Review : Flight Of Fury

msmith

Member
Movie House Commentary Review

Flight of Fury

(2007)
by Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy)

Steven Seagal must retrieve or destroy a stolen stealth bomber before terrorists use it to deliver a biological bomb.

The film begins with the plus-sized paladin about to have his memory erased by some kind of doctor in some kind of military jail. He escapes with the help of two confederates who have no other function in the plot. Once he escapes, he thwarts a convenience store robbery by killing all the baddies - but not before they panic and shoot all the store clerks. What was he doing in the convenience store? Tracking down baddies for the government? Nah. He just happened to be shopping there when the robbery began, so he took it upon himself to do some killin'. If there's one thing that gets the man upset, it's when somebody interrupts his snack selection.

What does all of that have to do with a stealth bomber? Absolutely nothing. It's about 30 minutes of prologue designed to get Segal into the hands of the general with the missing plane. You see, the local police investigate the robbery and decide that they better call the feds because the full-figured fighter is just more than they can handle. The feds, in turn, call military intelligence. Blah, blah. I would not be at all surprised to find out that the prologue was something left over from a different movie.

Once the general manages to coerce Seagal into the actual mission, the narrative consists almost entirely of four elements:

1) stock flying footage and stock explosion footage purchased from other productions

2) the faces of pilots in cockpits

3) shots of computer screens showing random things "locking on" to other random things

4) shots of command headquarters back in the States, where the military brass deliver expository dialogue so we can understand what the hell is going on with Segal's mission, which would be otherwise incomprehensible.

"How's he doing, Commodore?"

"Sir, the Seal team assigned to back him up has failed to make the rendezvous, and has experienced an 100% casualty rate."

"Then, God help him, he'll have to do it alone."

"But, sir, it's only one man against an Army, and he only has three hours left to (describes complete mission in detail). We better carpet-bomb the area."

"Dammit, Commodore, this is no ordinary man. This is my best multi-chinned pilot."

Back in 2003, when he was really overweight and out of shape, Seagal made two incredibly bad films back-to-back with director Michael Oblowitz. After that he worked out a bit, dropped enough weight to do his own fights again, wrote some of his own script treatments and experienced a period of resurgence. Sadly, that period seems to have ended. The big-boned battler has once again churned out back-to-back disasters with a director named Michael:

Michael Oblowitz


Michael Keusch
The Foreigner ... 2.54 Attack Force ... 2.72
Out For a Kill ... 2.74 Flight of Fury ... 3.42

The IMDb scores in the table above suggest that Flight of Fury isn't as bad as the other three films, but this film's score has been inexplicably polluted by a rash of perfect scores. That's obviously ballot-stuffing. The top 1000 voters at IMDb rate Flight of Fury 2.4, exactly the same score they give to Attack Force. I agree. The film has absolutely no positives and a myriad of negatives:

*

There's very little hand-to-hand combat in Flight of Fury, and none of it is very good. What little there is generally pictures Seagal in head-and-shoulders shots or using an obvious double. Instead of prolonged fights, he tends to knife opponents quickly, and fast editing disguises his girth.
*

The performances are uniformly sub-par. Seagal's own acting now consists entirely of his controlled tough-guy whisper.
*

The film was lensed in Romania, but the story is set in Afghanistan, so all of the extras are Eastern European guys in Afghani mufti, with their faces covered most of the time, presumably to disguise their features.
*

There is no detail in the characterization, and very little in the dialogue.
*

The flying action uses stock footage, as described above. The non-flying action consists entirely of clichés, and the best of that is also stock footage lifted from 1986's Iron Eagle.
*

There's almost no plot detail other than the rough outline I described above, and what little detail there is makes very little sense, perhaps because it was cobbled around existing footage.
*

To top it all off, the cobbled-in plot isn't even original! The storyline of this film is taken directly from another straight-to-vid film called Black Thunder, which came out in 1998. According to IMDb, Flight of Fury it was even called Black Thunder as a working title.

Here's the summary for 1998's Black Thunder:

When the top secret prototype of the Nova Stealth fighter has been stolen, the Pentagon launches a big alarm; the plane shouldn't come into hostile hands. There is only one man who can get the plane back: test pilot Vince Conners. He and his partner Jannick pursue the Nova to Libya but when they land at the site their mission fails. Jannick has been captured and Conners is on the run. Without friends or allies they have to try to find the Nova before they fall into the hands of the military regime and before terrorists can use the plane to bomb a United Nations meeting with nerve gas.

Not only is the plot of Flight of Fury virtually identical, but our portly pilot also has a partner named Jannick - and other character names are also the same as in Black Thunder!

In other words, Flight of Fury consists of footage from one old film, and a plot from another.

A straightforward remake of a recent grade-B Michael Dudikoff movie?

Not even bothering to change the characters' names?

Frankly, it's like the weighty warrior isn't even trying any more.

http://www.scoopy.com/flightoffury.htm
 

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
msmith;173397 said:
Flight of Fury

(2007)
by Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy)

Steven Seagal must retrieve or destroy a stolen stealth bomber before terrorists use it to deliver a biological bomb.

The film begins with the plus-sized paladin about to have his memory erased by some kind of doctor in some kind of military jail. He escapes with the help of two confederates who have no other function in the plot. Once he escapes, he thwarts a convenience store robbery by killing all the baddies - but not before they panic and shoot all the store clerks. What was he doing in the convenience store? Tracking down baddies for the government? Nah. He just happened to be shopping there when the robbery began, so he took it upon himself to do some killin'. If there's one thing that gets the man upset, it's when somebody interrupts his snack selection.

What does all of that have to do with a stealth bomber? Absolutely nothing. It's about 30 minutes of prologue designed to get Segal into the hands of the general with the missing plane. You see, the local police investigate the robbery and decide that they better call the feds because the full-figured fighter is just more than they can handle. The feds, in turn, call military intelligence. Blah, blah. I would not be at all surprised to find out that the prologue was something left over from a different movie.

Once the general manages to coerce Seagal into the actual mission, the narrative consists almost entirely of four elements:

1) stock flying footage and stock explosion footage purchased from other productions

2) the faces of pilots in cockpits

3) shots of computer screens showing random things "locking on" to other random things

4) shots of command headquarters back in the States, where the military brass deliver expository dialogue so we can understand what the hell is going on with Segal's mission, which would be otherwise incomprehensible.

"How's he doing, Commodore?"

"Sir, the Seal team assigned to back him up has failed to make the rendezvous, and has experienced an 100% casualty rate."

"Then, God help him, he'll have to do it alone."

"But, sir, it's only one man against an Army, and he only has three hours left to (describes complete mission in detail). We better carpet-bomb the area."

"Dammit, Commodore, this is no ordinary man. This is my best multi-chinned pilot."

Back in 2003, when he was really overweight and out of shape, Seagal made two incredibly bad films back-to-back with director Michael Oblowitz. After that he worked out a bit, dropped enough weight to do his own fights again, wrote some of his own script treatments and experienced a period of resurgence. Sadly, that period seems to have ended. The big-boned battler has once again churned out back-to-back disasters with a director named Michael:

Michael Oblowitz


Michael Keusch
The Foreigner ... 2.54 Attack Force ... 2.72
Out For a Kill ... 2.74 Flight of Fury ... 3.42

The IMDb scores in the table above suggest that Flight of Fury isn't as bad as the other three films, but this film's score has been inexplicably polluted by a rash of perfect scores. That's obviously ballot-stuffing. The top 1000 voters at IMDb rate Flight of Fury 2.4, exactly the same score they give to Attack Force. I agree. The film has absolutely no positives and a myriad of negatives:

*

There's very little hand-to-hand combat in Flight of Fury, and none of it is very good. What little there is generally pictures Seagal in head-and-shoulders shots or using an obvious double. Instead of prolonged fights, he tends to knife opponents quickly, and fast editing disguises his girth.
*

The performances are uniformly sub-par. Seagal's own acting now consists entirely of his controlled tough-guy whisper.
*

The film was lensed in Romania, but the story is set in Afghanistan, so all of the extras are Eastern European guys in Afghani mufti, with their faces covered most of the time, presumably to disguise their features.
*

There is no detail in the characterization, and very little in the dialogue.
*

The flying action uses stock footage, as described above. The non-flying action consists entirely of clichés, and the best of that is also stock footage lifted from 1986's Iron Eagle.
*

There's almost no plot detail other than the rough outline I described above, and what little detail there is makes very little sense, perhaps because it was cobbled around existing footage.
*

To top it all off, the cobbled-in plot isn't even original! The storyline of this film is taken directly from another straight-to-vid film called Black Thunder, which came out in 1998. According to IMDb, Flight of Fury it was even called Black Thunder as a working title.

Here's the summary for 1998's Black Thunder:

When the top secret prototype of the Nova Stealth fighter has been stolen, the Pentagon launches a big alarm; the plane shouldn't come into hostile hands. There is only one man who can get the plane back: test pilot Vince Conners. He and his partner Jannick pursue the Nova to Libya but when they land at the site their mission fails. Jannick has been captured and Conners is on the run. Without friends or allies they have to try to find the Nova before they fall into the hands of the military regime and before terrorists can use the plane to bomb a United Nations meeting with nerve gas.

Not only is the plot of Flight of Fury virtually identical, but our portly pilot also has a partner named Jannick - and other character names are also the same as in Black Thunder!

In other words, Flight of Fury consists of footage from one old film, and a plot from another.

A straightforward remake of a recent grade-B Michael Dudikoff movie?

Not even bothering to change the characters' names?

Frankly, it's like the weighty warrior isn't even trying any more.

http://www.scoopy.com/flightoffury.htm

Totally agree with this one. No rose tinted glasses for this guy. Crap is crap after all. How anyone can enjoy seeing Seagal remake a Dudikoff film (but not as good either!) is beyond me. It's like Prince doing a Milli Vanilli cover, but doing it worse!
 

Kotegashi

Master Of Disaster
Staff member
supertom;173499 said:
Totally agree with this one. No rose tinted glasses for this guy. Crap is crap after all. How anyone can enjoy seeing Seagal remake a Dudikoff film (but not as good either!) is beyond me. It's like Prince doing a Milli Vanilli cover, but doing it worse!

I agree that FOF isn't a great movie, but it isn't crap. It's a entertaining movie and is a step up from his last DTV.

So far his latest DTV are beeing turned into lesser quality movies in post-production.

Seagal has never acted very differently then he does these days. And don't forget that the man is on the wrong end of his fifties.

Of course everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not all criticsism is correct.

I've seen a lot worse movies.

Peace
 

rastafari

Well-Known Member
i have just seen this film and it is better than black dawn,out of reach,attack force but not as good as shadow man,into the sun or belly of the beast.
here are some of the things that stood out for me

1.seagal is in better shape(infact its the beast shape hes been in since into the sun)
2.seagals fights were shot in the dark so it was hard to see what was going on
3.in the first 45 minutes seagal speaks about 6-7 times thats all.
4.once again for the main star seagal is hardly in this film and most of his scenes appear in the last 25 mins
5.seagal looks bored as hell in this film
6.too much stock footage
7.the acting is as bad here as its was in out for a kill
8.the knife fights were quite good

overall i am glad seagal is no longer working with keaush as apart from a couple of periods in shadow man i dont rate him at all.i am looking forward to in the hood for a few reasons

1.filmed in usa
2.looks like a decent cast
3.don flauntroy other 2 films were not bad in my view
4.also joe told me the film had a bit more money than flauntroys other 2 flms.
 

Donald Lee Wilkey

A Steven Seagal fan
My Flight of Fury DVD review

As i expected, am impressed again and sure that Seagal ranks #1 in the DVD format kingdom with his movie Flight of Fury
Every scene was worth the wait right up to John Sands recovering the stealth plane and cancelling his flight student's existence
The special effects of the United States Air Force's satellite 'geography map graphics' tracking Sand's flight to the Afghanistan are beautiful
All scenes displaying all of the planes take offs and aerial pursuits in the air are fun to watch
Steven did more acting in this new film and it was a delight to see his theatrics expand and grow in Flight of Fury
The self defense movements of Seagal in this movie were faster and hard to catch the first time, so i will need to re-watch it again to capture the strike points of the bad guys' bodies
Loved that throttling of the Afghan soldier's head with the metal pole wielded by John Sands
Never saw anyone in films cut, slice and stab quicker with a knife than Seagal
Never seen any other actor or actress render the bad people unconscious with tosses and open hand strikes in a film than Seagal
It appears to me that all of these far east and slavic actors and actresses hired by Seagal are just as good, if not, better than their Hollywood peers
 

Mama San

Administrator
I just saw "Flight of Fury" and compared to
"Attack Force" it is a masterpiece! I had a
terrible time just sitting thru "Attack Force"!
I would not want to set thru it again!! But I
watched "Flight of Fury" twice and I intend to
watch it again! :D GOOD FILM!!
Plus Seagal looked GREAT!!!:D
God bless,
Mama san
 

lee nicholson

Well-Known Member
Whilst it's a marked improvement from the dreadful Attack Force (mind
you, you'd be hard pressed to make worse) Flight Of Fury still suffers
from too much padding, and needless build-up. Seagal seems a little
more energetic in the action scenes, and looks a little trimmer than
usual. However, he spent too much time in a cockpit (uttering "Roger
That!") or stood around, whilst the film-makers are tragicly
under-using his (still) mighty star presence. The 'voice dubbing'
problem is also very evident...again! And the endless (i.e, borrowed from other movies) flight and naval footage)could soon form the basis of a new 'drinking game' (down a shot of whisky, when a military H.Q of any kind, comes into shot......you'll be drunk in 30 minutes)

Seagal must retrive an ultra-hi-tech Stealth fighter plane (with
invisabilty cloaking) from the afghanhistan terrorists, after his own
student (and fellow pilot) steals it for the highest bidder. Once
again, the synopsis (on paper) sounds exciting enough, but there are
just too many scenes of naval commandos discussing the whereabouts of
Seagal (probably to padd out Seagals limited involvement?) There's some
nice (small) fights near the end (and in slo-mo, they all look like
Seagal) but as usual, these brutal fight scenes, are edited together
too quickly (when will a director ever zoom back, and showcase Seagals
technique, to it's maximum potential?)

All in all, with a bigger budget and less padding, Flight Of Fury could
have easily slipped into theaters around the world. However, it's
limited budget (and sometimes limited imagination) forever consign it
to s-t-v hell, which is a shame, because on paper (as previously
stated) it seemed an exciting change of pace for the stout sensei.

All in all, i'd give it a 6, but to casual viewers, i'd give it 4 to 5
 

msmith

Member
The DVD Lounge Review

Director

Michael Keusch

Cast

Steven Seagal..........John Sands

The Movie

When it comes to making bad direct to DVD films, making a bad film isn't just a norm. It's almost a requirement. And Steven Seagal, many years removed from his heyday as a top level star much less an actor who could get a wide release for a film in theaters, has almost elevated this into an art form. Releasing multiple films every year on thin budgets to a very forgiving fanbase that eats them up, Seagal has starred in an increasingly worsening series of films ranging from Mercenary For Justice, Attack Force and The Foreigner amongst others. Up next for the former '90s action star is Flight of Fury.

Seagal steps into the lead as John Sands, a special agent in the U.S Air Force. A Stealth Bomber has been stolen, and it's up to Sands to recover it. But there's a catch to all this: Sands is a recent escapee from military prison. Threatened by the knowledge that he contains, they imprisoned him and were planning on erasing his memory. Captured by the police after Sands breaks up a robbery at a convenience store, Sands is recruited as a last resort on this urgent mission to recover the stolen plane. This time he's taking on Afghani Muslims who want to use the weapon for their sinister purposes.

And like every other Seagal movie of the last 10 years or so, it seems, the film is a smorgasbord of his usual antics. Much like a '80s action star, Seagal mows through opponents without a scratch on him. Throw in some gratuitous nudity, some explosions and some low level CGI and one is left with another cookie cutter action film that's barely distinguishable from the rest of the action films that have cluttered Seagal's resume as of late. While the action is surprisingly enjoyable and the dialogue not too embarrassing for this sort of release, the film is ultimately just another retread for those stuck in the 1980s action movie mentality who want to see Radical Islamists die at the hands of a washed up action star.

And while it's enjoyable on some level that can enjoy this sort of film, Flight of Fury is just another Seagal action movie.

The Audio

Usually Seagal movies have some sort of good audio component that makes up for their lack of cinematic quality. This isn't in the case for Flight of Fury, which is advertised as using Dolby Digital 5.1 format but really doesn't utilize it effectively. The sound is concentrated in the front speakers and doesn't flow around, as sound that should come through the rear comes through the front speakers.

The Video

Surprisingly the video is much stronger than the audio, as the colors are shockingly crisp and clear. The picture comes through cleanly for the bulk of the film, as the film doesn't use a lot of bright colors but manages to keep the drab atmosphere looking good.

The Extras

Previews for a host of other direct to video titles are included.

InsidePulse's Ratings for Flight of Fury

CATEGORY RATING (OUT OF 10)

THE MOVIE 2.5

THE VIDEO 7.5

THE AUDIO 5

THE EXTRAS 0.5

REPLAY VALUE 1.5

OVERALL 3

(NOT AN AVERAGE)

Link:- http://thedvdlounge.insidepulse.com/articles/64948/2007/02/22/iflight-of-furyi--dvd-review.html
 

msmith

Member
Independent Critics Review

TC Candler's Review

C+




OK -- Let's get the formalities out of the way... Steven Seagal is not only the greatest action star of all time, he is the greatest human being of all time. And if you don't agree, he will find you, break your arm over his shoulder and snap your neck into a million pieces with one flick of his wrists. Bow down and worship Seagal like the martial arts god that he is!!! Do it now!!!

Fine... I may have exaggerated just a tad. But there is something about Seagal that makes this typically snobbish critic forego all of his cinematic experience and knowledge. I just can't help liking Seagal movies... I watch them all and I am never disappointed.
Sure -- All the plots are the same -- Rogue ex-CIA operative has to be recruited for one more mission, always in a foreign land, always with the many lives at stake, always with a couple of token hotties, always with a bad-ass tough guy (who will eventually die in hand to hand combat with Seagal), always with at least three neck breaks, always with a knife fight, always with a rousing action sequence using stock footage, and finally ending with a 30-second scene of Seagal back home (either mourning at a funeral or walking off screen with the hot chick).

"Flight of Fury" is more of the fantastic same. This time, the mission is to steal a stealth plane out of Afghanistan. Insert this plot point into the outline above and you have this film nailed.

Is it incredible cinema? Of course not... but it is typical Seagal and it will please his loyal fans. It may only get a C+ on the grading scale, but on a Seagal scale this movie would get a B+ or an A-.

He keeps churning out these movies at the rate of about 3 a year... they make tons of money overseas, and they do well on DVD despite never making a North American cineplex. He keeps making and we keep watching... Who cares if the majority of the public would rather move on with newer, younger stars like Vin Diesel and Jason Statham. **** em!

Seagal could simultaneously snap Statham's neck, break Diesel's legs, crush Chuck Norris' skull, shatter The Rock's ribcage, AND... reduce Jean Claude Van Damme to tears with a single glare. He could do all that blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back.

I give Seagal movies good grades for two reasons...

1. I don't want him to hurt me.
2. They are some of my only guilty pleasure movies.

Link:- http://www.independentcritics.com/reviews/flightoffury.htm
 

msmith

Member
DVD Clinic Review

After escaping from a detention center, John Sands (Steven Seagal) is arrested and offered a shot at freedom. The cost? Recovering a stolen Stealth Bomber capable of destroying the entire planet.

I don’t have a degree in Seagal, so I won’t be able to compare the complexities of Flight of Fury to Attack Force or Belly of the Beast. Therefore, I’m unable to analyze the social commentary illustrated in Black Dawn and Today You Die, arguably two of the most beloved films of the last quarter-century. That aside…

I almost feel rude bashing a straight-to-video action film starring Steven Seagal, but somebody’s gotta do it. After all, you’re reading this for a reason. Flight of Fury is a poorly dubbed, pathetically acted, deathly stupid mess. The supposed selling point of the film, the pulse-pounding, heart-racing dogfights seem to glide on a blurred line between shoddy stock footage and stone-age CGI.

Seagal is like a fat, constipated-looking Chuck Norris, whose shelf-life expired about 15 years ago. 54-year-old Seagal lazily squints his way through the film, not a sign of a pulse around. Black belt or not, this guy is absolutely painful to watch. With a karate chop here and a bullet fired there, the action is about as generic as it comes. But hey, it’s kind of nice to see an animal rights activist throw a knife through a guy’s neck.

You know your movie has a problem when the highpoint is an obligatory lesbian scene that involves Seagal as a Peeping Steven. If you look closely, you can see his very manly ponytail slowly rising…

I don’t know if Flight of Fury is a step up or down for Seagal. Quite frankly, aside from his diehard (a much better action film, by the way) cult fans who will see the movie no matter what, who cares? Call me crazy, but I’d rather listen to Seagal’s 2004 album, “Songs from the Crystal Cave” while drinking one of his Lightning Bolt energy drinks.

Video: 1.85:1 Widescreen

Audio: English (Dolby Digital 5.1), with subtitles in English

Previews for 8 movies you most likely won't like. Just a guess.

If there's two cults I don't understand, it's the Mormons and the Seagal fans. Flight of Fury is typical Seagal, and that's not a good thing.

Link:- http://joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_dvds&id=1584
 

latinojazz

New Member
My review of flight of fury is very short:

It´s his best DTV soooo far with Mercenary For Justice.Both cool

It´s the best Seagal´s shape and screen presence since Exit Wounds,he is really awesome.

And third, the movie could be called Under Siege 3 with a little more of budget.

The movie is very well directed and very good edited.The stock footage looks great, I like a lot the invisible stealth.

The fights are cool and his attitude too.There are a lot of Seagal´s action charisma since the first scene with the bad doctor till the end with the knife and the pipe, really coool.

The lesbian scene is justified, short and really exciting!!

To finish, for me his best DTV.I have seen 3 times in english and in a several days I´ll enjoy rewatching in my natural born language.I don´t give a damn the story is very typical(Firefox style)or if is a remake of the Dudikoff film, it´s a Seagal film from the star to the end.

i like the music, sound, and I don´t like the little dubbing parts and the double only in a couple of times.The movie is very good

7.5/10 4/5 Stars and TWO THUMBS UP!! for a Seagal DTV

HIS BEST SHOTS FOR ME:

1-Flight Of Fury
2-Mercenary For Justice
3-Shadow Man
4-Into The Sun

WHAT A PACK TO SELL!!!4 very good DTV movies.I´m proud of Steven in those movies

And that´s all
 
Violence and Bloodshed

I am disgusted by the way he displays his prowess in his recent movies. A while back, after leaving Warner Brothers and Jules Nasso, he said now he wants to make a different kind of movies: that would lead people into contemplation blah blah. Now look at the movies he makes: they're just as bloody and violent. What's worse is, he doesn't even try to create a situation in which that much violence would look legit. I was just watching Flight of Fury, there is a scene in a store where he gets everybody killed - including the guy behind the counter - and then he says: it was self defence. How stupid is that, really?

If you analyse that situation a wee bit, you get the following: the guys with the guns were after the money. The cashier could have given him the money, then they would have left. He had cameras in the store anyway, so it would have been pretty easy to trace the burglars, who did not wear masks, wigs or any kind of make-up.

But no, that would have been too simple: so Stevie Wonder-Boy goes on and shoots a guy outside the store, gets the cashier killed by the other thieves that panicked because of him, and then - this is my favourite move, by the way - he drops the gun, pulls out a knife and then slays another kid with no purpose in life in a blink of an eye. KILLS him, let me repeat that. What kind of defence system in the world would do that? What kind of example does Steven Seagal give in this scene ALONE?

To give but another example, he could have had the kid with the knife drop it - he already had a gun in his hand - and then send him to prison, rehab or whatever. The founder of Aikido used to say: there is no bigger crime in the Universe than taking someone's life. This is how the techniques were developed, so that they look so round and harmonious now.

Once again, life might put you sometimes in situations where you really have to take action and do something about it, without hesitation. But this was not it. So you see, he doesn't even try to create situations in his movies that would require that kind of extreme attitude, and his recent movies are FULL of this kind of stuff.

It's just ridiculous, simple as that. Happy Easter all.
 

jobo

JOBO
Flight of Fury takes off

Ah after the mind melting Attack Farce Steven saw the light at the end of the tunnel and pulled off a suprise victory in this pretty good DTV film. Yes its not Glimmer Man or Out for Justice but it was well made for the small budget they had and the story for once makes sense. The poor stock footage didnt help but thought the film was a big improvement on recent outings. Steven at times looked quite interested and some of the fights aren't too bad. All the best Steve lets hope Marker keeps things going in the right direction.
 

latinojazz

New Member
Good DTV movie

Flight Of Fury is a good DTV movie.

That could be better in many ways?Yes
That I hope that the next films will be better?Yes

But Flight Of Fury is good, and Seagal looks cool in the flic
 

Slowhand

Slowhand
Flight of fury will be released the 10th of May in France !!!

Two days to wait, I'm very impatient...
 
Top