You're welcome, Suzi! I knew I was going to come in for some fire, but I have to be honest according to what I see.
Folks, I did not comment on Steven's weight, his laboured breathing, his hair or his generally unhealthy look throughout, nor what was going through my mind during the sex scene with Miss China Girl (that's one can of worms I am not going to open here, having learned my lesson and will henceforth keep such thoughts to myself to avoid any more flame wars).
I didn't comment on any of those things because none of it had any bearing on the movie. I looked at this movie for what any good reviewer worth his or her salt would look at - story, storytelling style, how the action relates to the story, and so forth. The fact is, I watch Steven Seagal movies for a number of reasons. Yes, I'm a girl, so I like just looking at him as much as any other girl here, and I like his voice too, so I listen carefully. Because I'm a writer myself, I also take particular interest in the story, what's in the story, how it's told, etc. And, of course, I like watching him fight most of all, so I look at the fights.
After I finish watching a movie, there comes the final test of my individual movie enjoyment. I have seen some truly awful movies for which I have been pretty darned forgiving, because those movies did something for me on one particular level that earned that forgiveness, and that is: after seeing those movies, I was inspired to write.
BOTB failed that ultimate test. And that's what I was most disappointed about, because of Steven's films that I've seen up to The Foreigner, all of them generated ideas for stories (I'm not talking about fan fiction, I'm talking about stories that I write in my own field, from a sentence, or a situation, or something about the character that Steven was playing in the film that sparked my imagination), all of them except Out for a Kill and Belly of the Beast. I was not inspired, because in seeing his performances in those two films in particular, it was easy to see that he was not inspired.
As for the other things - well, he was definitely not doing his own fighting except for the one scene in the police station. The stunt doubles were very cleverly camoflauged, but not cleverly enough. I knew I was not watching Steven fighting in most of the fight scenes and so I lost interest in them. Steven's voice was dubbed so often the dialogue wasn't worth listening to, because it's HIS voice I want to hear, not some other actor's attempt to sound like him (which failed utterly in all cases). Most of the dialogue wasn't worth listening to anyway, because, while not as cliche-ridden as OFAK, it was banal and lacked purpose.
That being said, the director did manage to make a decent enough action pic from a very thin script. However, because it was basically a cookie-cutter type action pic, anybody could have played the role of Jake Hopper. Steven Seagal just happened to be the guy tapped to play the role.
Close-up shots of his face or seeing him walk into rooms and then sit and say pretty much nothing, while titillating my female sensibilities, does not a movie make - in my opinion, of course. To me, it's obvious when he's involved and engaged in a film - there's a kind of fire and intensity to him that makes him such a pleasure to watch. Neither OFAK nor BOTB had that fire, that engagement with the story. He - Steven - was not in the movie (except for the Buddhist bits - however - again, all of that was totally irrelevant to the story. You could have taken all of that out and not changed the story at all). Steven was just there to fill the role. And that's why I think this film is not worthy of him.
Yes, I know - none of his films could be classified as great art, but then, they're not meant to be. But at least in his earlier films, he was involved in what he was doing, whether it was contributing to writing the story, or contributing to the score, or choreographing his fight scenes or all of the above. Just showing up and saying the lines and going home at the end of the day's shooting is a waste of his talents and abilities. If wanting him to use those talents -
No, wait.
Wanting him to give us his best and not being happy when he doesn't seems to be a violation of some unspoken rule of what constitutes a true fan. Giving up a week's worth of lunch money to rent a film I've already bought and paid for isn't enough, I guess. Buying every stv movie of his regardless of its quality isn't enough support, I suppose. Hoping that by supporting him financially (especially when I don't have a job myself) he'll continue to make movies and I can continue to live in hope that we will see him in a theatrical release that will get Roger Ebert all excited about him again (Ebert's a big - ahem - fan of his, or he was, until HPD came out) I guess doesn't make me a fan at all.
I reviewed Belly of the Beast as a movie. I was very careful about not slagging Steven on a personal level as I've seen other reviewers do, like the one in rottentomatoes, simply because stuff like that is completely irrelevant to reviewing a film. As a reviewer, though, I do have to assess all elements of the film. How does that constitute dragging him down? It doesn't, of course. An honest assessment of a film's content serves to advise those making the film that there are things which could do with some improvement, as well as provide feedback from the people - like me - who are paying to buy and rent the films. And, incidentally, paying their salaries.
I get a lot of pleasure watching Steven Seagal movies. BOTB, however, was not a Steven Seagal movie; it was only a movie with Steven Seagal in it. Not up to his usual standard, and therefore, disappointing. Not a complete failure, as OFAK was. But not a complete success, either. And if I hold him to a higher standard, then that's MY way of being a fan. I'll wait until he tells me personally that this is unsatisfactory. Until then....
-TD, standing firm and practising tough love
