Review : Flight Of Fury

oldsage

oldsage
I watch seagals' movies purely for the entertainment factor. I have no need to criticize because I have been entertained for a couple hours.
He is like a modern John Wayne--thouroughly underappreciated by his peers & the general public.
 

Le-Martin

New Member
ON PAGE 1 I posted some screenshots of the Les Chevaliers du Ciel. Please compare these to those of Flight of Fury and say which is best!

All I ask since I went to a lot of trouble to make those screenshots and video sample.

It is my belief that Flight of Fury might have been much cooler with that kind of opening titles.
 

Mama San

Administrator
oldsage;172750 said:
I watch seagals' movies purely for the entertainment factor. I have no need to criticize because I have been entertained for a couple hours.
He is like a modern John Wayne--thouroughly underappreciated by his peers & the general public.

Very well said, Oldsage. I fully agree.
God bless,
Mama san
 

DRAGONKING

DRAGONKING
Le-Martin, i took a look at those opening credits you worked hard on, and i agree....Flight Of Fury could have really benefitted from those kind of credits, i really am impressed with how they look. The only problem is, those credits would probably cost half FOF`s budjet!! The plane angle would have worked perfectly for FOF, so maybe a mix of the two types would`ve been good. Anyway, thanks for doing that, your effort was well worth it.

Good on ya,
Dragonking.
 

Administrator

Administrator
Staff member
Well i watched the final 30-40 minutes of the movie last night.

The plot is simple. A stealth bomber which become invisible has been taken by the operative. He sells it to terrorists in Afghanistan. Most of the terrorists had nice English accents, but this is partly explained in the movie. Steven Seagal's character, John has to retrieve it. Finally Steven Seagal has got rid of the role he has played in the majority of his DTV's and plays something new here - a pilot.

The action is certainly a lot better than we have seen previously, but they are still nowhere near as good as his early movies. A lot of the shots are in darkened places, it is hard to see what is happening. Also the camera is too close in most of the hand to hand sequences. I prefer to see what is happening. Some parts are great though, the knife work is pretty good. The stunt double is also not as visible in the sequences, but he is still there for some scenes where there is no fighting, but he is not as noticeable. I think the pipe sequence is a bit silly. He hits the guy over the head for what seemed like a minute. Eventually he disables him by a tap to the stomach/chest.

Steven Seagal looks good in this movie, he seems to have lost a bit of weight and puts in a good performance.

Picture quality is great, we have not really had many problems with visual quality in his DTV releases. There were a few shots that were very poor quality, but these were stock footage. There was a lot of stock footage in the movie, but the majority was good. No Thunderbird like sequences in this movie. :) Sound quality was also good, but once more we had some dubbing. Not as bad as previous releases and at least this time they had someone that actually sounded similar.
 

Littledragon

Above The Law
This sounds great so far, I will wait to buy the DVD because this sounds like a worthy one. As you know I will post my review for Flight Of Fury once I finish watching it. Still never seen Attack Force, can't find it in any store and from what I hear don't think it is worthy of getting. I'll probably get the movie a lil later.
 

Littledragon

Above The Law
Judging from the reviews and the little great trailer, I am predicting Flight Of Fury to be among the ranks of Into The Sun, Mercenary For Justice and Shadowman to be his top DTV releases since Belly Of The Beast.
 

hofmae

New Member
For me its better than Into the Sun (Not in a technically way, but for me it was more entertaining) its about the same quality than Mercenary for Justice but with a hell of a better story (EASY TO FOLLOW!!!), same for Shadow-Man (better Story!!!) and i personally liked Belly of the Beast more, even if there were a lot of stunt-doubles... But im sure you will like it if you wait for the cool showdown ;)
 

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career’s decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plotline more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It’s that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That’s not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it’s pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.

In filmic terms FOF is bad. It’s badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He’s just got the look of a toddler who’s been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio’s, multi-picture deal. The producers can’t be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal’s obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I’m Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that’s already got distribution sorted before it’s made. Fan’s though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He’s seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there’s nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there’s a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don’t want to see.

Overall the action isn’t too bad. It’s nice and violent, and on occasion we’re treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plotline, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There’s far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn’t an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We’re treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing). Plus I've pretty much seen the same dogfight at the end of this film, when it was put in Lundgren's Stormcatcher.

The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that’s not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one’s existence. **
 

take-sensei

Die Hard Seagal fan!
My review of Flight of Fury

Craig Robertson;172803 said:
Well i watched the final 30-40 minutes of the movie last night.

The plot is simple. A stealth bomber which become invisible has been taken by the operative. He sells it to terrorists in Afghanistan. Most of the terrorists had nice English accents, but this is partly explained in the movie. Steven Seagal's character, John has to retrieve it. Finally Steven Seagal has got rid of the role he has played in the majority of his DTV's and plays something new here - a pilot.

The action is certainly a lot better than we have seen previously, but they are still nowhere near as good as his early movies. A lot of the shots are in darkened places, it is hard to see what is happening. Also the camera is too close in most of the hand to hand sequences. I prefer to see what is happening. Some parts are great though, the knife work is pretty good. The stunt double is also not as visible in the sequences, but he is still there for some scenes where there is no fighting, but he is not as noticeable. I think the pipe sequence is a bit silly. He hits the guy over the head for what seemed like a minute. Eventually he disables him by a tap to the stomach/chest.

Steven Seagal looks good in this movie, he seems to have lost a bit of weight and puts in a good performance.

Picture quality is great, we have not really had many problems with visual quality in his DTV releases. There were a few shots that were very poor quality, but these were stock footage. There was a lot of stock footage in the movie, but the majority was good. No Thunderbird like sequences in this movie. :) Sound quality was also good, but once more we had some dubbing. Not as bad as previous releases and at least this time they had someone that actually sounded similar.
Firstly, I want to say: I totally agree with you Craig and for me this film is a BIG improvement! Secondly, below is my full review of Flight of Fury.

My review of Flight of Fury

I think every Steven Seagal fan will like this movie, because of these great elements: the story was easy to follow, the stock footage where good, the quality of the film it self is GREAT, the movie was not unreal (it was a story what could have happen in real), the actors where good and more GREAT elements :).

I also think that we can compare this movie with Into The Sun and Mercenary for Justice. In my opinion we can't compare this movie with Shadow Man, because Shadow Man is much and much weaker and more bad than Flight of Fury (again personal opinion).

As what Craig was saying the knife work was very good, but I also like more to see what is happening instead of watching to quick shots/frames.

In this movie there was a bit voice dubbing, but not a lot. I liked the soundtrack, because you really heard music/sounds, which you hear in military movies!

For me that lesbian sex scene, between Ciera Payton and Katie Jones, was not necessary, she could overpower that girl on another way. That scene was also taking too long.

However (in my opinion), this movie was much and much better then his previously DTV's! Not only the fighting scences, voice dubs etc. But I mean the whole movie!!!

It was entertaining, lots of GREAT action, they story was easy to follow, the basics of the story where good and it was real! All these things I said in this review where just AWESOME and GREAT!!! I love this movie! :D Since tonight this is one of my favorite Steven Seagal movies and I'll will certainely buy it, its worthed!!!

This is the end of my review!

take care

greets take-sensei
 

Timecop

New Member
Littledragon;172810 said:
Judging from the reviews and the little great trailer, I am predicting Flight Of Fury to be among the ranks of Into The Sun, Mercenary For Justice and Shadowman to be his top DTV releases since Belly Of The Beast.

What trailer? Where is it?
 

rastafari

Well-Known Member
Craig Robertson;172803 said:
Well i watched the final 30-40 minutes of the movie last night.

The plot is simple. A stealth bomber which become invisible has been taken by the operative. He sells it to terrorists in Afghanistan. Most of the terrorists had nice English accents, but this is partly explained in the movie. Steven Seagal's character, John has to retrieve it. Finally Steven Seagal has got rid of the role he has played in the majority of his DTV's and plays something new here - a pilot.

The action is certainly a lot better than we have seen previously, but they are still nowhere near as good as his early movies. A lot of the shots are in darkened places, it is hard to see what is happening. Also the camera is too close in most of the hand to hand sequences. I prefer to see what is happening. Some parts are great though, the knife work is pretty good. The stunt double is also not as visible in the sequences, but he is still there for some scenes where there is no fighting, but he is not as noticeable. I think the pipe sequence is a bit silly. He hits the guy over the head for what seemed like a minute. Eventually he disables him by a tap to the stomach/chest.

Steven Seagal looks good in this movie, he seems to have lost a bit of weight and puts in a good performance.

Picture quality is great, we have not really had many problems with visual quality in his DTV releases. There were a few shots that were very poor quality, but these were stock footage. There was a lot of stock footage in the movie, but the majority was good. No Thunderbird like sequences in this movie. :) Sound quality was also good, but once more we had some dubbing. Not as bad as previous releases and at least this time they had someone that actually sounded similar.


i have some questions for you craig

1.what are the fight scenes liek and how many are there?

2.does seagal act well in it?

3.whats the support cast like?

4.how long does the film last?

5.how many lines are dubbed and does it continue thoughout the film?

6.who plays the main villian?
 

Ryback666

New Member
Katie Jones

Well i've seen this movie...and I was really lookin' forward to this...now I wasn't expecting much, other than being entertained...which I was certain times, while watching the movie. Katie Jones performance was just annoying...she was not convincing, not into her character at all.
I mean...her acting really sucked! The stockfootage didn't save it either.......

When that's said...this movie, is atleast better than attack force....the voice dubbing isn't that bad. It IS better than many of his other movies, which has had dubbing....on THAT "technical level".
 

Kotegashi

Master Of Disaster
Staff member
The sun is starting to shine

I'v watched FOF finally, editing the trailer first and then watching it whole.

Not bad.

Although the stock footage is of a lesser visual quality then the rest of the movie, it suits the movie just fine.

Although the story is a bit far fetched and over the top it is straight forward with no side dwellings.

The acting is a lot better then in his previous DTV's, a lot les east europeans pretending to be americans.

Seagal even seems to be putting in an effort with doing his own fighting and even some running.

The last half hour is an explosive packed action half hour.

Although sometimes a double is seen, it doesn't affect the movie in a bad way. The only annoying bit is the dubbing, but it's also on an acceptable level.

I've seen about three or four (including my own) fan trailers on the net which all give a pretty good idea what's in store in this movie.

My compliments to the other "editors", all trailers are pretty good.

Be sure to see this one.

Peace
 

Administrator

Administrator
Staff member
rastafari;172845 said:
i have some questions for you craig

1.what are the fight scenes like and how many are there?

The fight scenes are plentiful in the last half hour. Basically the last half hour it is a mass shoot out, fight fest. In the first part there are a few fight and action sequences. Quality varies, some are well done. There are nice shots, but others in my opinion are shot too close and others are in dark surroundings, so it is tricky to see the moves.

2.does seagal act well in it?

His performance is an improvement over some of the other DTV's. He certainly looked healthier.

3.whats the support cast like?

Quite poor. Pretty much the same standard as the previous DTV's.

4.how long does the film last?

Nearly 100 minutes, but there is a good amount of stock footage.

5.how many lines are dubbed and does it continue throughout the film?

The dubbing occurs at various points, but this is the best voice actor so far. :)

6.who plays the main villian?

The main villain is the stealth pilot Ratcher who was played by Steve Toussaint.

Have left the answers in bold.
 

Mason

Well-Known Member
Few quick words!! The movie is good. The fightscenes in it are better than i thought they would be :) Actualy the script is pretty cool & no stuntdoubles in the fightscenes. I like the movie :cool:
 

msmith

Member
Flight of Fury : DVD Talk Website Review

The Movie:

The latest straight to video action extravaganza to star the one and only Steven Seagal once again teams the former box office draw with director Michael Keusch. Seagal fans may cringe when they read that, as their last effort, Attack Force, was completely horrible, but this time out the results are definitely a step up. That's not to say that Flight Of Fury is a classic, nor is it particularly 'good' but it is at least a mindlessly amusing action movie and Seagal does manage to deliver most of his own dialogue here (most, not all – there are still some bits that look dubbed).

The pony tailed one plays John Sands, a man who, when we first meet him, is planning his escape from the prison in California (well, Romania doubling for California at least) where he is locked up just as the jerks who run the place are planning to completely wipe his memory. It seems that Sands knows too much –about what, we're not sure, but it doesn't really matter. Let it suffice to say that he's really smart. So smart, in fact, is Mr. Sands that he manages to escape by hiding on top of an army truck, somehow managing to allude the security cameras that one would reasonably assume would be monitoring the area.

Once Sands is on the run from Johnny Law, he winds up at a coffee shop just as some punks are about to rob it at gun point. Sands bursts into action and kills every one of the gang members and as such, the cops take him in even though the security tapes clearly show it was a 'case of self defense.' The cops are curious about Sands, and before you know it the Feds are called in. General Barnes (Angus MacInnes) has been in charge of a secret active stealth plane project and one of the test pilots has committed treason and flown the plane to Afghanistan where he's sold it to terrorists. Barnes, who used to work with Sands, knows that Sands is the only man for the job because he's the only one who is a better stealth plane pilot than the rogue agent who stole it. How does Barnes know this? Because he had Sands train him.

At any rate, a few hours later Sands has teamed up with a cocky young pilot named Rojar (Alki David ) and they've flown off to Afghanistan to get the plane back and save the day. Along the way he hooks up with a foxy freedom fighter named Jessica (Sierra Payton) but they'd better hurry because the bad guys, lead by Eliana (Katie Jones), intend to use the plane to deliver a payload of chemical weapons that will destroy the entire world in less than forty-eight hours.

Surprisingly enough, Steven Seagal is not the main problem with this film. While it's true that he appears bored and distant throughout, that seems to be his 'thing' these days and we can over look that. Sure, some scenes look like they might use a body double in a couple of spots to make Steve look more agile than he probably is at this stage in his career, but again, we can over look that. What we can't overlook, no matter which way it's sliced, is the insane amount of stock footage used in this movie and the manner in which it's used. While using stock footage inserts can be an effective way to keep a film's budget low, here it feels like padding. To top it all off, it's used inconsistently – in one shot there are jets flying over a desert and then a couple of seconds later they're flying over snowy mountain ranges. Literally every few minutes the movie cuts to a 'cool clip' of a jet of some sort either spinning or weaving or dodging or just plane looking bad ass. Of course, none of the actors in the movie ever interact with these jets because someone else shot the footage for some other purpose other than for them to appear in a bad Steven Seagal movie.

Aside from a sleepy looking star and an ass load of stock footage, however, Flight Of Fury is an entertaining enough action-thriller. It's nothing short of predictable and the stunts are nothing to write home about but Seagal is given a few decent opportunities to bust some heads, though the movie does feature a few too many prolonged scenes that don't involve our hero at all (and most of these odd little subplots don't really add much of worth to the film). If the idea of Steven Seagal flying to a distant country to beat up some guys and get an expensive plane back sounds like a good idea for a movie to you, then yeah, Flight Of Fury will fit the bill. High art this baby is not, but there are worse ways to kill brain cells for ninety-minutes than to sit back with a six pack of cheap beer and watch an aging action hero mumble his way through a fairly standard plot.

The DVD
Video:

The 1.85.1 anamorphic widescreen transfer (mastered in high definition, according to the packaging) isn't bad though the stock footage inserts definitely vary in quality when compared to the footage shot specifically for this feature and as such they stand out a bit. The actual movie footage itself looks quite good if a bit on the dark side. Color reproduction is strong, though some scenes look to have been toned down a bit to give the movie a grittier look. Black levels are pretty consistent and there aren't any problems with mpeg compression artifacts. Edge enhancement is there if you want to look for it as is some mild aliasing but aside from that the movie looks good.

Sound:
Flight Of Fury hits DVD in a solid English language Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound track with optional subtitles provided in English only. As far as the quality of the audio on this release goes, there's nothing to complain about here. Bass response is pretty tight and while the mix could have been more aggressive during the action scenes, there are some fun moments where the channel separation really kicks in. Dialogue is clean and clear and free of any hiss or distortion and the levels are all properly balanced.

Extras:
Aside from a static menu and a chapter selection option, the only supplement included on this DVD is a trailer gallery consisting of promo spots for other straight to video action movies in the Sony library. That's it.

Final Thoughts:

Flight Of Fury is a pretty pedestrian action movie and the abundance of stock footage gets old fast but Seagal fans will probably enjoy this one. As a mindless (and this film is mindless...) time killer, the movie works and the pacing and action scenes are handled reasonably well. Sony's DVD looks and sounds nice but the high MSRP and lack of substantial supplements are a strike against it. Consider this one a solid rental for Seagal fans.

For the link if anyone wants to take a look it's :-

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=26568
 

Gui

New Member
Hi Guys & Girls...Just found this on the net ...

REVIEW
B-Movie of the Week: Flight of Fury
Written by T. Rigney
Published February 13, 2007
Part of B-Movie of the Week

This morning I awoke with a start, the sound of light peck-peck-pecking bringing me suddenly from an oh so succulent dream sequence involving thick fog, moldy tangerines, and something that slightly resembled Ernie Hudson in a pink parka singing Eddie Rabbit's "I Love a Rainy Night" in Spanish.

The soft rapping on my chamber door was like that of a humming bird, eager for an early morning splash of sweet sugar water. So you can imagine my surprise when I threw open the door to discover a top secret stealth bomber delivering the new Steven Seagal flick straight to my doorstep! Thanks guys! I loved you in Black Thunder!

If you haven't read my frothy review for Attack Force yet, you may want to do so right now. I hate that blasted film with a passion usually reserved for terrorist attacks and countdown shows produced by A&E. It's easily Seagal's worst effort to date, in my humble opinion, something most fans simply did not think was possible at this point in the same. Some individuals claim the project was butchered during post-production, but I'm just not buying it. The movie was horrid — nothing could have prevented that mess from being anything other than a total failure. Accept and move on, okay? Good times.

Flight of Fury, despite being helmed by the same lunatic who directed Seagal's last picture, is surprisingly entertaining. No joke! The film finds our hero embarking on a mission to retrieve a stolen stealth bomber before a terrorist organization can use it to unleash a diabolical plot against world-wide freedom. It's a simple concept, basic even, but it actually seems to work in the film's favor. There's really not too much to get confused about, quite the accomplishment for a direct-to-video release starring our favorite blues-slingin' aikido master. I'll take what I can get.

The script isn't going to win any awards, of course, but it certainly gets the job done. There are some pacing issues, a handful of pointless conversations, and perhaps too few scenes featuring Seagal himself. In fact, the big guy is kind of hard to find in the first half of the movie, since director Michael Keusch feels the need to pad the film with a ton of stock footage. Some of it's pretty obvious, too, particularly when special effects have been digitally incorporated into the scene. Quite poorly, I might add. Well, at least they were trying. Like I said, I'll take what I can get.

Word of advice, though: Seagal fans actually enjoying seeing Steven Seagal in the movies that bear his name. In other words, try to use him more often. And put a light or two on the guy, would ya? Shadows only makes him look swollen.

On the voice-over front, things aren't nearly as intrusive as they were with Attack Force, which again shows marked improvement. It's still a huge problem, but at least it's getting better. Why ol' Steven doesn't show up for re-recording is truly baffling. Why would you want some other guy doing a bad impersonation of your voice? It's embarrassing. Or at least it should be, anyway. Oh, well. At least the guy they hired to do the work isn't a complete imbecile. That's gotta count for something.

Speaking of Seagal, the big guy is looking a bit thinner these days. Oh, and it turns out he can actually move around a little without the use of a stunt double. Who knew? Our favorite aikido master is featured in a few decent brawls this time around, including a fairly satisfying number in an airplane hangar towards the end of the film. People get smacked around, stabbed, shot, slapped again, and beaten properly, Seagal-style. It's nowhere near as impressive as his earlier work, mind you, but it's as thrilling as the confrontations found in both Mercenary for Justice and Shadow Man. Hoorah for bloody action!

Even the supporting cast is serviceable. Nobody looks narcoleptic, illiterate, or drug-addicted. What an improvement! However, if you really want a good look at what kind of skills the cast is packing, behold the secret agent lesbian sex scene situated near the middle of the flick. Because, you know, every faux espionage picture just isn't complete without a little girl-on-girl action. If real-life spies got down and dirty like that, nobody would want to fight. Trust me. Awww, yeah.

I know this review sounds like one big joke at Seagal's expense, but it really isn't. Flight of Fury is good stuff, and I'm happy about it. It doesn't come close to topping the recent efforts by fellow fallen stars Jean-Claude Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, of course, but at least it's bloody, stupid, sexy, and pretty fun to watch. Seagal looks healthy, has an active role in his fight scenes, and speaks at least a third of his dialogue himself. Amazing. Had Keusch dropped about ten minutes of that silly stock footage, maybe the film would've felt tighter, more focused. As it stands, Flight of Fury is a definite improvement over our hero's past two movies, but as you know, there's always room to grow.

Perhaps the inclusion of more lesbian spies would help matters.
 
Flight of Fury - Seagal is back from the "dead"

This is what I was waiting for after Into the sun and Belly of the Beast. Steven finally get into something not wasted and killed by producers. Don't care about the plot this is action movie and every movie this kind should be like Bloodsport. Flight of Fury is pure action. Steven finally makes his all fights and shows that he didn't say the last word (the scene in hangar and shop). The dubbing is here but It was expected this time too.
There is only one thing I hate in his latest movies. Filming fights. Why those camera operators are filming so close. They should step back a little and film from one anlgle.
Well hope that the next Steven movie will be better not like last time, making good then bad and then good movie again.

this is short but true :)

greets
 
Top