Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

vixiki I saw this film on sat TV in a hotel and I was riveted from the first moment. Many times I switched channels, but I always came back, wondering - did they hate Steven Seagal so much, or did he just want to go out with a bang? At first I thought this was made in the 80's or 90's - the lighting is really bad, always hinting at the (tiny) point where the action will be. And the action - you don't get to see many good moves, just flashing arms and gushing blood.The story is silly, of course, but was it necessary to get the technical details so painfully wrong? None of the radar or computer screens in this film make any sense. Too much flashing and scrolling info where static screens would be enough.The choice of exteriors for Northern Afghanistan was distracting too because of all the vegetation and greenery. And Lada's.The film has so many technical flaws that I could not really follow the dialogues, but I could not fail to notice that one of the villains is a beautiful woman, as is one of the 'good guys'. One of the baddies is black, and of course, anyone vaguely Arabic needs to die. Every silly cliché on one heap.It is not as if all this was tongue-in-cheek. From watching this film I get the impression, that it was cobbled together by people who really had no clue, or could not face Mr Seagal and tell him that what they were making was rubbish.

jasmail99 Another typical (these days) monotone whispering, chubby stick up his ass walking wanna be action movie. The acting was lousy, the script was lousy and the cuts to stock military footage were lousy. The only good part was the brief gratuitous girl on girl scene and the many mistakes in the movie, which made it all the more laughable. My favorite is the scene where they cut the power to the electric fence. Who would ever put the control box on the outside of the fence? Or Segal stepping out of flying an SR-71 across the world wearing construction work boots? Or the nurse in the military hospital wearing a tight mini skirt? I could go on but you get the idea. If you want a movie that is mindless and maybe slightly more exciting than having jury duty...then this is the one for you!

Bjorn (ODDBear) 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.

unbrokenmetal When a stealth bomber with the latest technical secrets is stolen, a general must get his best pilot John (Steven Seagal) out of prison to bring it back. Fortunately, the plane is meanwhile hidden in Afghanistan where you can bomb anything anytime you like without any consequences (except the occasional reviewer's sarcasm). The 60 terrorists are even polite enough to attack one after another and not all at once, so it is easier for John to kill them. Remember, this is the same guy who got effortlessly arrested by 2 cops for fighting with shoplifters earlier on. Of course the movie provides a traitor who has to be defeated in a battle up in the sky, heroes never leave a show without that. Seagal may be miscast as a pilot; he was more convincing in the good old "my fist, your face" fight movies. "Flight of Fury" would probably have been better if it had a sense of humor, but even the ridiculous "girls only" scene during the raid tries to be serious. And they couldn't even resist to include something about saving the world from a biological weapon, absolutely unnecessary in my view.