Marked for Death is the only movie of Mr. Seagals' that had scenes that gave me the willies. I fast forward through those scenes and I like the movie. I really liked the remarks he made at the apartment when he killed one guy and the other guy ended up out the window.
MARKED FOR DEATH (apart from OUT FOR JUSTICE) is the cream of the crop, as far as SEAGAL movies go. Fast paced, a great soundtrack (which i own) and bone-crunching violence (the shopping mall arm snap is a joy to behold!) but not long after, it marks the end, in his 'ultra-violent' mode of movies. Bigger budgets were to come and hollywood beckoned. I wonder why he didn't make more movies with 20th CENTURY FOX? (i had read, that FOX were accused of 'filmatic-racism' that year, along with PREDATOR 2, giving a missrepresentation of rastafarians)
My friend and I watched the movie together a while back, since I wanted to pick her brain on what was accurate and what wasn't (she's taking Caribbean studies at university, and she and I work on projects together involving one of the Caribbean countries).
One thing both she and I noticed was the disclaimers about not all Jamaicans being members of "posses" - it's mentioned at least twice in the film.
The Santaria stuff was mostly right, though she said that Rastas wouldn't really do what what's-his-name did in the film, consulting bones and suchlike. She did notice one of the black actors not getting the accent/dialect quite right - they say "respeck" in the Caribbean, for example, and one of the actors misspoke, and said "respect" - small stuff like that. Other details were just plain made up, but made for good movie suspense.
It was one of those "six degrees of" situations for me, since my friend was involved in putting on Carifesta VII in 2000 and Jimmy Cliff was one of the artistes on the programme!
I think the film, while not accurate in detail, hardly overstepped the bounds of racism, no matter how politically correct one might be.
I think the problem with what Lee was mentioning had more to do with that outbreak of rabid political correctness that took place in the early 90s than with any real problem with this film.
If you want a film that lowers the reputation of blacks on film, try watching "Soul Plane". That was way worse in stereotyping than Marked for Death ever was.
Marked For Death is a fantastic Seagal film! It is one of those classic Seagal movies that is on every Seagal fans Top 5 Seagal movie lists. The action scenes were revolutionary, the plot was great, the cast of actors were terrific, some scenes were overdone with the whole rastafarian Jamacian image but the movie is a classic and one of Seagal's best!
I understand what you are saying, but i was merely pointing out the article i read (at the time) that stated that "FOX were accused of filmatic-racism." I personally don't think the movie was rascist, it had a lot of good things to say about afro-caribbeans as well. Unfortunetly though, most black youths look up to, or aspire to be 'seen' as gangster/killer/pimp stereotypes (mostly due to music and movies) and even though i'm partial to a bit of 'gangsa-rap', it doesn't do black people any good.
But i do agree with your comments on political correctness (it is silly, and in most cases, a good 'get-out' clause for most people)
Did your friend speak to JIMMY CLIFF, and if so, what did he have to say about SEAGAL?
She was the general overseer in charge of making sure nothing went too seriously wrong, so she didn't have much direct contact with the artistes, alas, since the concerts were being handled by a specific committee. Of course I asked her if she had a chance to talk to Jimmy Cliff, but she hadn't. Drat! But that was four years ago, B.S.S. (Before Steven Seagal - I didn't become a fan of his until last year). If she has a chance to meet Jimmy Cliff again, though, she has her instructions!
I think the point about MFD, though, is that it likely fell into that politically-correct consciousness nonsense and it therefore suffered somewhat from the fall-out of that, regardless of whether it was actually overtly racist or stereotypical, or not (it was mildly stereoptypical, but not racist, at least, I didn't think so, and neither did my friend who knows more about what might be considered stereotypical vis-a-vis the view of Jamaicans by non-Jamaicans than I).