I just wanted to know what peoples opinions of these two directors are. Having watched "Half Past Dead" the other night on region one DVD, I have to say that, although the fights were'nt as good, I thought on the whole that Don Michael Paul orchestrated the mayhem quite well for a first-time director. He also can tell a story well without all these editing gimmicks that Michael Oblowitz heavily relies on. I also felt he got a very easy going performance out of Seagal, and his chemistry with JaRule worked very well.
Having watched both "The Foreigner" and "Out For A Kill" as well this week I would say Oblowitz is the weaker director. The films themselves I thought were better than a lot of other STV films I've saw in my time but he cannot tell a story. His relience on flashy camera work and speed ups makes him look, as GlimmerMan said, like a Guy Ritchie wannabe. I still commend him for getting Seagal to as many fights as he did in "Out For A Kill" himself.
I actually feel that "Half Past Dead" is a little underrated and if it had Seagal doing more of his own fights, I think it could have been one of his best since "Under Siege".
What do the rest of you think of these two directors?
Peace.
MMCK2
Having watched both "The Foreigner" and "Out For A Kill" as well this week I would say Oblowitz is the weaker director. The films themselves I thought were better than a lot of other STV films I've saw in my time but he cannot tell a story. His relience on flashy camera work and speed ups makes him look, as GlimmerMan said, like a Guy Ritchie wannabe. I still commend him for getting Seagal to as many fights as he did in "Out For A Kill" himself.
I actually feel that "Half Past Dead" is a little underrated and if it had Seagal doing more of his own fights, I think it could have been one of his best since "Under Siege".
What do the rest of you think of these two directors?
Peace.
MMCK2