Lotus - for once I agree with you. One major problem with Out For A Kill is that it tried to be too flashy for it's own good, and certainly for a film with such a minimal budget, it should have concentrated on more basic things rather than attempting to create expensive CGI's. In some parts, the flashy camera angles worked a treat (I love the part where the bin falls over and spills glowing embers into the road for example), but in other parts they just looked tacky (computer noises for location names, bullet-time sequence, stupid introductions for the bad guys). Steven Seagal should certainly have been allowed to have some creative input not only in Out For A Kill, but in all of his recent movies in terms of action and firearm sequences. If you notice in quite a few of his films his 'gunsmith' is listed in the end credits. I'm sure with his supposed impressive knowledge of firearms and ballistics (he seems to favour a .45 in most of his movies) he could design some impressive shoot-out sequences and silly errors such as the one in Out For A Kill would be eliminated. However, he is a busy guy and probably all his time is taken up on simply shooting the movies. The extra pressure of being involved in their production also would probably be too much.
Glimmer
Someone must have been able to throw those bullets really hard, as they killed his assistant.
