Post your reviews of The Keeper in this thread.
marky96;199160 said:Well already things aren't looking good...only one review and it's a bad one.
Martin01;199164 said:LOL I'm sorry but if you believe in this review you are really credulous - that "review" says absolutely nothing, it's only written by a Seagal hater who don't understand to differentiate and can't compare a 30 million Under Siege -movie with a 10 million B-Movie.
I will try to be objective when I will write a review after watching this movie - but already the things ARE looking good.
marky96;199169 said:I think this review was an excellent one. It may say little about the film, but it also states the reason why it says nothing, with the reviewer stating 'if he’s not going to put any effort into making them, I’m not going to put much into writing about them.' Personally I think that this is a perfectly justified reason for not putting effort in.
Although recent Seagal pictures such as Urban Justice (2007), Pistol Whipped (2008) and even Driven to Kill (2009) have shown Seagal putting more effort into his performances, this has not always been the case. Films like Attack Force (2006), The Foreigner and Out for a Kill (both 2003) show Seagal at his worst with distant, bored, lazy and uninterested performances. Although it is is easy to lay the failure of these films at the hands of the producers (particularly in the case of Attack Force, for example), Seagal's lazy performances only make a bad situation worse. After all this is a man who has charisma, or at least he did have in his heyday. If he were still putting some effort into some of these DTV productions then it might make some of them half way watchable, rather than something you watch half drunk with friends in order to get some cheap laughs.
I also think your other point is just plain wrong. Why should the reviewer not compare Under Siege (1992) with one of Seagal's recent efforts? As fans we cut him slack and don't compare films from his glory years with the films he has made over nearly a decade in DTV hell. But why should a non fan have to do that? In fact why should we have to do it? Aren't we just making excuses for his laziness and apathy? After all if a non fan or film reviewer watched Under Siege on TV one week and then saw a new Seagal film at the video store the next week they would be sorely disappointed with what they saw. And they have every right to be because they have every right to make the comparison. There are many other stars and action heroes who have made consistently good films over time, never disappointing their loyal fan base. It is a real shame that Seagal has not been one of these more consistent stars and has instead often disappointed his fan base.
I am also objective while writing my reviews after watching the film. I think projects such as Machete (2010) and Steven Seagal: Lawman (2009) are a positive move forward however based on this review, already things most definitely ARE NOT looking good.