in a hotel at the end, not Cage's partner. You know, that or I would have said he was the wrestler who killed his family and then hanged himself from his weights rack.

the awkward moment when you realize a guy nicknamed "The Crippler" might have anger issues...

The ending, as well, just seemed really poor to me. Not only was the car exploding ridiculous and over-the-top (which I can live with, since I loved "The Long Good Friday", and that contains the most retarded vehicle explosion in motion picture history: a stock car blowing up when it crashes into another. You know, a car from that sport in which the vehicles are designed to crash into one another), and the fact that Sullivan somehow got out without us seeing was just as bad, but the ultimate climax of the film where he and Liotta face off was just disappointing as well. It was supposed to be a powerful emotional scene, clearly. And yet, it still didn't feel like a big deal. Not only that, but having just seen "10 to Midnight", I have a fairly good idea in my brain of what a scene involving a cop shooting an unarmed suspect who is trying to talk him out of it in full view of a bunch of other officers should look like, and the ending to "Motor City" didn't come close to that ending.

"You want to use the ending from one of my films? No dice..."

All in all, a poor effort, and a real step-down for Liotta. I don't mind him starring in no-budget films - "Cop Land" was great - but this movie just didn't do it for me. And whilst it was bearable enough for me to sit through the entire thing, and not just turn it straight off and watch "Neds" instead (which I also picked up today, but decided to save on the assumption it will be the better of the two films), it had nothing on "Street Kings", or any other half-decent cop movies for that matter. It is relatively fun, with the occassional interesting or dramatic moment, but overall is a giant let-down. Hell, even the pimp-tastic car wasn't as cool as Denzel's in Training Day...





Rating:



**


2 stars




Not an awful movie, but I wouldn't exactly recommend it either. It has its moments, but just not enough of them to keep you entertained throughout. There is a nice reversal in the style of storytelling part way through, and some of the scenes unfold nicely, but that's about all I can say for it. It is a fairly clever movie in some ways, but doesn't live up to many of its competitors in the same genre. Maybe pick this one up if you see it in a bargain bin or something, but don't spend £5 on it like I did (I got "Hard Boiled" and "The Killer" for less than that combined!). Definitely stick with the original Street Kings if you're going to watch one of them.






Voice

The Killing Machine Review

Right from the second this DVD started running in my player, I had a good feeling about it. The opening song has the exact pace I was looking for in this movie - and the film managed to match that pace and then some.






I had previously seen only 2 of Lundgren's movies as a director: Missionary Man, and The Mechanik - both of which end with epic shotgun-induced headsplosions.

Would you believe this is the less epic of the two?

Whilst Missionary Man is a fairly slow-paced film, a modern update of the classic western - a mysterious figure turning up in a town rife with conflict to help out the citizens, The Mechanik is an action-packed thriller which opens like the second half of Taken and closes like the second half of Missionary Man. Both of these films were awesome, and Lundgren has certainly proved that he can not only act and kick some serious arse, but can direct a half decent movie as well.


The Killing Machine, however, takes things to a whole new level. Right from the off, we get some incredible and brutal action, with Dolph taking down 4 guys in the opening sequence, before we flash back to the beginning of the actual story. I used a comparison with Taken above for The Mechanik, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to use it as a comparison again here - but not for the plot, rather for the violence. Oh, and the DVD covers, since they look identical:

Note: 'Icarus' is the title of the Director's cut - Dolph Lundgren's verison of the film. I watched the producer's cut - called 'The Killing Machine', so will be reviewing that.

One of the things I loved about Taken was, aside from in the driving scenes, the gun violence is incredibly realistic. The prime example for this being when Neeson shoots the henchman through the glass window in a door, and he just drops like a rock, with some bloodsplatter. The shot lasts all of a second, and is one of the most realistic looking headshots ever to appear on film. Whilst most films will either dwell on graphic wounds, like Saving Private Ryan, or will shoot them in a stylized manner, maybe with slow motion, or some kind of artistic imagery, such as Tommy DeVito's death in Goodfellas (see A History of Violence for a combination of both of these), Taken took things in the opposite direction, and made the violence graphic, but extremely quick - taking place in real time, with realistic wounds. The Killing Machine takes this a step further - keeping Taken's ultra-realistic gunshot and bone breaking wounds, but adding to it to make the violence as graphic as possible without appearing to be trying to dwell on it. Think *SPOILER ALERT* Leonard DiCaprio's death in The Departed - it's over in a split second, with him dropping realistically and not much time spent dwelling on the wound, and yet we get a very graphic blood-splatter on the wall behind him from the exit wound. The Killing Machine takes this kind of action - and applies it to nearly every death throughout the film - possibly creating the most realistic action movie of all time regarding violence.

A lot of the shots show the weapon going off in the same frame as the wound being inflicted - which always heightens the realism.

The visual effects outside of the shootings are incredible as well, especially regarding the wounds inflicted during the two torture scenes in the movie:

Let's put a Smile on that face!

Seriously, whoever did the effects on this had better wind up in Hollywood soon - because the wounds in this film are far more graphic than those in a lot of movies with 20 times the budget. The way the wounds leak in the few shots where we do pan back to someone who has been injured is also incredible, looking incredibly realistic, and slightly unnerving. In fact, this is the most impressive set of effects I've seen in a low budget movie since I watched The Thing earlier in the year.

Whilst the plot of The Killing Machine is nothing new - an ex-KGB agent who tried to leave his life behind winds up as a hitman for the mob, who then come after him after he botches a job in Hong Kong - it is fast paced and suspenseful. And despite the fact that you know exactly what is going to happen at every turn, is still incredibly thrilling to watch. Lundgren's use of different types of camera and shutterspeeds to reflect the mood of each scene is astounding for a man with so little experience in directing, and the voiceovers by the character fit in perfectly, sounding like a non-pretentious version of Max Payne.

Why don't you go shoot someone with your M4 you fucking conformist.

In all honesty, this is all you could ask for in an action movie, it doesn't make you think too hard - it doesn't try and be overly innovative, and yet it is just clever enough to be gripping, and has so much action I swear it must have broken some kind of record for a single-man bodycount. Wait, scratch that - I just remembered Punisher: War Zone...

No-one touches my KTD, N00B!

In fact, that's probably the best comparison I can make - the character has a similar background to that of Viggo Mortenson in A History of Violence (but switching origins with Mortenson's in Eastern Promises) - a man who wants to get away from his past life, and settle down with his family, but is unable to because not obeying his former bosses puts his family at risk, and so goes on a killing spree that even The Punisher would be proud of. Of course, that does make sense, all things considered:

Honestly, this is actually the movie I felt The Expendables should have been. The effects in that were too obviously added in post, and I think trying to give that many characters interesting parts was just too difficult for them to handle. By scaling back to having just one unstoppable machine 80s action star, and giving him a real motive for his violence, Dolph Lundgren has managed to create a perfect genre piece revenge movie, for about the 4th time in his career. In fact, I think Dolph Lundgren has actually become the master of the action-revenge movie (let us not forget that Deathwish isn't in fact a revenge movie, since Bronson never kills those actually responsible for his wife's death), and this is possibly the pinnacle of the genre. Of course, there isn't much originality here (Dolph Lundgren as an ex-KGB agent AGAIN?), but it's an action movie, so why worry? And the fact that only two of the deaths are ridiculous enough that they could have been in a Steven Seagal film shows some restraint on Dolph's part to not play into the stereotype of low budget action films.

 Pictured: The only completely unrealistic death in the entire movie. Fairly impressive for a film made by an old 80s star for $5 million. Take THAT Van Damme!

On the subject of which - it's also nice to finally see a film which was shot in Canada admitting to this, and not trying to play itself off as being set in America as so many do. You know all those films set in Washington D.C. which are filmed in Toronto? Can't think of one? How about ANY film set in D.C. where you see a skyscraper? Since there are no skyscrapers in D.C. Oh, plus half the films set in New York...

Oh look, a 50-odd storey building in Die Hard 4 - well, that can't possibly have been shot in Canada, can it?

You know, in LA confidential, the cameras were placed deliberately so that any building taller than city hall would not be seen, because at the time the movie was set, that was the tallest building in LA. But when you come to movies set in D.C...

So mad props to Dolph for that - why play to the American audience. Canada has awesome stuff too...

Fuck yeah.

In fact, the only real problem I had with the film (as well as the ridiculous death scene pictured above) was how open it was left at the end. It just didn't feel right, leaving the film at the point we did. If it had ended a scene earlier, things would have been perfect. If we had seen what happened next, it might have been better, but the ending felt pretty lackluster after the rest of the film. Oh, also, the codename for Dolph's character Icarus was a bit distracting, since I'd just watched Sunshine...

So, to sum up - awesome pace, well shot, compelling if a little cliched story, bitching soundtrack, incredible effects, and that guy from Inglorious Batards. What more could you want?

Given Fred Williamson would make a ridiculous KGB agent-turned Russian mobster...

Another cool thing about this film is that Dolph mixes up his fighting style so that rather than just the straight karate and shooting we're used to, he throws in some proper MMA-style shit as well, throwing and grappling dudes to mix things up with his punches. He looks great too, which is a relief, given some of the pictures of him which have been floating around recently:

Though, to be fair, he did play a heroin addict right after this, so maybe he was just trying to get into character?

This is Dolph at his finest, and it's unbelievable that he wasn't a fan of this cut of the movie. Now I really want to see the director's cut to find out what he did differently!

Rating:

****

4 Stars

Brilliant action film, incredibly well shot, and with some half decent emotional scenes as well (unlike Steven Seagal's sex scene in 'A Dangerous Man'. Talk about awkward...). The plot is fairly predictable, but unravels nicely, and is on a par with other similar films such as A History of Violence. The pace of the action is incredible, and you wonder how they manage to keep it up for an entire movie without guys getting shot to pieces becoming boring. This film is nothing ground breaking, but has got to be the best action movie to come out since Punisher: War Zone. Plus, silenced Desert Eagles - What more could you want?

Das Vidanja!

Voice

(I speak no Russian whatsoever, so I'm hoping my basic grasp of Serbian (do viđenja) is enough to have spelt that correctly...)

Steven Seagal Against the Dark Review (Text)

So far this month, this Blog has been viewed a grand total of 1,346 times. The most viewed article I have written, by far, still remains the review I did of the Steven Seagal Legacy DVD Boxset, with an incredible 697 page views. Hell, just look at the keywords searched that most often link people to the site, and you start to see a clear pattern emerge:




Seagal is still as popular as ever. Look at those search results – it’s as though nearly everyone who visits this site comes here because they wanted to see something Seagal related! In light of this, and the fact that despite how hard I try, an article I wrote way back in April is still getting countless more views than any of my newer stuff, I have decided to dedicate another review to the Seagal fanboys out there. This one’s for you, guys!






AGAINST THE DARK

Against the Dark is a straight-to-DVD Seagal vampire horror movie which was released last year, and it only has a rating of 3.4 on IMDB. Then again, given they have The Dark Knight ranked as being the 11th best film ever, and Inception having the same score as Godfather Part 2, I think we can take the rating on there with a pinch of salt.

Obviously, this was filmed with a very low budget. That goes without saying. The budget is listed on IMDB as being $9 million, and you can bet at least $2 million of that was Seagal’s salary. But, with that in mind, I was pleasantly surprised with this movie, and I’ll tell you why.

First off, whilst the movie was advertised as being a vampire film, I suspect that you would get the most benefit from this if you viewed it as more of a zombie film, because this is essentially what it is. It starts with an explanation of how the “infection” spread, and sets up the apocalyptic backdrop to the movie, in which small groups of survivors are forced to hold out against hordes of the creatures. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only reason the creatures are referred to as Vampires rather than Zombies in the advertising is because they can’t go out in the sunlight. So, in order to get the full benefit of this film, watch it as though it is a low budget zombie film. If you do this, and if you’re into that style of film, then I think you’ll probably enjoy it a lot more than you would otherwise.

With this in mind, then, the movie unfolds really nicely. It’s a stereotypical zombie flick in terms of plot, with a couple of groups of survivors banding together inside a hospital to get medicine, and make it out before the generators run out of power, and it is relatively suspenseful throughout. Obviously, there are bits which make you cringe a little; poor dialogue or acting, an unrealistic plot turn, but for the most part it is very enjoyable, and much better than some far bigger budget movies. I am thinking of one in specific here. A movie which IMDB gives a rating of 7.1, but which I felt was inferior to Against the Dark. I am, of course, talking about the Will Smith extravaganza, I Am Legend.





You see, in my opinion, Against the Dark is essentially what I Am Legend SHOULD have been. From the very start, we see that the zombie/mutant/vampire creatures show signs of intelligence. We see one cut the throat of a human victim she has strung-up, upside down, and collect the blood in a cup, from which she drinks. This use of tools, and demonstrations of intelligence become more and more apparent throughout the movie, until we realize that the creatures can think and speak, just as humans do. One of the characters in the film even says “if we’re the only ones left, and everyone else is infected, then we’re the monsters now”. For those of you who have read the book I Am Legend, you’ll realize that this was the entire point of the story: The title refers to the fact that he is the legend in their stories, the monster who kidnaps their children, their friends, and experiments on them. The film I Am Legend completely fucked this up, and gave it a generic “hero” ending, and that is why I would rank Against the Dark as the superior film; it is the film I Am Legend was meant to be, before Hollywood fucked it up, as they so often do.



Too right.


There is no doubt in my mind that some people will see this as a bad thing – the movie stole the most significant part of its plot from elsewhere. But to be honest with you, I’m glad. Someone had to do the basic premise of I Am Legend justice, and if it couldn’t be done with a $150 million budget, I’m glad someone could do it on $9 million.

On top of that, I personally enjoyed the effects in Against the Dark a lot more than I did I Am Legend. The reason for this is simple; they looked a lot more convincing. Why? Make-up, prosthetics, and buckets of fake blood. Against the Dark does everything old-school. In total, I think there were about 10 digital effects shots in the whole movie, and 9 of them came right at the end. I Am Legend, on the other hand, relied too much on digital effects, which led to creatures which were about as realistic as, and very reminiscent of, the mummies in “The Mummy” (Brendan Fraser version), which cost 100 times as much as the ones in Against the Dark. Again, some people will probably complain about how essentially the monsters in this were just “extras running around with fake teeth in, and fake blood all over them”. I would just like to say that I much prefer this to creating the creatures digitally, and I think we need to go back to this old-school style film making. As I said in my review of The Dark Knight, digital effects just aren’t as convincing as make-up effects. Besides, I’m perfectly happy to watch Romero’s original Dawn of the Dead, and the zombies in that are far less realistic looking than they are in this, so no complaints from me on the effects front!


Old-School effects are clearly the best.

Whilst the characters aren’t exactly brilliantly written; you have the typical overly scared woman, the slightly over-confident kid, the hard man, the stoner, the guy who doesn’t want to be a hero but total will end up being one, and a slightly less scared woman, they all work quite well together, and most of the interactions seem relatively realistic, if a little forced. The acting isn’t brilliant, but then, what do you expect on a low budget horror flick? The last truly decent low budget film to come out was probably SAW, and Monica Potter was absolutely shit in that. Cringe-inducingly bad. Yet we were still able to look past it, and appreciate the story. No-one in this film is as bad at acting as Monica Potter, despite the fact the most famous person in this other than Seagal is Keith David. Oh, you don’t know who he is? He was the black cop running the negotiations in Transporter 2, and he does a load of voices for video games. Honestly, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again; how the fuck does Monica Potter get work? She’s shit!


"I'm sure some people would say the same about Seagal!" "Yeah, pussies."


Other than Keith David, the only familiar non-Seagal face in this movie is Danny Midwinter, who turns up on British TV every now and then (he was in Lewis, and I have a feeling he may have been in Doctor Who as well, but can’t be sure). But regardless of how unknown most of the actors are, they perform admirably, and for the most part their performances are fairly believable.

The direction in the movie’s pretty good as well. Quite a few of the shots are clearly done with a long lens, so we get some cool shots where the focus will shift, and there are some fairly inventive shots as well; looking in mirrors, then panning round to follow the characters round a corner, etc.



But, of course, what you really paid to see is the ACTION:


Holy Shit - Seagal's in Machete??? Why wasn't I told? I know what I have to go and see next!


Just as a warning from the get-go: Seagal isn’t in this film that much. The movie mainly focuses on the survivors trying to escape from the hospital, whereas Seagal plays a “hunter” trying to get in and kill any infected he finds. Still, it cuts to Seagal often enough that you feel it is still a Seagal film, even though he’s not the lead, and when he is on screen, the action’s usually pretty good.


Though obviously not THIS good...


Although there’s not much Aikido shown in the movie; Seagal only goes hand-to-hand right near the end, there are plenty of scenes of Seagal and his pals cutting swathes through hordes of infected with their samurai swords and knives. There are some pretty badass moments involving Tanoai Reed, who looks a bit like The Rock (in so far as I'm fairly sure he's Samoan), and apparently played the bouncer at the Midnite club in Constantine. My favourite of these happens near the start where he puts his hands through the glass in a window, grabs an infected, and pulls his head, neck and upper-torso through the window space, before sticking a knife in his chest, then snapping his neck. It looks exactly like the sort of thing Sam Fisher would do in one of the later Splinter Cell games, and is fucking Bitchin’! The scenes where Seagal gets his shotgun out also had me cheering, too.



He certainly looks better with a shotgun than a guitar, THAT'S for sure.


On the subject of Seagal, it should be noted that, as with Attack Force, he did not return to do the ADR voice recordings after the movie was wrapped, so is dubbed in a couple of scenes, mostly the ones where you can’t see him speak. However, unlike Attack Force, you can’t tell it isn’t him in this film (his character hardly speaks, being a badass hunter, and his voice has changed so much anyway you just kind of accept the differences without thinking about it).

That’s about all I can say about the movie, really. There are a couple of good twists where you are expecting one thing to happen, then something different does, and not to ruin too much, but the scenes with the French Doctor in are creepy as shit, and add another layer to the film, making it more than just a zombie-flick. Some of the choice in editing bothered me a little, for example cutting to gore-shots where they weren’t really necessary, but other than that, I really quite enjoyed this movie.

If you’re into Seagal-style action films and low-budget zombie flicks, then this film is definitely for you. Or, if you were upset the book I Am Legend was ruined by the film, why not watch this and see what could have been? It doesn’t have the loneliness and the journey through the human mind the Will Smith version did, but at least it’s got the right ending. Enjoy!



Rating:


***

3 Stars


Not amazing, but good fun, and great for a cheesy low budget horror. Hell, great for a low budget Seagal film to - and more fun to watch than a lot of Blockbusters to have come out recently. I wouldn't say I prefer this to the Saw movies, but i would definitely recommend it over The Hurt Locker, Iron Man 2, and so on. But then, I'm a Seagal fan - we're as bad as furries when it comes to defending our hobby - so don't just take my advice, do what you think is best for you!




Voice



For more Seagal-related Goodness, be sure to check back in the next time I raid the movie bargain bin at ASDA.