Seagal's acting was incredibly stiff, and his portrayal as a Russian didn't help either. Fight scenes were nauseating. I prefer to see the whole fight scene, instead of millisecond snippets stitched together. Just a pain to watch.
shareFunny, that was my main gripe about the last Bourne and Bond films as well!
curtis-8, just my thought too.
shareWow. You two think that this movie compares in any way to the most recent Bourne and Bond films? Are you guys in a paralell universe? Just because there's the "shaky cam" in those two movies doesn't mean that there is any comparison at all between the two.
In both Bond and Bourne, the fights are filmed at a whole body level where you can totally see both actors and their movements, and those two films have great stories, dialouge, acting, location shots, set pieces, foot chases, car chases, pyrotechnics and did I mention better actors?
Yeah, you really need to rethink your critical approach if you think this Seagal piece of crap shares anything in common with those two movies.
"Bulls**t MR.Han Man!!"--Jim Kelly in Enter the Dragon
Paralell universe? What are you--nuts? The original post complained that the action scenes in this low budget Seagal movie were jittery, too quick-cutty, and incomprehensible and thus he didn't like them. I and the other poster said that we had the same complaint about the action in the recent Bond and Bourne films. Neither of us said "Oh, this $5 Seagal DTV flick is as "good" as these $100+million studio products." We just pointed out that, despite all the positives, the Bourne films and the recent Bond films also have jittery, extreme close-up action sequences that we find kind of incomprehensible (and I'll now add--faddish and soon to be hopelessly dated).
Comparing one aspect of a film to the corresponding aspect of another film is different than comparing the films as whole works. I've seen some pretty crappy movies that had cinematography that was as beautiful as that in "The Godfather."
In short, your comment was idiotic, Idiot.
On the positive side, Jim Kelly was really cool.
"Driven to kill" is not a masterpiece, but good and better than the latest bond movie and all Bourne movies together.
shareActually, I thought this was A LOT better than it was going to be because I saw Seagal's Kill Switch and THAT was horrible with its horrendous and obivous Seagal-look-alike in the fight scenes.
When I heard Seagal speak Russian, I thought, "Ugh! Here it comes! This is going to be another bad one."
But it was good!
You actually saw him fighting in this one. And there's a great Strip Club scene too and not just for the girls. I actually liked some of the acting in that scene between Seagal and his would-be son-in-law.
"Driven to kill" is not a masterpiece, but good and better than the latest bond movie and all Bourne movies together.
You, my friend, are clearly dillusional. Thanks for making me laugh - you should be on stage..........sweeping it!
Do you want this jacket? I don't need it. I'm cloaked in failure!
Arse just ignore him - Seagal has some faithful fans like all other recognized movie actors and actresses. While this movie is n where near as great as any of the Bourne movies - I do think that its above par for a Steven Seagal movie along with Shadow Man. These movies aren't made to win any oscars or major awards, just to entertain. Which they do for some people and don't for others.
We can DO IT ALLLL DAY LONG, (We'll have to pay more for the light bill if we do it at night!)
The first moment we realized that he played a Russian mafia guy, we were shocked. We always thought he plays either a half native American or half Asian character caring for other people and not using guns if possible...
I agree with certain comments, shaking a camera is not art it's annoying.
The other problem with this movie that it is linear. No twists. No brain required. In the second minute you will see that there will be some crime he will do revenge and the bad guy can be identified in the third minute.
The problem is that the film is linear? I like linear! Few big budget action filmmakers even know how to do linear anymore!
Given that, you're correct that the film could indeed have had more plot twists or revelations (and still been "linear").
This is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. I tried to watch it after being told Mr Seagull was back on form and the action was intense and brutal. Unfortunately none of the above was true. Seagull is most definately not back on form, the fight scenes were cut shockingly bad and even if the action had been enjoyable the god awfull acting, hilarious "Russian" music and ridiculous plot put the final nails in its coffin.
"If i wanted all that cgi sh*t,i'd go home and stick my dick in a nintendo"
Quentin Tarantino
I liked this movie as good as Into the Sun & slightly better than Urban Justice. The movie made me laugh during the fight scenes, which is not what I think the filmakers intended, but, who gives a shiet - I own it! Thats all that matters...
shareI like you MonteCarloMan.....you have a good attitude when discussing films....I actually liked most of the write ups here, even the bad ones. Let's face it guys - you either LOVE Seagal or you despise him. If you are one of those that despise him, why even come here and flame him or the movie? I'm not trying to get into a pissing match, but I just don't understand why so many folks like to over analyze a Seagal movie....just doesn't make any sense. When you start watching one of his movies, you know what you are getting - so if you don't like him, NEVER watch or rent one of his films. If you do, then you are setting yourself up for disappointment and the ONLY one to fault is yourself. Sorry, but that's the truth.
I thought this was one of his better flicks - it was Seagal through and through.
what a terrible movie. awful dialogue and acting from just about everyone. horrible horrible camerawork that ruins the already unimpressive action scenes. even the music is bad (seriously what was with the camera? if I didn't know better, the way the camera constantly changes so you almost never actually see him hitting guys I'd think he was having a stuntman/stand-in doing all his fight scenes). makes his old 80s/90s movies look like Oscar material.
shareWell, if you look at the cast, most of them are cast either as "Thug," "Young Thug," "Police Officer" or "Hooker." That's almost an invitation for a train wreck of a film.
This film was LAME! LOL
[deleted]
Yeah, this movie is so awkwardly bad. Letting Seagal do an accent.. come on now. The action scenes were terribly weak and the direction throughout the film was almost unwatchable. I'm not exactly someone who cares about shot set-ups and such things but this has to be the first time I actually noticed when a director just had no sense of direction in almost every scene.
And I almost had good hopes for it when I saw it at least had just over a 5 out of 10. A lot of times I like a simple action flick like that, even with has-been stars like Seagal, Van Damme or Snipes. But this one is horrible.