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.
drabzz-589-749236
Are all movie directors idiots? If a guy throws a hand grenade it goes off as if it was a four gallon air-fuel incendiary with a 12 foot fireball. It all has to be huge plumes of fire and smoke. So childishly theatrical. I wish directors would treat their audiences with more respect and assume we actually have intelligence. It's not just low-budget plank- fests like this that do it either; if anything it's the bigger the budget the bigger the explosions. A bit of reality might work, try it for a change.I really like and respect Sensei Seagal, but I can see he is struggling with this lame-ass script. I guess he has bills to pay like me.
TheLittleSongbird
I don't think Flight of Fury is his very worst, I think Out for a Kill and Submerged are worse, but for me it is down there. Seagal gives one of his laziest and phoned-in performances here, but fortunately for him he isn't the only bad thing about Flight of Fury, next to nothing works. The photography and editing looks cheap, as does the stock footage, while the direction is next to non-existent. The action is tedious, the characters indifferent, the dialogue atrocious, the story predictable and full of holes, the pace pedantic and sluggish and absolutely nobody gives a good, let alone credible, performance in the cast. All in all, a mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Colorado1
Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!
AD
