supertom;200819 said:See what your saying there Lee.
My main point about the two guys is, that I just felt it was too much. The whole, taking punks out thing, is a Seagal trademark. And even looking at classic SS flicks when he has the token liquor store/bar beatdowns, and often kills his opponents. I did feel beating a guy in the face about a dozen times with a gun part, and then punting him through a car window, was a bit too sadistic. It was never really revealed whether they were killed, but at least in the case of the guy he beat on, with any logic, he'd most likely be dead. Granted, this is Seagal world, but still. It was cold blooded. I felt it lost SS the high ground, that he had in say HTK, after taking out the armed robbers.
I also got the sense with Seagal's character, that he was a bit of a ghost. A guy who could get things done. I never quite got why he'd need help getting into another country...especially from someone who struggled to do so himself.
I still believe there were too many scenes that served little purpose.
In terms of the Keeper, I found that to be a bit more light-hearted, particularly Seagal's characters. He had a certain charm to him in that one. I just didn't connect with him on this film. But I do believe, most on the forum are gonna enjoy this one.
But putting aside Keeper comparison, I still think it's a long way short of Pistol Whipped.
I definitely preferred Keepers script, and so I look forward to Born To Raise Hell, with Seagal penning again. It'll also be interesting to see a new director. The trouble is with all those two in a row jobs he does with the same directors, is you know what your getting a lot of time.
NCS;200822 said:............ but wtf was he wearing at the start!! Jeeeez that was horrible.
NCS;200822 said:Another thing is, Seagal has to stop having 20 year old women get naked and rub themselves all over him whilst he just sits fully clothed and smiles. I was laughing uncontrollably about that bit.
ORANGATUANG;200834 said:I find to hard to believe that 'dubbing' has come back into his movies i e-mailed to Joe an message for steven asking why? is all this bull happening we all know he does talk quiet but why dub his voice for crying out loud.. just when he is getting back to his old self they go and stuff it up again.. i will see this movie but aint happy ..
supertom;200815 said:My Review:
After returning to form with, The Keeper, Seagal unfortunately steps back again. What made the Keeper his best since Pistol Whipped, was it's simple story, competently told, and mostly the fact, Seagal was playing a character a little different to the norm. He seemed engaged, and had some charm in that film. Here though? Seagal's character doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities. He gets out of jail for a crime he didn't commit, and the first thing he does, is, as luck would have it, accidentally find himself confronted by a couple of punk muggers. Okay, these guys are douche-bags, but Seagal's character just cold bloodedly, murders them and in fairness, for little reason. A Seagal beatdown is one thing. But he murders two idiots, and from then on, you can't really feel any empathy for his character. It's not simple the nastiness of it, it's also how stupid the scenario was. And like a lot of this film, the scripting is awful. It just meandres from point A-B, to C etc, etc. Seagal co-wrote The Keeper. The Keeper's screenplay was far better.
The film looks okay. Nothing special, clearly DTV, but it does look high end at least. The score was also pretty decent, especially for this kind of film. As for the direction: Once again, Waxman is competent. Nothing special, nothing too bad. He still has a tendency to film the action too tight, and rather flat, and unlike The Keeper, the dialogue scenes here, lack energy and drive. But that is more to do with Waxman's screenplay. Side characters and bad guys are uninteresting, and Seagal just seems bored.
As for the action: It's okay. Nothing special. There's plenty of it, and the film has a couple of lengthy shootouts in the final act, while there's some vintage Seagal death scenes as well. But like I said. Seagal's character has no likeable facets to him. You never get much sense of any purpose to what he's doing. The film really lacks some standout set pieces too. The shootouts are rigid, while the fights are filmed too close, and edited too choppily. The film is very, very violent though. Those worrying whether the UK version is cut, need not. This is the uncut version I'm 99.99999999% sure.
There is also a lot more doubling in this one than The Keeper. Mr Stand In, Mr Fight Double (a lot of shots you don't see Seagal's head, and he's film from behind...meaning, I'm afriad, most likely a double) and Mr Over-dub get to work out in this flick having had most of the previous film off.
Overall, I found the film to be quite wretched, boring, and flat. I'm disappointed after The Keeper, which had some charm to it, and some energy. It started out quite promising, aside from some really stupid scenes (like Seagal inexplicably beating someone to death with a gun), but lost energy in the middle. The bad guys, headed by Byron Mann (sadly underused here- and often appearing in scenes that serve no purpose in the film at all- hell, there's a scene where he's just reading the paper, and that's it. It tells no story, doesn't further the plot...pointless). By the time the final 20 minutes kick back into almost non-stop action, I didn't really care. Especially as the two gun battles at the end of the film, both felt too similar, and both too long and lacklustre.
I didn't like Driven To Kill, and I did think Dangerous Man was at least marginally better than that. I think die-hard Seagalites will probably enjoy this because it's got plenty of action and gory deaths. I didn't though. **/*****
lee nicholson;200839 said:Funny that quite a few members here, have picked up on how unnecessarily brutal Seagal acts towards the two guys outside the liquor store (who attempt to rob him)....that i've decided to post up the scene in stills (and i've even wrote the dialogue, as spoken, onto the pictures) sadly the UK R2 DVD doesn't have subtitles (so i've added them myself)
Apologies in advance for the bad language (but hey, this is a Steven Seagal movie afterall)
Littledragon;200840 said:Actually supertom, I know you have your own opinion to the film, but I think that is being a little too harsh and selfish.
4 years ago we where all complaining when he constantly released below average dtv releases such as Today You Die, Out Of Reach, Submerged, Kill Switch, Attack Force, Black Dawn, etc.. then from time to time we'd get an ok Seagal DTV like Into The Sun, Shadow Man, Mercenary For Justice, etc...
But now we have gotten without the exception of Against The Dark and Kill Switch, we got good DTV released such as Pistol Whipped, Urban Justice, Driven To Kill and The Keeper, now Dangerous Man. All those 5 films I mentioned are great DTV releases, a huge step forward. So why say this film is a step down. Seagal has been improving with each DTV release, a few blunders here and there but it is not a step DOWN. A step down is going back to Submerged type films or Out Of Reach, but A Dangerous Man is by no means a step down.
I felt A Dangerous Man as a Seagal Film was more entertaining than The Keeper. The Keeper reminds me of The Patriot. Solid plot, solid film, solid cinematography... but not really a Seagal Film. This is a Seagal film.
It is funny because most of the times people complain there is not enough brutal action, not enough Seagal trademark bone breaking, and we get a real Seagal brutal film, and some people say it's too brutal... I guess we Seagal fans are just too hard to please huh Anyway this film was a good Seagal film. It had some blunders like the double and the small dubbing, the fight scenese camera angels where hard to keep up with, but this was a great film and bhy no means a step down.
The action was consistent and for Seagal almost being 60 years old this will be as good as it gets. So these films Seagal keeps improving and he is not going down, so lets support Seagal and stop having our expectations set to an Oscar worthy action film.
Do I think A Dangerous Man was better than The Keeper... yes and no. In terms of a Seagal film yes, better action, better fights, more entertaining. Overall on a whole The Keeper was more of a nice and plain film with no mistakes. But if you judge The Keeper by the fact there was no dubbing or stunt doubles for the fights making it better than A Dangerous Man then yes it was. But I think The Keeper was good but dry, not enough action for a Seagal film.
A Dangerous Man is a Seagal film and it is a step forward.
I really hope Seagal can return to the big screen with Under Siege 3 with his face back in the spot light. But all his recent releases Driven To Kill, The Keeper, A Dangerous Man are great DTV releases.
Probably A Dangerous Man is my favorite DTV release out of all the three.
Martin01;200843 said:I agree with you Littledragon. I just think the brutal fight scene who Seagal punch the 2 gangsters a the beginning was a bit too much. The scene at the beginning of Urban Justice with this 2 gangsters was better. Brutal, but not extremly brutal like this. That are just 2 little gangsters, why nearly kill them?
lee nicholson;200845 said:To be fair, they both came at him with a gun and knife
Littledragon;200844 said:Cause he's Seagal
Remember films like Out For Justice and The Glimmer Man, no more brutal than those Classic Seagal.
Martin01;200849 said:Hmm...could you give me 2 comparable scenes of his old movies? The point is, this 2 guys are children. He should kick their ass and it's done.