Flight of Fury (Video 2007) Poster

(2007 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
50 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
A waste of Celluloid
rsimm23 February 2007
I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .
60 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Mediocrity, a step up for Seagal.
supertom-311 February 2007
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 plot line 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, plot line, 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).

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. **
34 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dire Stuff - The worst Seagal movie I've seen......so far
Welshfilmfan12 February 2009
'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured

1/10
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't bother. No, seriously - don't bother.
Voluntary-Pi14 July 2011
I have always been a fan of a good Segal romp, even a bad Segal romp, but this takes the biscuit. I have just sat through this and agree with previous reviews, the ONLY good bit about the movie is the completely unnecessary brief girl-on-girl scene.

The direction is terrible, the script is worse, the sound quality is dire and the (ab)use and rapid repetition of stock footage is diabolical, especially during flight scenes.

I've not written a movie review on here before, but this film was so bad it actually drove me to warn other movie-lovers NOT to watch this one.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Never takes off
ODDBear2 June 2010
Who would have thought that a Steven Seagal movie would employ loads of stock footage in it? Not me, not in 2001 at least when I last saw Big Steve on the big screen in the terrific "Exit Wounds".

"Flight of Fury" is hokey entertainment at best. The stock footage is painfully obvious and (probably) used to make the film look bigger. The story is awfully thin and it took Seagal and another dude to pen it. The fight scenes are uninspired and the gun play is fairly pedestrian. The flight scenes were far better some twenty years ago in "Top Gun" and the acting not very good. In fact, Old Steve mumbles his lines in such a relaxed manner that I expected him to fall asleep every now and then.

Despite all it's faults; "Flight of Fury" isn't all that painful to sit through. It moves along pretty well, the one on one fight with Steve at the end is well played out and an extra star must be awarded for his best physical form in years. There's even a lesbian scene here (completely out of the blue and pointless) but they're always quite the eye candy.

All in all, not a good movie by any means but for fans of Steve it may be worth the hour and a half on a slow night.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste Your time.
p-zeddi14 February 2007
I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.

It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Simply... don't bother...

And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????
42 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Should never been made....
m-de-graaf3 February 2009
This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Borderline Unwatchable
Top_Salmon30 March 2009
Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.

The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.

The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.

Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.

Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dire
indioblack1174 August 2007
Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
More awful trash from Seagal 1/2 * out of *****
Celticnationalist26 March 2010
FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - more like $1.2M

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - A B-movie remake of a B-movie.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 *
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I thought it was OK!
MrOllie21 August 2012
If you can ignore the usual faults with Seagal movies then this is an OK action flick. In this one Steve is a fighter pilot and the only man who can recapture s stolen US Stealth aircraft. The aeroplane action scenes where better than I expected them to be after reading some of the reviews of this film, and the acting was I thought OK. There is not so much hand to hand fight scenes in this film as in other Seagal movies which might disappoint some Seagal fans,however, we do have a lesbian scene midway through the film with Steve lurking in the background looking a little like a seedy voyeur. Steve does tend to mumble his lines at times so we are not sure what he has said, but still most Seagal fans should find this a decent movie.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
"This guy is extraordinary."
lost-in-limbo17 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to see Steven Seagal in his prime… then don't watch "Flight of Fury". Quite the bottom-of-the-barrel, straight-to-DVD enterprise and around this period it would be no surprise. One uninspired effort after another. Not as bad as "Attack Force", but it's down there. In a training exercise an American pilot steals a high-tech top secret bomber and flies it to somewhere in Afghanistan to sell it to some terrorists known as the Black Sunday group. Wanting their plane back, they get former air force pilot John Sands who just recently escaped prison to find himself back in custody. He's offered his freedom if he completes his mission of retrieving the bomber behind enemy lines. "Flight of Fury" is a boring political action-joint, which gains much of its thrills from its sequences of aircraft combat (namely the exhilarating cat and mouse interplay between the Stealth and an F-16), outside of that it's the usual predictable marital arts or better put lack of it from our star. The stuntman was doing double time, as it looked like some scenes it had them doing the walking, other than just the hand-on hand combat. However Segeal (the expert he is) mans the plane (that's the high-tech stealth bomber which has a cloaking system) and he does look quite comfortable in that sitting position. Too bad for him he doesn't have much time in the cockpit… but he still finds ways to go about things in a casual manner and being rather blunt with his dialogues "That's amazing". You could say the stealth bomber is metaphor to Seagal… cunning, fast and graceful when in action with those encountering them not knowing what hit them. One thing though Seagal is indestructible… I don't about the bomber. "It's the ultimate weapon". What really gave me a laugh were the early sequences when he takes out some thugs in a convenient store, as he slides across the floor shooting a gun. It looked like he was rolling along on possibly a board?! Another hysterical moment would be the randomly thrown in lesbian sequence. Where was Seagel when this was happening? Actually hiding out in the same building, probably watching on. It was supposedly a distraction for him to get away. We know how much of a ladies man he is and how the young ladies melt over him. Maybe it because of his knife, no gun skills. Shooting without looking while holding an automatic machine gun in one hand with exact precision. What can he not do? Then again the editing does make him look good, as the director's tight handling flashes up the screen with many hazardous techniques, stock footage and numbing poses.

"Rewind the security tape. You'll see it was self-deference."
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Flight of Fury
Scarecrow-883 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.

Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
nice spy plane footage
stock-19 July 2007
It's sad to see how Steven Seagal has, somehow, become the outcast of 'mainstream' Hollywood, as he nowadays lives in a camper trailer-truck with a German chauffeur driver, somewhere in Romania. Something is definitely not right in his U.S. Homeland.

The movie starts off with a U.S. military prison somewhere in LA. If you missed the caption telling that, you would immediately believe it was a modern day Nazi/SS detainee camp, where medical 'doctors' pray on their inmates brains. And indeed John Sands' (Seagal's) brain memory is ordered to be erased by 'high command'. Next a X-77 stealth fighter is tested and hijacked, where old-timer general Barnes has no alternative as for Seagal's envoy mission into Afghan territory to fly the X-77 home.

It's interesting to see how Seagal only shows obedience to these old-timer U.S. Military Generals. A sure hint that recent changes in the military command could very well be seen as a silent coup, where Seagal on a earlier mission winded up in military confinement, where he should forget about things, the nice way or by brute medical force.

Next Seagal flies with a Big Black Bird, a SR-71, to Afghanistan where some unique footage is shown. Interesting is also that the bad guys are a mix of British educated Balkan mercenaries which show Israeli terrorist (Black Sunday) mentality. The bad bitch even turns out to be gay. The uninformed naive audience could very well believe that Afghanistan had been hijacked by a international mercenary gang, where the local people have no alternative as to hide in mountain caves.

No surprises though, as Seagal turns out, yet again, as the man who always wins, and delivers the X-77 at Andrews air-force base in mint condition, with two chemical bombs as extra bonus. A shame though that old timer General Barnes and Admiral Pendleton are only allowed to settle their scores with crates of single malt whiskey and are not allowed to discuss some boxes of Cuban cigars, let alone to light one up. The nice spy plane footage and Seagal's point of view on the Afghanistan situation make it a 9 out of 10 for me.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
More DTV crap from Seagal.
poolandrews10 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...

This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.

Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.

Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Straightforward but padded
dolemite7213 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Whilst it's a marked improvement from the dreadful Attack Force (mind you, you'd be hard pressed to make worse) Flight Of Fury still suffers from too much padding, and needless build-up. Seagal seems a little more energetic in the action scenes, and looks a little trimmer than usual. However, he spend too much time in a cockpit (uttering "Roger That!") or stood around, whilst the film-makers are tragically under-using his (still) mighty star presence. The 'voice dubbing' problem is also very evident...again! And the endless (i.e, borrowed, flight and naval footage) could soon form the basis of a new 'drinking game' (down a shot of whisky, when a military H.Q of any kind, comes into shot......you'll be drunk in 30 minutes)

Seagal must retrieve an ultra-hi-tech Stealth fighter plane (with invisibility cloaking) from the Afghanistan terrorists, after his own student (and fellow pilot) steals it for the highest bidder. Once again, the synopsis (on paper) sounds exciting enough, but there are just too many scenes of naval commandos discussing the whereabouts of Seagal (probably to pad out Seagals limited involvement?) There's some nice (small) fights near the end (and in slo-mo, they all look like Seagal) but as usual, these brutal fight scenes, are edited together too quickly (when will a director ever zoom back, and showcase Seagals technique, to it's maximum potential?)

All in all, with a bigger budget and less padding, Flight Of Fury could have easily slipped into theatres around the world. However, it's limited budget (and sometimes limited imagination) forever consign it to s-t-v hell, which is a shame, because on paper (as previously stated) it seemed an exciting change of pace for the stout sensei.

All in all, i'd give it a 6, but to casual viewers, i'd give it 4 to 5
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A traumatic experience overall.
trenchant-troll28 April 2007
Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.

It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.

It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste 98 minutes of your life!
MattGibbo10 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.

This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.

Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.

In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.

Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
awesome
kyle-mcdonald28 May 2007
OK yes this is a direct to video movie but you know that not all direct to video movies are bad especially Steven seagals they just like his other ones lots of action good fighting scenes got a good story to it etc the only thing different is that it was not in theatres. And yes the other acting in this movie are bad but that is just because they are only in a few movies before this one and just to let you know one of the best scenes in this movie is a sex scene between two girls. So the next time you see this movie make sure you buy it or rent it because it is really good.

So I give this movie 8 out of 10 stars.
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Way better than i expected!!!!
hofmae20019 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
First Words So, if i only would watch the first hour, the movie would be OK but not really entertaining, but if you watch the showdown, its really a cool movie. Way better then most dtv's and much, much better than Attack Force!

Story: OK, thank god (or better thank Joe Halpin) this time the story is great. For the first 10 minutes i thought it would be again a weird story, but it isn't. After the first 15 minutes everything is pretty easy to follow, no subplots, no weird stuff. Just easy to follow. Not especially interesting, but i don't care, im so happy that there is an easy story!!!

5/5

Action: Yeah. In the first hour there isn't much action. There is some flying, some shooting, and really 1 or 2 extremely short fight scenes. Its not that much but its OK, i can live with it. But then the last 15 minutes are full packed with action. Explosions, big shootouts with a lot of terrorists on an airbase. The classic b-movie showdown, really a lot of gunfights and so on, the last 15 minutes are excellent, and everything is done better than in Attack Force and better than in Shadow Man (as example this time the car-hunt is not so bad like in Shadow Man). The action is really well done. Thank god they made a big showdown, that was exactly what i needed after not sooo much action in the first hour. At the End after a 10 minute long showdown at the base Steven flies with his stealth bomber against his enemy in a F16, it was entertaining

4/5

Fights: So, were not back to the good old times There aren't much fights... I think about the same amount of fights than in Shadow Man. 2 or 3 short knife fights with Seagal, then some 1 punch fights (im sure you understand), but in the showdown there is a cool big fight scene where seagal uses a knife, a pipe and so on. It's not that much, but all fights are made OK and are really watchable. Don't' have to expectations, the fight quality isn't something special, but its OK to watch, and i think it was fun. (Again thank god for the showdown). Normally i would not give so many points, but comparing to Attack Force or some movies with horrible fights (as example Out of Reach) this was pretty decent. I really wished for some more, but it was OK!!!

4/5

Dubbing: There is some dubbing. But not the whole movie, just some lines... About 10-15 lines in the movie i think.

3/5

Stunt Doubles: I didn't saw a single stunt-double. I think there aren't any stunt doubles. All short fight and action scenes are made by Seagal himself i think, but i didn't look sooo closely.

5/5

Acting/Shape: Steven looked great. He really looks healthy, and man he really lost a lot of weight. He looks awesome. The acting is typical Steven pretty decent, and all other actors made too a very good job.

4/5

Humor: Its not a comedy, and there aren't the same amount of cool one-liners that were in the old seagal flicks, but there were some cool dialogs without Steven, and 3 or 4 cool One-Liners with Seagal. Oh yeah, and when he shoots down the enemy-airplane at the end he said "Sayonara" (like in the Orange commercial). Not much humor, but more than in the last few dtv's.

3/5

CGI_Effects/Stock Footage: So first, i didn't saw a lot CGI. The explosions were all REAL. And if there are cgi scenes with planes, they look fantastic because i didn't saw them. To the stock footage... There is really a lot of stock footage, and a good viewer see's always when stock footage comes on. BUT the stock footage is really, really great put together. Even the flight action scenes (like the last fight at the end) are made very well, and were put really good together. So even the stock footage scenes made suspense, and they made fun. Good work!

4/5

Cinematography: Was really OK. Somewhere between Mercenary for Justice and Shadow Man. Way nearer to Mercenary. Was pretty good!

4/5

Music: Great orchestral score. Nothing extremely special, but way better than in most dtv's. Typical action-b-movie soundtrack, but sometimes it goes to A-Quality. Pretty good.

4/5

Overall Rating: First... All my ratings are based on the last few dtv's. So compared to movies like Out for Justice or Glimmer Man this movie would have something around a 3 or 4. But compared to the last movies this is entertaining funny ride. An awesome showdown, good gunfights, great using of stock footage, Steven looking better than ever, good actors, some pretty decent fights and a really easy to follow straight forwarded story. Really a step forward. I can't wait for Once upon a time in the hood. Sayonara
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hmm... Where do i begin?
tmbvd314 September 2009
I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A Little Entertaining
mattydoom18 July 2007
Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.

On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Quite possibly Seagal's worst film, and that is saying a lot.
callanvass25 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've tried sitting through the entire duration for this twice now, and each time I've failed. The lackadaisical approach here is an understatement. We have many scenes with characters just wandering around, shooting at nothing, with plot points that don't even make sense. Apparently this is a shoot by shoot remake of Michael Dudikoff's Black Thunder. I've not seen that movie, so I can't say, but if it is anything like this, I won't be looking forward to it. It's incredibly cheap looking. It consists of stock footage for a lot of the plane shots, and Seagal looks bored to tears, phoning it in at least in almost every scene. The most unintentionally funny scene has to be when two chicks make out, and Seagal sits and watches with a blank and expressionless stare. Come on bud its chicks, at least show a little emotion. I remain a fan of Seagal despite his laziness now a days, and I guess I am a sucker for punishment for checking out his recent works.

Performances. Steven Seagal. Seagal honestly could care less about this project, and I know that for a fact. He runs around with a machine gun, seemingly just shooting wildly in the air, aiming at nothing. He mumbles his way through the part, and doesn't even show emotion during critical plot points. He once more wears baggy clothing to hide his fat belly. He does occasional fighting, but really just a couple of mediocre snippets of it.

Bottom line. If you got this far in the review, you will know how torturous I find this movie to be. Watching dry paint on a wall, is more entertaining than this. Please even if you are a die-hard fan of his, stay away. There is nothing entertaining about this movie.

0/10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
They don't come much hotter than Ciera Payton
gridoon201922 March 2008
You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Thanks For the Memories
LeonLouisRicci16 November 2012
Ever since Steven Seagal entered his "Fat Elvis" period his fans have had a lot to groan about. But the enjoyment of these direct to video, low budget, foreign made movies is dependent on, as a Seagal fan, would you rather he retire and therefore be remembered in his prime, or continue to work with results such as this? It is a conundrum.

So if you are in the latter, here goes. This has a lot of stock footage of stealth aircraft and such and some hand to hand mostly shot in close ups, with some striking knife scenes. Quite a few gun battles with squibs that are not bad. Seagal again whispers his way through the thing, also using some voice-dubs but he does look a bit thinner in this one.

If you are in the former category (those for retirement) this is another reason to make your case. There is only a pale remainder of his once sleek and smooth style, and the production values and talent in these DTV releases are almost always forgettable at best, and painful to watch at worst. Flight of Fury falls somewhere in the middle of this stuff, so go for it or keep your fond memories.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed