• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Out For A Kill

Lotussan

I Belong To Steven
God, TD. And I thought I was the one who took things
way toooooo seriously...
I do agree, this one was more artsy, I for one found that interesing, and really liked those asthetic aspects in a lot of ways, because I find Steven's training and direct life experience probabably has a lot to do with what went into the film here...
But I agree, our poor Steven did look raaather bored.
The thing is obviously that he has an awfully quick mind (to match his quick hands) Maybe he's not as intellectually stimulated as he could be, but he's is not comatose, at all, no way! I thought he was veeery charming, and yes even touchingly sweet in the scenes where it truly mattered...Holding his assistant as she was slipping away, very tender in the scenes with his wife and also very moving in the prison scenes with the young man who he had so kindly befriended...
Frankly, I am just soooo amazed by his performance in regards to these scenes, truly I am, it just gets to me...
Something that was so suitable for the ladies, and you didn't even take notice, TD? Tsk, tsk...
Ok, maybe the harcore action fans don't care for that, I dunno...
Don't get me wrong, I love the action, too...After all, who can resist a man who is both bone crackingly brutal, and romanticly sweet all in the same movie?
And believe me, I think the real deal is very much this sort of guy, and I sure can't deny that I am completely enamored by the man, and as an end result, my life is almost revolving around him, sick as some of you think that is, I am simply charmed, and I just can't see how anyone especially any woman wouldn't be...
But basically, I just tried to enjoy the film, too many details and well, people tend to get a headache...
People always complain, not enough action, blah, or, blah, this one had too many silly details that I just couldn't understand...
You can't please everyone, although in my eyes he can do nothing but, that...:)
I just think that if people had tried to just enjoy themselves a little, sans the nit picking and intense scrutiny while watching, they surely could have done it...
Everything in moderation I say, including the intense criticism, please...
I still say anyone that can do better should try, I think our sensei does a pretty darn good job given what he has to work with (in this case a director who wasn't all to on top of it all) he just never, ever gets the credit he deserves...
Steven, I adore you, you are absolutely the greatest, baby!
 

Mama San

Administrator
Lotus,
Couldn't have said it better myself!
I realize that there are many that
enjoy picking a film apart and that's
their right, of course.
But personally, I prefer to just enjoy
a film........and I did enjoy this film!
If fact, I enjoy it more and more every
time I watch it!
;)
God bless,
Mama san
 
kokoro said:
plurgatory
:rolleyes:

TD - excellent review, which will undoubtedly be criminally overlooked by probably every person on this site, probably because they don't understand most of it or simply can't bear to have someone else say bad things about Steven.

Casey - I am allergic to hype. The more I'm told I should go see a film, by the people who made it, the less likely I am to bother. For example - 'Titanic' seemed like an idea with potential - after all, Jim Cameron has turned out some great films in his time - until the marketing machine switched on, and that sh*t song turned up everywhere. My interest in seeing the film evaporated like morning dew - and by most accounts (save those of Di Caprio-obsessed teenage girls, not usually the most reliable source of information) I didn't miss a lot. While the list of movies which HAVE lived up to the hype is virtually non-existent, I have a list of films as long as my arm that didn't: Armageddon, Independence Day, Enemy Of The State, The Fifth Element, Batman & Robin, Waterworld, Godzilla, Episode I and II, Hulk, Spiderman, to name but a few. For me, the only hype built up for Out For A Kill was that of my own expectations of the movie, and, luckily, I wasn't disappointed when the movie was not as good as I had hoped for. I can't understand the mindset of some people who post on this site - you can't seem to admit to yourselves that Steven Seagal is capable of and has released several substandard (to put it nicely!) movies in his career. Just because he stars in a movie doesn't automatically mean it is good. I'm sure you genuinely think that Out For A Kill is an excellent movie, but I am also sure that the only reason why you think it is excellent is because it stars Steven Seagal, therefore it must be good. If the same movie was released starring Jet Li or Mark Dacascos (two very under-rated martial artist-turned movie stars) you would think it was crap, and rightly so!

Glimmer
 

rastafari

Well-Known Member
GlimmerMan said:
:rolleyes:

TD - excellent review, which will undoubtedly be criminally overlooked by probably every person on this site, probably because they don't understand most of it or simply can't bear to have someone else say bad things about Steven.

Casey - I am allergic to hype. The more I'm told I should go see a film, by the people who made it, the less likely I am to bother. For example - 'Titanic' seemed like an idea with potential - after all, Jim Cameron has turned out some great films in his time - until the marketing machine switched on, and that sh*t song turned up everywhere. My interest in seeing the film evaporated like morning dew - and by most accounts (save those of Di Caprio-obsessed teenage girls, not usually the most reliable source of information) I didn't miss a lot. While the list of movies which HAVE lived up to the hype is virtually non-existent, I have a list of films as long as my arm that didn't: Armageddon, Independence Day, Enemy Of The State, The Fifth Element, Batman & Robin, Waterworld, Godzilla, Episode I and II, Hulk, Spiderman, to name but a few. For me, the only hype built up for Out For A Kill was that of my own expectations of the movie, and, luckily, I wasn't disappointed when the movie was not as good as I had hoped for. I can't understand the mindset of some people who post on this site - you can't seem to admit to yourselves that Steven Seagal is capable of and has released several substandard (to put it nicely!) movies in his career. Just because he stars in a movie doesn't automatically mean it is good. I'm sure you genuinely think that Out For A Kill is an excellent movie, but I am also sure that the only reason why you think it is excellent is because it stars Steven Seagal, therefore it must be good. If the same movie was released starring Jet Li or Mark Dacascos (two very under-rated martial artist-turned movie stars) you would think it was crap, and rightly so!

Glimmer
glimmer i agree i was not impressed with out for a kill myself and i have not fully enjoyed a seagal film since exit wounds but i think the blame for out for a kill lies with obliwitz not seagal.
 

Lotussan

I Belong To Steven
Right! I said before, the film has it's flaws, but I don't think it's due to Steven...Sorry Glimmey, maybe in this case my love is a little blind, but I honestly just can't help it, so try not to be soooo critical of my being uncritical about Steven...This is a fan site after all...:)
 

TDWoj

Administrator
Staff member
I'll just follow up by saying that I cannot and do not suspend my critical faculties just because I happen to like looking at Steven Seagal. And I stand by what I said: not only was it poorly written and poorly directed, but Steven's performance was not up to anything like what I have seen him do before and therefore know what he is capable of.

(I'm sorry, Lotus; but I disagree about those scenes you spoke of, where you claim he was "sweet". He was just as bored and disinterested in those scenes as he was everywhere else. If you compare those scenes to similar ones in ATL or HTK or OFJ, you'll realise what I'm saying is true. And before you say, "well, he's older now, and takes things more seriously, blah, blah, blah," age is irrelevant. He simply didn't do the job he was supposed to do, for whatever reason, laziness, boredom or inflated ego, take your pick.)

By the way, I don't enjoy picking a film apart. I've seen a lot of pretty bad films where I've been able to overlook much of the badness and still derive enjoyment out of it (I cringe at the dialogue and direction in Attack of the Clones, but as bad as the writing was, there was at least a half decent story buried under the crap, not to mention it was visually stunning). But the writing in OFAK had so many flaws there was no way I could ignore them because they kept coming back, again, and again, and again, and again. It was as if the script itself was shouting, "look! look how bad I am! In case you missed it the first time, here's the same kind of badness again!" Whack!

I realise it is something approaching sacrilege among some here to presume to criticise Steven's performance; that if he's in it, any failures of the film can't possibly have anything to do with him, it's always someone else's fault. But declaring that Steven's performance is always perfect and above reproach or criticism is not doing anyone - including Steven - any favours.

Out for a Kill is a very poor effort all around. In this case, it's everybody's fault - including Steven's - that it didn't even approach mediocre. And that's why I'm so disappointed with it. I wanted it to be better than it was. After all, I'm one of only three people (who have admitted it so far) that liked The Foreigner, so I was prepared to be forgiving of Oblowitz's shortcomings as a director because of it. But it was the script that destroyed any hope of that. Don't forget, I am an editor and a story critic. I can't help noticing the writing; it is, one might say, my job, my milieu, my area of expertise. I know whereof I speak in this regard. And with writing being so bad in this film, it would have to have had some kind of stupendously superior performances out of the principal players to rise above the banality of the text, and that just didn't happen, no matter how heartily one wishes it were so.

Which kind of review would you prefer? One that looks at the film as a whole, as a work encompassing all the elements that went into making it, or one of those reviewers that do nothing except make wisecracks about Steven's weight, or what he's doing with his hair this week, or make fun of all the movies he's ever made, just so they can prove how clever they are and how superior they are to Steven Seagal fans who think he can do no wrong?

I'll take honest assessment over wisecracks any day.

-TD, bloodied but unbowed
 

TDWoj

Administrator
Staff member
kokoro said:
Nice review TD, good honest opinion, which is what the Movie Review Section is all about! ;)
Thanks, kokoro! I knew I was going to take some hits, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em, regardless.

-TD, lonesome warrior
 

TDWoj

Administrator
Staff member
Mind you, there was one detail that cracked me up (though I suspect it wasn't supposed to). When Tommy calls up Burns' file, note the birthdate: April 10, 1959.

1959?

That would make him two years younger than me!

Yeah, right. I don't think so. Try pulling the other one, Steven.

(This is another instance wherein he dispenses with reality. There's no reason he couldn't have used a more realistic birth date, except he clearly doesn't want anyone thinking he's as old as he really is. Or else this movie is science fiction and it's supposed to be taking place in 2010.)

-TD, who can't help noticing these little details
 
Well,I saw Out For A Kill on TV last weekend,on a Russian channel and I'd make a few notes here...and I'll try to be as much objective as I can be.
It didn't turn out to be such a bad movie as it was painted in the numerous reviews and neither was it brilliant.The plot in detail was no plot at all.It's the same old story that revolves around the same old sweet revenge.And so I got a feeling I was watching this movie a hundredth time and nothing was new to me.It's time for Seagal to get on a higher level and start making "more intellectual movies" by his own words.
The fight scenes,I don't know how they were done and by whom,were the most enjoyable of all the things in the movie...in comparison with the ones in his latest films I'd say they were the best but it's my personal opinion.They reminded me of the old classical Chinese movies.
The tendency:Seagal's character remains unchangable-he's extremely dangerous and he's always absolutely right and all others are absolutely wrong.Factually he's a massive killer wearing a mask of the good guy.
Relating to Seagal's Buddhism philosophy there's no place for revenge but he keeps on repeating it in all his films.
Acting:Seagal can act better.Sometimes for an instant there was a glimpse of something like that but most of the film he was wooden.
And those irritating "fashionable a la MTV camera tricks"...why the hell they kept on using them?It's not Seagal's style if he wants to make classics.Or is it a new era of movie making?
But in general this is not the worst film I've ever seen.It's not worse than HPD,not much worse than The Foreigner...Let's say so,everybody's got his ups and downs and in Seagal's career there's a dark stripe now.
 

Lotussan

I Belong To Steven
TDWoj said:
Mind you, there was one detail that cracked me up (though I suspect it wasn't supposed to). When Tommy calls up Burns' file, note the birthdate: April 10, 1959.
Maybe he just has a quirky sense of humor, eh?
 
Finally saw this one tonight on USA Network (of course it was "edited"). I'm not a very picky person and like most films of Seagals, some better than others. OFAK is "OK". Not excellent, not awful, just "OK" in my opinion. It is a bit scattered, leaving one feeling lost at times. I did however, like the fight scenes - most were exciting and I enjoyed watching Steven and his aikido moves and the fact that HE didn't use wires even though his opponents did. The icing on the cake was the sword work on the big honcho - I won't go into detail for those of you who haven't seen it yet. It get's a 2 star rating if one can sit back with a tall glass of iced lemonaide and movie-buttered popcorn for a couple hours of action that doesn't take much thinking.
 
The whole movies was a riddle to me,I'd say :rolleyes:
But thinking back on that day it was shown on TV here I actually would love to see it again to get a new impression about it.But,alas,I missed my chance to purchase it on a pirate DVD for 20 bucks...:rolleyes:
 
I watched OFK for the second time . I really did like his fighting scenes!!! I really liked the movie. Of course I love every movie he is in! Just to see him is enough for me.......hugs, kat
 

ZenLateralus

Disposition Seagal
OFAK was premiered on television recently and I copied it to tape since I wasn't going to be able to watch it and concentrate on it. When I did click it on though it seemed that the only thing I thought was decent was Steven Seagal. Other than that there is nothing. I really don't like that director that did this and TF. The good news is that I will be watching this a second time straight through without my girlfriend to make fun of it just to see what I think. :)
 

Lotussan

I Belong To Steven
I thought his swordfighting was exciting....:) The story about the tattoos was cool too...
The barber shop scene was a strech, but not because of Steven, because of Monkey man....