MovieChat Forums > On Deadly Ground (1994) Discussion > Most Offensive movie I've ever seen.

Most Offensive movie I've ever seen.

posted 20 years ago by roll tide
10 replies | jump to latest

I had the misfortune of catching this Turkey once on cable TV, an experience so hideous I've never forgotten it.

On Deadly Ground is the absolute worst film of a spectacularly horrid film career, a deeply offensive and artisticly bankrupt movie if I've ever seen it.

Sure, the acting was expectedly awful, from the wooden mumbling of Segal (and isn't he just about the least convincing Karate champ you've ever seen, at that?) to the over-the-top goonery of Michael Caine (a good actor sinking to the level of the film he's trapped in). Sure, the dialogue is witless and boring, and the plot moves mechanically through one action cliche after another. Sure, the direction is leaden, and offers no surprises or visual pinache which it can use to elevate the film beyond it's cliches (such as in the visually arresting and spectacularly entertaining Die Hard and Sin City).
But don't most Segal films boast these flaws as well? What made me hate ODG in such a special way.

In short, it was the film's repulsive attempts to weld a fringe leftist enviornmental message to the mayhem. Segal's "hero" murders a parade of oil-company baddies and temp extras in this film for no crime greater than polluting his pristine Alaskan Wilderness, which the Eskimos hate (blah, blah). Most of these villains are not murderers, and few have committed violent crimes of any sort. In the end, ODG seems to equate the death of animals with those of humans, as if there were no difference between us...as startlingly sick a message as I've ever seen in the movies.
Oh, and the film isn't even intelligent enough to use a clever metaphor of script developement to get it's message out. No, it lazily TELLS us it's message in a ludicrous SPEECH at the film's conclusion, insulting audience intelligence even further by not trusting us to sort out the film's wacky beliefs before the strained conclusion.
People, Billy Jack did this stuff 30 years ago, and if it sucked then, it's gonna suck now.

There is not a shred of a reason to see this film, EVER.
No stars, ZERO stars, and I'm usually a very leniant guy when it comes to the movies I review (it's harder to get a ZERO-star from me than it is from the notoriously leniant Roger Ebert).

This film belongs on the barrel's underside, alongside such awful or repugnant fare as POLICE ACADEMY movies, the sequel to MORTAL KOMBAT, MARGARET CHO concert movies, the Lou Ferrigno gladiator ripoff of the Seven Magnificent Samurai, SWIMFAN, BAMBOOZLED, etc....

"Timothy Dalton should get an Oscar...AND BEAT SEAN CONNERY OVER THE HEAD WITH IT!!!"

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThingyBlahBlah3 19 years ago

Plus, Billy Bob Thorton probably put his salary for this one towards making "Sling Blade." And Michael Caine put an addition on to one of his houses.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dio52 19 years ago

Hey man, the first Police Academy was pure comic genius.

Anyway, Seagal's final motivation for his rampage was not to protect the environment. He was simply going to report the company and deliver their data to prove his claims against them. The company sent men to stop him (kill him) and instead wound up killing a dear friend of his and he went on a tirade of violence to avenge his friend and protect himself. His intention was only to kill those who were trying to kill him. You'll notice in one scene he tells the workers that the place is going to blow up and they go running. The no-name security guards he knocked out probably died in the blast, true, but you only ever see him kill people that were in on the plot to kill him.

Likewise, the speech at the end is meant to say that the oil industry is killing PEOPLE and the industry could care less (and in fact does exert massive influence over the government to protect itself). The final speech doesnt mention Alaska or Eskimos, but the polution that is poisoning people everywhere as a result of the industry's negligence. That doesnt change the fact that it wasn't subtle at all, but you still missed the point of Seagal's actions.

[–] vestdennis 12 years ago

Seagal's character is able to knock out an entire regimen and then some by himself? Oh I forgot about his female helper.

And where the crap are the cops or other authorities? Explosions going off everywhere endangering the entire area- in fact, doing worse damage to the wilderness than the oil company!

And NOTHING happens to Seagal at the end? Nothing about taking the law into his own hands? In fact he gives his stupid speech at the end when he has done more to spoil the countryside than any oil company.

Thanks a lot numb nuts.

[–] spectrx 18 years ago

Look man, I've heard people bashing this movie up and down, and I can usually put up with it (even though I don't agree with most of it), but when you start going off at the mouth about the movie being "Offensive" because it tries to put forth some kind of positive moral message, that's just sick on YOUR part. You need to chill the F... out and realize it was an ACTION MOVIE. Who the hell cares what the plot is about??? I don't go see Seagal movies for PLOT, and if you do, then you're kinda clueless, I'm sorry to say.

[–] lola-hamilton 18 years ago

You're spot on all the way. And you must never be sorry for telling it like it is.

[–] etf-3 12 years ago

I agree with the OP. I quite enjoy movies where bad guys are bad guys, but when the "good guy" bascially murders a whole bunch of people, it's not very nice!

[–] ZabyPS3 12 years ago

You realise you are agreeing with an OP which is more than 5 years old.

And it's totally wrong. If OP thought this was going to be a serious movie, then he's an idiot.

And where and when in the movie does SS kill innocent people in ODG?

'then, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forrest, wiiiiiiiiiiiiith.........a HERRING!'