Force of Execution (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
No plot, bad fight scenes, no continuity. And those are the good things.
sean-5-22466626 December 2013
This movie doesn't even have gratuitous violence - just stupidity. I'm sad that Ving Rhames and Steven Seagal have sunk so far from their heyday performances.

There's no pre-story, no explanations of what's going on in the beginning. It seems that the director wanted to have a movie with lots of fight scenes to hide the lack of story. They even ruined that, as Steven Seagal can't fight anymore, and that's noticeable. Also, the other kid may be able to move, but the fights look like they were scripted by a 5 year old.

Oh, and I'm tired of the "whisper voice" that Seagal has done for way too many years. Boring.

I may have only spent $1.20 to rent it at Redbox, but that was a complete waste of money.
33 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Martial Arts Aficionado Review - One of the worst movies ever made!
pcipavers11 January 2014
First, I've liked Seagal's early movies (Above the Law, etc.) and have seen all that hit theaters and half the "straight to video" movies he's made. I'm a martial arts aficionado & can overlook a fair amount of bad acting & thin plot as long as choreography & fighter abilities are at least somewhat accomplished and plausible. I respect that Seagal is Aikido Sensei 7th Dan and was first white man to run a martial arts dojo in Japan in his early years. Furthermore I cut him some slack that he's older and not light on his feet any more (but really, he couldn't loose at least a FEW pounds?!!). That said, THIS IS WITHOUT A DOUBT ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES EVER MADE! Plot is kinder-garden level at best & almost non-existent. Acting is awful, script is worse than awful, concept is awful and worst of all this movie has some of the worst fighting ability and choreography I've ever seen. Seagal does virtually none of his own fighting and you only see him start to throw a punch & camera cuts to guy falling down, every time! A boring, worthless, un-engaging piece of crap movie. Most insulting is this is obviously just a low-budget excuse for a pay day for Seagal & he literally does not care how it reflects on him. He has truly dishonored & embarrassed himself & the Aikido arts & soiled his spirit & integrity by releasing such a ruinously awful piece of junk, it exhibits that he has no integrity left and is now only a worldly uncharismatic uncaring shadow of his former self. I don't wish to disrespect him or be unkind but he has completely disrespected himself for many years & this is the final bad straw. Won't watch anything further he ever is involved in and would never vote for him if he gets into politics; His lack of objectivity & caring is appalling & disturbing. I hope someone forwards this review to him. STEVEN: You need to wake up & regain your lost values and abilities to at least some degree (Sorry, tough love). At least start doing some moving meditation & energy exercises; Qi-Gong, Tai-chi, something... If movement is restricted from injuries then at least throw your own short-range wing-chun type punches & let the camera show it... Even the greatest masters eventually lose combat ability over time, but the greatest masters never sell out integrity - C'mon Steven... READERS: Don't waste your time watching this, seriously, don't bother.
34 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another Masterpiece
Purvboy8828 April 2014
This movie is another glimmering piece of art from the great Steven Seagal. Once again he has broken down the walls of racial discrimination by performing his non- offensive, non-pigment related rendition of black face.

In this movie mister Seagal plays a middle aged black man who is the head of the crime syndicate somewhere in Florida. As usual his otherworldly BA persona fills the screen and delivers in true SS fashion. This time his limp wrist-ed karate domination is accentuated by his knowledge of black magic. Only in a legendary Seagal film could the worlds most lethal scorpions combine to become a healing power that nearly rivals the power of Steven's karate chop. He feasts on the lesser endowed rival gangsters in a way only he could make believable.

One scene in particular demonstrates his skill in pure acting. When sitting at a table talking with "ice man", he says something with such a heavy slur that it is only intelligible when re-winded and viewed multiple times. I anticipate the following 2 movies in this trilogy with bates breath.

Sadly this site only allows 1000 words per movie review. I feel that my review is not capable of doing this movie justice, no matter how elegant. In a thousand lifetimes I could not adequately pay tribute to this work of borderline inappropriate genius.

When I picture heaven I imagine a place where we all wake up in the morning, pull our pony tails back and are blessed with the talents of Steven Seagal. Also, if you have not had the chance to watch his music videos online, you are sorely missing out.

Long live Seagal! (Although that's a moot point considering there isn't anything deadly enough to conquer him)
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Middling Seagal effort with some decent fight sequences
brchthethird11 October 2014
Seagal's best days are now far behind him, but he's made a niche for himself in the DTV market. FORCE OF EXECUTION, while not one of the better movies he's made, is at least watchable and has some good action to boot. This time around, Seagal is Alexander, a crime boss with a past in government special ops. He runs a southwestern town with an iron fist, to be sure, but backed up with a code of honor. Martial artist Bren Foster plays Hurst, Alexander's chief hit-man and a protégé of sorts. They are joined in the cast by Ving Rhames, an up-and-coming gangster and Danny Trejo as a bar owner with a few tricks up his sleeve. The event that sets the plot in motion is a hit that goes bad, resulting in Hurst's "retirement," and the severe injury of his hands. Meanwhile, Iceman (Rhames) maneuvers around Alexander in order to take control of his territory, climaxing in a showdown between the two gangs. First, the good parts. Seagal is playing a type of character that he doesn't usually play, an antihero of sorts in a movie populated solely with lowlifes. There is also some decent martial arts on display, but mostly from Bren Foster. Seagal is relegated to doing his usual chops and take-downs when he isn't just using firearms. Finally, Ving Rhames gives the best performance in the movie as Iceman, lending credibility to his role as a gangster and delivering some great improvised dialogue. The rest is mediocre at best. The basic plot is paper thin, and not enough time is spent developing the three main characters. Most of the dialogue scenes are corny discussions about honor and respect, tough talking without any purpose other than to make the characters seem tougher. As far as the technical aspects go, director Keoni Waxman opts for the currently in-vogue shaky-cam, and some of the editing choices obscure the action. While this was most likely to conceal stunt doubles in some shots, it makes the action hard to follow in places, especially with Seagal. Fortunately for Bren Foster, they pulled back the camera a little bit so you can see him work. Overall this should be enough to placate Seagal fans, but everyone else should just stay away.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Seagal's Done Better, But "Force" Is No Potboiler!!!
zardoz-1323 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
An above-average Los Angeles crime thriller about a power struggle between two rival gangs, "Force of Execution" is a predictable but entertaining, B-movie actioneer that spurns both sex and romance. Ostensibly, Steven Seagal takes top billing, but newcomer Bren Foster of "War Flowers" manages the heavy lifting. Apparently, Seagal and Foster constitute co-stars of a sort, with the demographic appeal of both actors covering the 15 to 4o year audience. The old will watch it for Seagal, while the young will undoubtedly identify more with the younger, athletic Foster. As the feared but respected crime boss Mr. Alexander, Steven Seagal wears a sculpted Van Dyke beard and rules the neighborhood with a sense of violent compassion. Above all, he is the kind of crime boss who doesn't cotton to being told what to do. Before he embarked on his crime career, Alexander refined his art of warfare in service to the government. Since then he has parlayed his on-the-job government training to maintain his own criminal empire. As Mr. Alexander's most trusted executioner for 15 years, rugged Bren Foster plays Roman Hurst. Hurst performed a hit in prison for Mr. Alexander during the first quarter hour of the action.

Based on the duplicitous word of a Judas-minded inmate, Iceman (Ving Rhames of "Pulp Fiction"), Hurst killed the wrong guy. Afterward, Hurst has to fight his way, one guard at a time, out of the prison. Not only does Hurst admit failure but also he willingly accepts any punishment that Alexander feels appropriate. Alexander turns Hurst over to the African-American gang, and they wield hammers without mercy on his hands. Basically, when they conclude their anatomical retribution, the best that Hurst can do is spiral into alcoholism until the urge to straighten himself and a Mexican witch doctor revitalize him.

The theme of reformation and rejuvenation pervades "Force of Execution." "Maximum Conviction" director Keoni Waxman along with "Cold Sweat" scenarist Richard Beattie and freshman scribe Michael Black have enlivened this formulaic crime thriller with the maimed warrior plot. This plot usually occurs in martial arts movies and westerns. Roman Hurst becomes a "Django" type hero who has to rehab himself with the help of a Hispanic witch doctor, Jimmy Peanuts (Danny Trejo of the "Machete" movies), who cooks for Mr. Alexander in one of his diners. The use of scorpions to convert our hero's lax hands into weapons of lethal power seems wholly improbable, but the idea sounds cool and the sight of Trejo fiddling with the critters is neat. The chief problem with "Force of Execution" isn't the action-laden plot with a body count, but the pedestrian dialogue and the shortage of cool Seagal scenes. Every good Seagal movie and some of his bad ones always boast a memorable combat scene where our soft-spoken hero demolishes the opposition with minimal force. "The "Under Siege" movies as well as "The Glimmer Man" exemplify Seagal at his coolest with several spectacular kick ass scenes. "Force of Execution" lacks those cool scenes. Roman Hurst has some nice fights that generate terrific velocity. He specializes in a spinning kick like Jean-Claude Van Damme, but Hurst doesn't flaunt much personality in his characterization. Grim, tough, resourceful, he appears to be channeling Daniel Craig, but he needs to develop a personality. It is like having a stunt man play a leading role. Nothing really makes him sympathetic. His miraculous recovery is difficult to accept.

The thesping in "Force Execution" is okay. Trejo gives the most charismatic performance as a down-to-earth short order cook. He doesn't play his usual tough-guy type snd he doesn't shed his shirt to display his heavily tattooed physique. He qualifies as the most likable character in the action, while Jenny Gabrielle is both pretty and vulnerable as Karen. She plays the blond waitress & cashier at Alexander's protected restaurant who encounters trouble along the way. Bren Foster has a dynamic physical presence, while Seagal essentially plays an amoral but principled criminal who expects, deserves, and gives respect. Ultimately, at fadeout, he realizes the error of his ways and reforms himself. You don't often see Seagal play a character who makes mistakes. Ving Rhames makes a menacing antagonist who challenges our hero and tries to take over his empire by force. The Spartan combat sequences are helmed with skill. The typical Steven Seagal fan should enjoy the experience of watching "Force of Execution." Waxman doesn't let the film wear out its welcome. This 99 minute melodrama doesn't rank as top-notch Seagal, but those minutes won't feel like they were stolen from you.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
holes, bad acting, unnecessary violence, but fun
andrenw8327 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Giving it a 5/10 due to Bren Foster alone. Everything else was cliché, boring, and you can see Hollywood trying so hard to keep Steven S. and Ving R. alive...for whatever reason. I'm shocked at the $10million budget IMDb reports as well. I'm kinda shocked to see that Gillie Da Kid (Nasir Fard or Farder) has no credits listed on IMDb. He was Ving R. right hand man in prison and on the streets....useless though he may be in the movie as he couldn't fight. But I'm a Philly native and I like to see people from my city do good. Bren Foster kept this movie alive for me...not with his acting...but with his martial arts. He's amazing. Got tired of him screaming "OY! OY! OY!" with every punch but it was easy to ignore knowing he's really doing these fight scenes.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Must have watched a different film
bowmanblue20 June 2014
I've looked at a lot of reviews for 'Force of Execution' and they would have you believe that it's an absolute classic. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting Shakespeare. I knew I'd be letting myself in for a B-movie with stars from yesteryear, however, all I got was a pretty sub-standard affair.

The story is all over the place with one scene after the next depicting one gangland hit after the next. Steven Segal phones in his performance and Ving Rhames just grunts all the way through it (and don't get me started on his 'fighting abilities'!).

In short, this story is a mess. The settings chop and change from one location to another, never really linking together the overall tale, let alone leaving any space for the audience to care about any of the one-dimensional characters.

Yes, I know it's a B-movie, but I was hoping for it to be entertaining. Sadly, this one's better left off everyone concerned's C.V.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Can Steven Seagal get lower than this?
senior_jl24 April 2014
I can't agree more with the review from this user Mike S from NY. He summarized everything quite well. Just when I thought I've seen the worst of Steven Seagal throughout the years, he shocked me again with this "masterpiece(of-crap)". He should not even call himself an actor or martial artist.

It's amazing that Seagal can get this low at the end of his career. Come-on? Haven't you made enough money in these many years to stop insulting viewers with this kind of trash?

What more shocking to me was who could finance this kind of movie and hope for a return for their money? Why don't you start watching some of the Korean movies? I won't be surprised that they will take a huge bite out of Hollywood market-share in the future.

Movies like this should never be made in the first place. It is absolutely garbage.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Seagal Does His Usual, Shows Off Bren Foster but Hurts His Career
MackMonMay872 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Pretty much the only good thing about this movie is rising star Bren Foster, real life Tae Kwon Do champion with experience in numerous other martial arts. Foster had previously starred alongside Seagal and Stone Cold Steve Austin in the hokey Maximum Conviction, but in that film, Foster only did literally one kick I believe, and in this film, we get to see more impressive work from him.

They obviously wanted to make him the main character, but skirted embracing that fully, and focus too much on Seagal and Rhames, muddling up the focus of the movie and making Foster feel like more of a side-character than the hero he should be.

That's only the tip of the iceberg with the problems of the film, as it is filled with totally absurd plot holes and goof nonsense. The editing, cuts, transitions, and even the lighting in many scenes is totally off.

Seagal puts on a ridiculous husky Southern accent that fades in and out, and the actions of his character don't really make much sense. For his top hit-man making one mistake in 15 years, he near cripples him, disabling his fingers for most of the movie, leading to one of the most absurd parts of the film, Danny Trejo's short order cook character using ancient South American sorcery involving scorpions to rehabilitate Foster's character. Later on in the film, despite having earlier condemned him to a great deal of pain, Foster and Seagal's character have no bad blood between them, and instantly are friends again.

Ridiculous moments like these are just a small example of how the character interactions in Force of Execution don't make sense. Ving Rhames actually does some good monologues and has a decently threatening presence as a gangster, confined by the movie's awful script. While I'm happy Bren Foster is appearing in more movies and getting more fight scenes, he needs to get out of Seagal's films, he'll be straight-to-DVD material before he can even break out. Jenny Gabrielle is also good as waitress who gets pulled into the fiasco that is the movie's plot, but doesn't get much time to do a whole lot.

This could've been a standard action film focused on Bren Foster's character, Jenny Gabirelle, and Danny Trejo as the charming cook, with just Ving Rhames as the villain, but Seagal and the horrible writing and filmmaking choices bring it down well below average. All that's left is the fight scenes with Foster, a few throw away tough guy lines, and some hilarious so-bad-it's good moments.

I wouldn't recommend unless you're able to appreciate schlocky cinema, or enjoy watching how much more silly Seagals' career can get, like I do.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Usual Steven Segal Film But Below Average This Time
FilmMan4726 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
as far as i see Steven Seagal is one actor that uses brutal force when using hands in close combat i have seen so many of his films from 90s till now its 2013 i am a hardcore Segal fan Director Keoni Waxman worked with Seagal before on maximum conviction which i thought was nice effort and a dangerous man but this time he brings Force Of Execution 2013 which sadly falls in below average category.

The Plot:Thomas Douglas is a Crime Lord he got everything he does things his way but things goes bad when Iceman enters his life and wants to take over.

the cast:Steven Seagal was looking good with heavy beard and shades,Danny Trejo and Ving Rhames embarrassed themselves here these two are great actors and got wasted badly here with cheesy dialog's and plus Ving Rhames is a villain here an A class actor in direct home media release films is bad for his career.Bren foster is a Jcvd wannabe please he is not a martial artist or an actor either,rest cast is strippers and gang members.

the story was going well until the climax i was expecting a huge fight but none of that came specially the final one minute between Seagal and Rhames,the buildup was well done but execution gone wrong or it was done on purpose by director Keoni Waxman in sea-gal films villains do loose instantly but this was way too fast.

anyway if you are a Seagal fan do check this out and don't expect anything its got good acting from Ving Rhames he was awesome here.

Overall My Rating For Force Of Execution Is 4/10.it could have been better, but watch it once if you are Seagal & Rhames fan like me.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not just bad, but harmful to your health.
tfmiltz7 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The pointless violence in this movie comes at a cost to the viewer. You will understand why I say do not make the mistake of watching this when you get to the hammer scene. If I could have voted negative infinity I would have for my rating/vote. It's simply that bad.

I had to stop watching this 1/2 way through. This movie wasn't just bad for me, it took something from me and I don't think I'll ever get it back.

Here we can see at the start of the movie Steven Seagal as 'the bad guy', and unfortunately, he just gets worse and worse as the movie digresses. Somehow we are supposed to 'like' or find a connection to two loser crime bosses who just have to have control over those 'chop shops' or - oh my - those precious places that criminals take their stolen cars to.

Whatever fan I was of Seagal ? is gone now and I never thought I'd say this, but maybe he should just focus on his country music career, at the least ? less harm will be done to any unsuspecting human being. On Deadly Ground was a powerful statement, this movie is a powerless statement that fails to deliver any connection to any human experience worth having.

I not only do not recommend watching this movie - which will usurp your time - I actually suggest making sure you go out of your way not to watch it and advise others to do the same.

It is perhaps - the worst movie ever made if you can even call it a movie. It's more like a sequence of pointless traumas to the hand.

If you've watch far enough to the hand scene ? you've gone to far. My best guess is the movie was really only 20 seconds long and they just put in all the scenes that they cut and ran 90 minutes of the final credits.

I think this movie pretty much seals the fate of any chances Seagal has in politics. No one should be in any position representing the interests of human beings who made this movie or even stooped so low as to think it would help their career.

The movie was so bad ? I think I may sue because there was not a disclaimer at the beginning that it may be hazardous to your health if you watch more than 5 minutes.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
One of Seagal's best STD films in years for what it's worth
callanvass14 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
For the Seagal fans that have remained loyal, despite every reason to bail on him, congratulations. Let me tell you something. This isn't exactly a return to form for Seagal, but it is his best STD movie in quite a few years for what it's worth. It really is an average film, but considering how far Seagal's standards have fallen? This is a good thing. It is actually a decent tale of redemption for the very talented martial artist, Bren Foster. Steven Seagal isn't the lead in this movie, this is Foster's film. Foster is up to the task with the physicality and that's all I really cared about. This man has some major moves that could propel him to be a top action guy in Hollywood. If he works on his charisma a little bit, nothing will stop him. I was very impressed. Seagal is better than he has recently been, which isn't saying much. He still doesn't seem very motivated, but he tries a little harder than he has as of late. He actually does do some Aikido in this movie and has a couple of decent scraps, but they are far too short for my liking. I have no idea why Seagal shows so much contempt for his fans these days, but this was at least a step in the right direction. He's still overweight, but he looks somewhat bad ass with the goatee. His "shades of Grey" character had a bit of depth to it, which was nice. It isn't a great performance by any means, but I'll give credit where credit is due. Danny Trejo is a bit wasted in his role. Ving Rhames lets his cigar do the acting. He's slumming it here, no doubt about it. I do have a couple of major carps. When we aren't getting action and potent drama, it is too busy being very talky to enjoy. The pacing could have been a little more consistent at times. I also shook my head at Bren Foster's character still being loyal to Seagal's. He ordered punishment on Foster to be beaten up and get his hands wrecked yet he is still loyal? It is explained a bit as the movie goes on, but it still annoyed me a bit. This movie is very violent with some brutal torture sequences, but it all fits in with the story. I've seen people bashing this movie in reviews. I would check out some other Seagal's STD duds like Attack Force, Submerged, The Foreigner, among many others if you think this movie is poor. It beats watching any of those Seagal movies I just listed.

Final Thoughts: Maybe there is hope after all for Seagal fans. I do like Seagal when he actually gives a damn, so I'm pleased to say he has made something tolerable as of late. Action fans will love Bren Foster's fight scenes and won't be as annoyed with Seagal as they have in the past. It's far from great, but at least I didn't waste over 90 minutes of my life, as I do with most of Seagal's STD duds

5/10
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Crime Lord Who Just Wants to Retire Gracefully
Uriah4328 April 2016
This movie concerns a former government assassin by the name of "Alexander Coates" (Steven Seagal) who has decided to relocate to Albuquerque, New Mexico and start his own criminal business there. After and long and successful career he now considers retiring but finds that another ambitious crook by the name of "Ice Man" (Ving Rhames) wants to take over and has no intention of letting Alexander leave gracefully. Likewise, another minor crime boss named "Constantine" (Ivan G'Vera) also wants a piece of his business as well. Therefore, realizing that war is just around the corner, Alexander calls out to a former, down-on-his-luck protégé named "Roman Hurst" (Bren Foster) to help him out. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I thought this was a fairly good movie overall with plenty of action to keep things moving along at a reasonably fast pace. Admittedly, it's not a great movie by any means but it managed to keep my attention just the same. On a side note, I should probably mention that this movie has a prequel by the title of "A Good Man" which might be of interest to those who enjoy films of this type. In any case, I rate this film as slightly above average.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
More Bren Foster Please!
coljam211 March 2014
OK so anyone who watches a post 1996 Steven Segal flick knows to expect plenty of bad acting, gratuitous fight scenes, a lot of whispering and obvious hair plugs. Well this movie didn't disappoint. It lived up to the Segal movie reputation and then some. It was thoroughly entertaining! The first 15 minutes of the movie were awesome! I mean jaw dropping! Um hello who is this Bren Foster fellow and why is not a leading man on the silver screen? He is crazy talented and handsome but ruggish and a much better actor than all 3 of the leads in this movie. The way he got his mark at that prison was so exciting. I've never seen a martial artist with moves like him.

Ving Rhames was a joke. The one fight scene he was involved in had me laughing. He's built like a redwood stump but tried to throw a kick, yeah in your dreams buddy. Trejo did his thing too. All in all it was what I expected from a Segal flick and Bren Foster was the icing on the cake. He made the movie more delicious. The fight scene in the end was a little inconsistent. Bren Foster was able to clear a prison full of guards and convicts in the beginning by himself with no weapons, but had trouble with one thug in the end? They could have thought of a better way to inject suspense into the conclusion.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Movie ever made
cmmfahim8 July 2014
I'm a martial artist fan and practiced some styles as well and a huge fan of Action movies. After several films I stopped Segal's films as they are dramatic and we don't get a feeling of watching a movie instead of watching a South Asian Drama in a television but bad time I had to watch this, that time I understood even I can make far better films than this.

Director, Is this a story? Just adding Marlin Brando's "God Father" voice is not sufficient to make a film to be successful. First of all watch some action/martial arts movies or at least "God Father" fully and try to understand what a film making is.

In which world when the commandos in operation change the holding position of the Machine Gun? This much of a biggest DON cannot figure out the person who was with him genuinely for years actually made the mistake or not.

Producer, form a group of fans like us (At least 5)and we'll make a 100 times better movie. Director please do not produce any more films and Segal, please don't act in Action movies, you far better suitable for family business oriented films, you have a huge future there, better consider it and you won't regret it.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Don't Break The Code
mattressman_pdl30 December 2013
From Keoni Waxman, director of Maximum Conviction and A Dangerous Man, returns with Seagal to bring you Force of Execution, an action/crime movie showcasing several interesting performances with a lot of tepid dialogue and clichés.

The movie follows, mostly, Bren Foster as he portrays the protégé of sorts to crime boss Mr. Alexander (Seagal), who is pulled out of premature retirement when a sadistic up-and-comer (Ving Rhames) begins killing his way to the top.

The Pros: Steven Seagal turns in an enigmatic performance as Mr. Alexander as he sports, for the first time, a mean goatee. His fights are well choreographed as are Bren Fosters', who is also fun to watch. Ving Rhames and Danny Trejo are, as always, reliably efficient.

The Cons: As a Seagal fan, it's a bit of a drag to see him almost take a backseat to somebody else. The entire plot is also quite predictable.

Final Verdict: Seagal fans be sure to watch but prepare to miss the big guy for around half the movie.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film should be executed!
popnruss11 May 2017
I don't know why I am drawn to these Steven Seagal disasters. Maybe I'm trying to discover if the films can get any worse or by some miracle, improving. I have to admit, though, that I am a Danny Trejo fan so that was a draw in itself. Back to Mr. Seagal . He has to be one of the worst actors out there. His character in this film is like all of his other characters: totally unbelievable. Is he still able to do his own stunts? I think he's in his mid 60's. The actor who played his protégé was so not talented except for his flying hands and feet. The actress who played Karen was so blah she could have put the viewer to sleep. And as always, I watched it till the conclusion. I am going to have to talk to my therapist about this.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Formulaic, cookie-cutter style filmmaking
Leofwine_draca13 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Another ostensible vehicle for action star Seagal, and another dull and derivative movie helmed by Keoni Waxman, whose films seem to be getting worse instead of better as the years go by. This time around, Seagal's a supporting player in his own film, with no less than three other leading roles. He really only appears at the beginning and end and even then his appearances aren't up to much.

The story is a convoluted tale about rival gangsters and their criminal empires, but it's all so cheap-looking that you don't believe it for a second. Seagal turns up, mutters a few expletives and punches a few people to death, and that's all you're getting from him. Ving Rhames bags a great deal of screen time as the villain, but his role is bland and derivative. Danny Trejo gives the best performance but again, his part lacks substance and it's only the actor's charisma that gets him through.

For the most part, the film's plot rests on the shoulders of newcomer Bren Foster, an Australian martial artist also seen in Seagal's MAXIMUM CONVICTION. Foster is pretty good in the action stakes, but the fight choreography is pretty poor here and there didn't seem to be as much decent action as in the other Waxman films I've watched. It's fair to say that FORCE OF EXECUTION is one of the worst of all Seagal's straight-to-DVD movies.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Stephen Seagal, not the "Expert" in the things he thinks he is.
jeremyfi8 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with Mike and Sean above (along with any others that gave this movie a crap rating.. crap is better than what it deserves. How can SS keep playing the same character in every movie with out the slightest change-up? so tough, he doesn't need to move, just flick his wrists and the enemy goes flying while breaking half the bones in their bodies. "TALK" dammit.. stop with the southern drawl meets Godfather meets the "Zataran's" rice commercial voice-over.. He's supposed to be an expert in guns, yet during the 2 scenes where he's sitting at the table with his goons all around him, explaining his guns to them like they've never seen one before. "This one is a 45, I've used it a lot. . it's good.." "this one, is another 45... I used back in. ." really? that's worth sharing? and lastly.. when they're going to defend the compound. . they synchronize watches and he says "Rendezvous at 40 Mike Mike." what?? they're going to meet back up at 40 Millimeter? Don't use military slang/terminology unless you know what it means, otherwise it makes you look like an idiot.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"If you don't move, you will be outmaneuvered. If you're outmaneuvered, you will be killed" Warning: Spoilers
After a relatively high publicity run, things are sort of looking down for Steven Seagal: not only is he receiving criticism for his partnerships with Joe Arpaio and Vladimir Putin, but his UFC protégé Anderson Silva seems to be publicly distancing himself from the Buddhist Bonecrusher. Seagal's in need of a good movie like few times before, and luckily he's gotten one in FORCE OF EXECUTION. I'm genuinely surprised by how much I like this film, which may very well be the most action-packed flick Seagal has done in quite some time. It's not nearly perfect and it isn't even really a vehicle for the man, but I predict that a lot of fans and action devotees in general will like this one.

The story: an emerging crime lord (Ving Rhames) prepares for a bloody street war with the established kingpin (Seagal). In the middle of this, a former protégé of the latter (Bren Foster) - maimed and cast out for a past failure - must decide whether he will play a part in the violence to come.

Seagal seems really into his role: he tries for an accent again, but more notably has the tone and personality of the antihero down pat, as though he prepared for the part with a Coppola marathon. He's matched in presence by Ving Rhames, who can do these tough guy roles in his sleep but doesn't phone in his performance at all. Danny Trejo is here as well, playing the grizzled owner of a diner, but the real star of the movie is in fact Bren Foster. Graduating from his supporting part in MAXIMUM CONVICTION, Foster soundly steals the show out from under his better-known costars and makes the movie his own by being not only an impressive martial artist but also a surprisingly adept actor, turning his portions of the plot into generally the most interesting ones.

Director Keoni Waxman seems to be the preferred filmmaker of Seagal these days, much to my chagrin since I'm not a huge fan of any of the work they've done together, but he redeems himself by not only directing a better-made movie in this, but also a more interesting one. There are some of those annoying DTV slights that we've had to get used to - Seagal's dialog being dubbed here and there, scenes between characters wherein the actors were clearly never in the same room, etc. - but they appear to a lesser extent than expected. The writing is also better than one might expect, with more character development scenes than are the norm for low budget action fare, and occasional weird/cool moments (SPOILER) like when Trejo reveals himself to be a "Mexican witch doctor" and cures Bren Foster's injured hands with live scorpion venom.

One of the major complaints among viewers of Seagal's movies of the last ten years is their relatively meager martial arts contents, and "Force of Execution" addresses this qualm with no less than 10 hand-to-hand brawls - 13 if you include the short ones. Thanks to Foster, these may also be the most legitimately athletic fights we've seen in Steven's movies since early in his career. Seagal is more than serviceable for his four tussles, relying less on doubles than in his worst films, and even Ving Rhames mixes things up in a single brawl, but it's Bren's work as both an acrobat and a down-to-earth martial artist who elevates the entire picture. Think Scott Adkins without the gratuitous flipping. The scenes wherein he takes out a hallway full of prison guards and duels escrima guru Ron Balicki with knives are standouts, and should make Seagal consider handing the reins to other martial artists more often in his movies.

Speaking of Steven, I have the feeling that he's finally winding down. I may be reading too much into this, but his character alludes more than once to "retiring" and references his age in a negative context as well. In playing the part, he really gives the impression that he feels he ought to be done with this kind of stuff. Seagal is clearly still making movies over a year later, but should he be in the last leg of his race, he definitely started it on the right foot.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Watchable! 3/10
leonblackwood22 March 2014
Review: This movie was exactly what I expected. Bad storyline, with some great action but bad acting. Steven Seagal was cool throughout the movie, like Ving Rhames who acts the same in all of his movies and the Colin Farrell lookalike who was playing the lead was a good fighter, but a dead actor. It's your usual fight for territory type movie with everyone fighting for power. Danny Trejo gets stuck in the middle of the war but he doesn't get involved in all of the violence. Personally, everyone looks a bit old in this movie, but Seagal can still kick butt which looks good on camera. I've always been a fan of his effortless way of fighting. Anyway, it's not bad for action and it's good to see the veterans on screen together, but don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Watchable!

Round-Up: No matter how big, in weight, or how old Seagal gets, the guy can fight. He has a way of making his opponent looking completely useless which I've always enjoying watching. As for the Colin Farrell lookalike, he just seems to be jumping off of walls, kicking like a mad man but it does look impressive. I'm sure that Ving Rhames is getting fed up with playing the same roles all of the time. You just know what to expect once you see his name in the cast, which is blamed on his role in Pulp Fiction. Anyway, the movie isn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it's not brilliant.

Budget: $10million Worldwide Gross: N/A

I recommend this movie to people who are into there gang war type of movies with loads of violence. 3/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It's Badness Cannot Be Explained
LouAbbott7 November 2017
I watched "Force of Execution" to discover if all the one-star reviews had merit. The film is not as bad as some graded it, and not as good as the high grades. However, there is a badness about this movie that's impossible for me to explain. So I won't try. Seagal is unprepared (or poorly directed). When he talks to black gang members, he talks "ghetto." When he speaks to anyone else, he talks like a white guy. Except sometimes he gets mixed up and does the opposite accent with the wrong people. His mix-ups are unintentionally funny and stupid. This film deserves three stars: One for the film itself, one for Danny Trejo, and one for Ving Rhames.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worse than silence.
inbox-160-33616030 October 2015
I was cooking lunch.

As per usual, I decided to play a movie on Netflix in the background. I watched the rest of Badasses on the Bayou. A spectacularly terrible film.

By the end of that movie I was already busy doing something else. After the credits, Netflix recommended me "Force of Execution". There was a 10 second countdown then it played the recommended movie automatically.

Words cannot describe my state of despair upon having experienced the first two scenes.

I'd rather get punched in the face.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Good DTV Action Movie
badboyjohn-3818917 December 2019
This movie wasn't too bad to watch as you don't expect to much realism as it had a script that had some great action scenes but the dialogue in some scenes could have better written and it didn't do a good job of explaining some things. The actors all did a good job in their roles and the cinematography was excellent despite a mistake plus the special effects were also excellent. The stunt work was superb with great fight choreography and on the DVD that I watched there was a featurette which is worth watching.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Ving Rhames Is Too Good For This
slightlymad223 November 2019
Continuing my plan to watch every Steven Seagal movie in order, i come to Force of Execution (2013)

When I seen the cast I hoped for so much more. Ving Rhames is much too fine of an actor to be trapped in such rubbish, Danny Trejo also has a role as a cook. It had the potential to at least work out as an enjoyable, fun, simple, straightforward action flick, as the plot is surprisingly ok, but it is handled so badly, that it's hard to be interested, let alone care. In fact, it is really hard to care for any of the characters in this, since none of them are sympathetic enough (I think it is Bren Foster's Hurst we are meant to root for) and they are not really given a decent enough background. Apathy is the worst thing you want your audience to feel.

For his part, Seagal (now sporting the jet black goatee) is the head of a New Mexico criminal empire, but because he is Seagal, he has to be an ex something, so he is an ex government agent with high level military training!! He plays the kind of underworld boss that spouts zen wisdom, but will still have his protegé beaten to within an inch of his life. Once again, Seagal had to be the omnipotent leader, and he had to be a good guy despite being a crime boss, and he couldn't let anyone, especially not Bren Foster, get over on him, even if he was playing a bad guy.

There isn't really much more to say heare.
0 out of 0 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