A Good Man - Reviews

DiDa

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Kotegashi said:
Thought this one is not positive at all.

But said it before, all reviews so far say it's a decent one in the Seagal dtv area but crap as a 'regular' movie.

Have to wait another month to be able to watch it in Holland, release late september. So I will have to be patient....


Peace
Click to expand...

Ha ha, that post should have been with the other review. My fault....Indeed we have to pacient here in Holland.
 
DiDa

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
From an imdb user:

We all know what to expect when watching a direct to video Steven Seagal movie. "A Good Man" may not be like "Marked For Death" or "Under Siege" but it definitely rates as one of his better DTV movies I've seen. I myself partly watch these movies for the comedic value of course to see Seagal's acting/cheesy plot and as a B-action film fan. Of course though a movie like this you don't expect a great story but lots of action and Seagal kicking the bad guy's ass in the most unconvincing and bloody way possible. The movies good for that and lots of naked babes are a bonus too. Seagal definitely doesn't seem as lazy/careless in his acting as he usually seems in his DTV movies which was a surprise. Tzi Ma was good as a villain as he pretty much plays the same role he did on 24. I also thought that his partner wasn't so bad in the movie and could be the next potential direct DTV action star.....maybe. Overall, better than the other dozens of crap DTV Seagal movies that have came out and that will within the year. A good watch for the B-action film fan who know's what to expect and for the few Steven fans out there.
 
R

rastafari

Well-Known Member
K

knucklesandwich

Member
DiDa said:
From an imdb user:

We all know what to expect when watching a direct to video Steven Seagal movie. "A Good Man" may not be like "Marked For Death" or "Under Siege" but it definitely rates as one of his better DTV movies I've seen. I myself partly watch these movies for the comedic value of course to see Seagal's acting/cheesy plot and as a B-action film fan. Of course though a movie like this you don't expect a great story but lots of action and Seagal kicking the bad guy's ass in the most unconvincing and bloody way possible. The movies good for that and lots of naked babes are a bonus too. Seagal definitely doesn't seem as lazy/careless in his acting as he usually seems in his DTV movies which was a surprise. Tzi Ma was good as a villain as he pretty much plays the same role he did on 24. I also thought that his partner wasn't so bad in the movie and could be the next potential direct DTV action star.....maybe. Overall, better than the other dozens of crap DTV Seagal movies that have came out and that will within the year. A good watch for the B-action film fan who know's what to expect and for the few Steven fans out there.
Click to expand...
I bought the DVD yesterday here in the states. It was just ok. Honestly, who recruits the retard actors for these movies?? If anyone has seen it, I will specifically mention the horses-ass of an actor that said he wanted a lap dance from the bartender in the bar. He probably did the worst acting job I have ever seen, and then Seagal roughed him up (to protect the bartender girl). Anyways, I think any hobo off the street can act in these movies, as they do not seem to set the bar high at all. Not all of the actors were bad, but having these morons in there really drags it down for me. It's a slap in the face to the fans.
 
N

nomis

New Member
I watched it Yesterday. To be honest, as a big fan i was still not happy with the movie. As mentioned before, some supporting actors are ridiculously bad, especially the guy in the bar. The movie itself has an easy to follow story, that's a plus. I didn't like FOE because it was boring at times, at least AGM has a lot of action. The downside however is that Seagal still needs more screen time and better directing. What happened with Waxman? The Keeper had good fighting scenes with Seagal doing all his stuff.

We have the first fight in the bar. Well, actually it is not a fight but just a real quick wrist turn. Then soon after this we get the real first Seagal fight. This made me a little happy, in the alley the fight is well directed and no stunt doubles are used. Still a little bit fast forwarding to make him look like a little faster, well he is getting so old, it still looked nice. Then later in the film (much later) he fights two guys in the hall. What happens here is unbelievable. It's like Seagal said that he was bored and did not wanna do a second fight. Suddenly you can barely see the face of Seagal during the fight, most of the time you see the back of a stunt double. To make it worse, Seagal suddenly poses before the fight like he is some Bruce Lee Wannabe. Kinda reminded me of the stupid poses in Belly of the Beast. Why using stunt doubles in the second fight?!? The first was good and then we're basically fooled. At the end he fights the boss his helper with a sword, but this is standard and not really the stuff you wanna see. As a fan you want to see hand to hand fight with his trademark aikido moves. At the end he fights the boss, well..fights.. again the sword has been pulled out after a speech from Seagal. It ends in 3 seconds. A huge anti-climax, like the ending of Kill Bill.

The other guy who helps Seagal steals the show with cool fighting scenes. There are no voice dubs in the movie luckily. It was less boring then FOE, but as a Seagal movie it still fails to deliver the fans. Just 1 good fight scene isn't going to cut it for me.
 
R

rastafari

Well-Known Member
I cant see how people think FOE and MC were boring and yet people on here seem to love TK which although well made is one of the most boring films Seagal ever made
 
Martin01

Martin01

Well-Known Member
Staff member
In my own opinion :) :

TK does unfortunately have some slow parts, but looks much better than any following Waxman movie, has some charm and a motivated Seagal in the lead actor role.

MC is just walking around in dark alleys and FOE is confusing and boring too, with Seagal barely in it.

ADM is confusing too, but does at least have lot and big action. I hope MA will be like that, with a bit more straight forward story.
 
R

rastafari

Well-Known Member
ADM is easy to follow to me infact all of Waxmans films are pretty easy to follow compared to Seagals work 2003-2007 which has plots to complicated to care what was happening

Also the fact that Seagal is not on screen all the time does not bother me if the other actors are decent and in MC and FOE they were IMO

What I dont like is films like BD or FOF when Seagal is off screen the film is almost a non event
 
JoshStern

JoshStern

Active Member
nomis said:
I watched it Yesterday. To be honest, as a big fan i was still not happy with the movie. As mentioned before, some supporting actors are ridiculously bad, especially the guy in the bar. The movie itself has an easy to follow story, that's a plus. I didn't like FOE because it was boring at times, at least AGM has a lot of action. The downside however is that Seagal still needs more screen time and better directing. What happened with Waxman? The Keeper had good fighting scenes with Seagal doing all his stuff.

We have the first fight in the bar. Well, actually it is not a fight but just a real quick wrist turn. Then soon after this we get the real first Seagal fight. This made me a little happy, in the alley the fight is well directed and no stunt doubles are used. Still a little bit fast forwarding to make him look like a little faster, well he is getting so old, it still looked nice. Then later in the film (much later) he fights two guys in the hall. What happens here is unbelievable. It's like Seagal said that he was bored and did not wanna do a second fight. Suddenly you can barely see the face of Seagal during the fight, most of the time you see the back of a stunt double. To make it worse, Seagal suddenly poses before the fight like he is some Bruce Lee Wannabe. Kinda reminded me of the stupid poses in Belly of the Beast. Why using stunt doubles in the second fight?!? The first was good and then we're basically fooled. At the end he fights the boss his helper with a sword, but this is standard and not really the stuff you wanna see. As a fan you want to see hand to hand fight with his trademark aikido moves. At the end he fights the boss, well..fights.. again the sword has been pulled out after a speech from Seagal. It ends in 3 seconds. A huge anti-climax, like the ending of Kill Bill.

The other guy who helps Seagal steals the show with cool fighting scenes. There are no voice dubs in the movie luckily. It was less boring then FOE, but as a Seagal movie it still fails to deliver the fans. Just 1 good fight scene isn't going to cut it for me.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail right on the head dude. Good review and agree with you. In my opinion Seagal needs to change director and film Company. He wont get anything great out of Waxman and Voltage Pictures. They are doing more harm to him than good!!!!
 
DiDa

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
JoshStern said:
You hit the nail right on the head dude. Good review and agree with you. In my opinion Seagal needs to change director and film Company. He wont get anything great out of Waxman and Voltage Pictures. They are doing more harm to him than good!!!!
Click to expand...

I disagree, Waxman;s movies with Seagal are much better then the ones before. It just doesn't get better then this.
 
N

nomis

New Member
DiDa said:
I disagree, Waxman;s movies with Seagal are much better then the ones before. It just doesn't get better then this.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. Waxman's movies WERE better at first. That's why i don't understand what happened in AGM. Well, movies, i only like The Keeper from Waxman. True Justice series are just ok and also MC is just ok. But in AGM i've wondered why the second fight was so badly directed, that's why i wondered what happened with Waxman. Urban Justice and Pistol Whipped proved that it can work with the right director, those two were awesome for a DTV movie. God i miss Roel Reine and Don E FauntLeRoy :(
 
R

rastafari

Well-Known Member
Don E FauntLeRoy made MFJ and TYD...Waxmans films whatever you think are nowhere near the level of shit those films were...I think some people on here need to rewatch some of those films and if you watch them back to back with a Waxman film you will see how much of a better director he is.

Also look at other DTV films and Waxmans films are has good as those...I watched a film called The Prince last week which starred Willis,Cusack,Patric and 50 Cent...a solid cast but the films was terrible and I think AGM was a better film
 
N

nomis

New Member
DiDa said:
I disagree, Waxman;s movies with Seagal are much better then the ones before. It just doesn't get better then this.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. Waxman's movies WERE better at first. That's why i don't understand what happened in AGM. Well, movies, i only like The Keeper from Waxman. True Justice series are just ok and also MC is just ok. But in AGM i've wondered why the second fight was so badly directed, that's why i wondered what happened with Waxman. Urban Justice and Pistol Whipped proved that it can work with the right director, those two were awesome for a DTV movie. God i miss Roel Reine and Don E FauntLeRoy :( Way better then Waxman IMO.
rastafari said:
Don E FauntLeRoy made MFJ and TYD...Waxmans films whatever you think are nowhere near the level of shit those films were...I think some people on here need to rewatch some of those films and if you watch them back to back with a Waxman film you will see how much of a better director he is.

Also look at other DTV films and Waxmans films are has good as those...I watched a film called The Prince last week which starred Willis,Cusack,Patric and 50 Cent...a solid cast but the films was terrible and I think AGM was a better film
Click to expand...

You're going past my point. I'm not talking about other movies, i'm talking about Seagal movies and the fight scene and how they are directed. Yeah, TYD is not really good but still haa few nice disarm moves i.e., but after this he directed Urban Justice, so it looked like if the director got better. MFJ had better filmed fight scenes, story wise it sucked. But i'm talking about fight scenes. Like i said, i like the keeper, but after this suddenly we get blurry and chaotic fight scenes, like if Waxman has lost it. You can't possibly think that ADM and AGM are better then Urban Justice if you're looking for hand to hand fighting scenes? With the Keeper i had hope for future Waxman's films, but why the second fight in AGM was suddenly so badly done was a big mystery. That's what i mean with what happened to Waxman. And the quote: it does not get any better then Waxman's films.. just a matter of finding the right director. And it also depends how much effort Steven is putting in..
 
R

rastafari

Well-Known Member
I like UJ but the big letdown of that film is the fight scenes...the camera is too close and dark for alot of the fights and its hard to tell whats happening...the fight with the Racists in UJ is poorly filmed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top