Tyler's Reviews

Out For Justice (1991)

The name "Steven Seagal" is synonymous with the word "abysmal" nowadays, but there was a time when the man could carry a pretty decent action film. Many will name Hard To Kill and Under Siege, but I quite like this violent actioner, which has Seagal as a Brooklyn cop seeking revenge on the drug lord who killed his partner. There's not much to it, but it's a lot of fun.

The film benefits from a strong amount of style-over-substance directing from John Flynn, with a loud soundtrack and a lot of flash. It's definitely one of the most violent Seagal films, but a lot of the violence is unrealistic, so it's not hard to take.

Steve could never be labelled a good actor, but I think this is one of the only films where he actually gives a decent performance. He seems to be very natural in the role, and he actually gives off a commanding presence. He still has trouble in some of the few emotional parts, but for the most part, he is pretty good as Gino Fellino. But people didn't see it for the acting. They saw it because Seagal is good at kicking ass. And here, he's at his best.

Not much more to say about this film. I like it, unashamedly and quite proudly. It's one of those over the top, violent, brash action films that allow to turn off your mind for an hour and a half. Out For Justice does its job, and then some.

+

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

I'd go with Under Siege (obviously) and Nico as his best two. Out For Justice (or Oy For Justice, as it's known in my family, after a labeling mistake and the reason I'd love to see Woody Allen do a version of this film) and Hard To Kill are probably his next best two, IMO.

I'm watching Nico tonight, and I'll post a review of it after. I also definitely agree with you about Under Siege being the best Seagal film.

I would even rate it higher simply because of it's superb action and violence. I especially remember one scene from it, which is something that probably happened in real life, more than once: road rage.
In this scene, our gangster was behind the wheel and in front of him was a car, sitting and not moving when the green light appeared. He honked and got flipped off for his effort. He got out of the car and walked up. It was some female driver. He shot her anyway and strolled back to his car, as if he had just had a good breakfast.

Yeah, that scene resonated with me as well, because it exposed our villian as a truly evil guy.

Liking the reviews, never looked at this thread till now

Short and to the point. I like your take on The Rock and Basic Instinct.

__________________

Bloodsport (1988)



As many of you would know, lately, I've become a bit of a Steven Seagal fan. His early work, especially. But I've never seen a Van Damme film. Ever. And my friend is a big Van Damme fan. So I exchanged my Seagal boxset with him for his Van Damme boxset, which contained Bloodsport, Cyborg, Death Warrant and Double Impact. I've only watched Bloodsport so far, and here are my thoughts.

Its bad. And not even the good kind of bad. I'm one of the first to admit that Seagal films aren't flawless masterpieces, but compared to this, it resembles something close to that. For one thing, the acting is rubbish. Van Damme is likeable enough, but he delivers his dialogue like a robot and is nowhere near as convincing as he should be in a role based on a real life person.

The directing and writing seem like a checklist of rehashed '80's cliches. Ridiculously cheesy montage sequences? Check. Thoughtful sequence where the lead character thinks about crap that happened five minutes before? Check. Really bad soundtrack? Check.

I usually like '80's action flicks. And this film has the vibe and look of one, but lacks an interesting storyline and characters who you can give a damn about. A painful experience (and my friend told me this was the best Van Damme film!).

(and that might be a little too generous)

Just like some other action heroes, Van Damme has his good and bad movies: Check ot thr following and tell me what you think:

Hard Target
Maximum Risk
Nowhere To Run
Lion Heart
Legionnaire
Wake Of Death

Bloodsport & Lionheart had one of the best fight choreography for its time..
Expecting good acting from a Van Damme film, that's just the wrong way to go about it!
I am sure this movie will not live up to the standards of today's action movies.. but for those who grew up in that era, this is priceless fun.
I am sure by today's standards The Last Dragon is unwatchable, but I love that film.. it's a classic.

I will take Van Damme over Seagal anyday.. & I undoubtedly love Under Siege, Glimmer Man & many other films of his. But Van Damme had better films.

JCVD
Lionheart aka A.W.O.L.
Hard Target
Cyborg
Sudden Death
Double Team
Inferno
Universal Soldier

Even his Street Fighter was mindless fun.. "Yeeewww Yess off yaaaye!!"

& seriously! you didn't like this?

I just didn't like the film, period. Maybe it was the fact that my friend built it up to be one of the best films ever made, or the fact that the over the top cheese just becomes too much, but I will agree that the fight scenes are ok. Highlights in an otherwise crappy film.

And I really want to see JCVD. It's been described as an art house film. With Jean Claude Van Damme?

In JCVD he proves he could act.. Unlike Seagal or Arnold, who I am sure even today are unaware of the term "acting".

Don't get me wrong, I like JCVD (the actor), I just didn't like Bloodsport. But I'm gonna finish the boxset and up next is Cyborg. Something tells me I'm going to like that one, particularly because I usually like movies everyone else hate.

Do let us know when you watch Lionheart.. I am curious to know whether you would like it.
Most fans say that's his best film.. to some extent I have a soft spot for it as well..

Also, I am guessing you are planning to watch JCVD after you're done watching most of his films. That's a nice way to go around it.

Jean Claude Van Damme is just horrible for the most part. Bloodsport, Kickboxer, Hard Target, Timecop and, by far the best of the lot, Universal Soldier. You can forget the rest and, even then, that's coming from someone who grew up with them, so I'm probably giving them more leeway than they deserve.

there were two action stars whose movies I liked when they first came out:
Thomas Iaan Griffith ( Excessive Force, Ulterior Motives )

Jeff Speakman ( Perfect Weapon, Street Knight )

Wonder what happened to them?

Wild At Heart (1990)

Twin Peaks is my favorite tv show of all time, and Mulholland Drive is one of my favourite films, so I'm a bit of a David Lynch fan, even though I haven't seen much of his work yet. I've decided to seek out more of his films, but instead of starting with his more acclaimed work like Blue Velvet or Lost Highway, I went with this I disturbing road movie, mainly because I'm a bit of Nic Cage fan, and him in a Elvis-style role just sounds too good to pass up. So I gave Wild At Heart a go.

Wild At Heart is the story of Sailor and Lula, two lovers who go on the run from Lula's oppressive mother, who goes to incredible lengths to try and keep the two apart, including hiring hit men to kill Sailor.

If there was a role Nicolas Cage was born to play, it was Sailor Ripley. He's so cool in the role, and does a pretty good Elvis impersonation. He considered this a role Elvis could've played, so he decided to play it like Elvis. An interesting decision, which allows him to croon 'Love Me Tender' and pull off a snakeskin jacket. So good for him. Too bad the movie itself is too uneven, too bizarre for me to recommend.

Too bad, because there is a terrific story that could have been made into a engrossing and engaging love story, but instead it's a self indulgent mess of a film, that has it's highlights here and there, but not enough to distract you from the bizarre proceedings. It has a strong atmosphere to begin, but quickly descends into a general exercise in weirdness, with good musical choices in wrong places and too much heavy handed symbolism to even try to understand what it all means. For example, the crystal ball scenes? What the hell? Maybe I'm too much of a Lynch beginner to even try to comprehend what it seems to be conveying.

The cast didn't really resonate with me either, excluding Cage. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard from a friend that Diane Ladd was nominated for an Oscar for her rather annoying performance in this? Willem Dafoe tries to be menacing, but he plays the role too OTT that it's hilarious. Laura Dern is ok, but is overly melodramatic in her role.

This is too bad, because I REALLY wanted to like this movie, and there were some great individual scenes and a terrific central performance from Nicolas Cage. But overall, I can't say I enjoyed too much of it. That being said, I will revisit in the future after I've seen more of Lynch's work to see if my opinion changes.

But as of now...

+

I think you overrated it a full rating but at least you're on the right track. It's not that difficult a movie to get; it's just that it's not really worth getting. Just think of it as an idiotic variation of The Wizard of Oz. At least it's got the ricocheting head and the dog with his mouth full.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

A full star goes to Cage's performance and some unintentionally hilarious scenes with Willem Dafoe.