shakercoola
Seagal takes his slap-phooey to eastern Europe and France in this espionage thriller. A messy and incoherent plot ensues and it's difficult most of the time to even work out who are supposed to be the 'good guys' it's so protracted. For all the supposed intrigue it poses little because the villian keeps coming back in an astonishing wide plot hole. Mr. Seagal is passable as an old spy and he's able to deliver some martial arts manouevres but it's far from the finesse of his films of the late 1980s. The fast-motion, slow-motion camerawork is distracting as are other overhead shots. All in all, a film that could have ended 20 mins earlier and then 10 mins earlier and then 5 mins earlier, but all these were missed and we had an astonishing false note ending.
Maziun
After "Half past dead" comes a movie that was a nail to Seagal's coffin. Goodbye movie career. "The Foreigner" is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film. It was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature. God knows why , since it looks even more low budget than "Half past dead" and is even worse. At least "Half past dead" was laughable in some places and had some kind of plot (ripped off "The Rock", but still a plot).This one is incomprehensible . Seagal is a mysterious guy hired by mysterious guy to deliver mysterious package to another mysterious guy . Mysterious guys appear and try to stop him . Lots of mysteries , eh ? This is only thing I can say about the plot . I agree with the reviewer who wrote that the movie makers filmed the action scenes first then decided to put it together as a movie. The plot is nonsense. What is the deal with the title ? It's interesting for me that this movie was made in Poland and there are some known Polish actors in it (Przemyslaw Saleta , Miroslaw Zbrojewicz). It doesn't change the fact that the movie sucks . Seagal has done many terrible DTV films over the years and this is undoubtedly one of the worst.The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. The fight are so obviously edited that it makes head hurt. Shootouts are done in bad slow motion. The atmosphere feels absolutely miserable. There is one scene with exploding package that is so stupid , so bad I will never forget it.ARGHHHHH ! Why I'm wasting my time with writing about this piece of s*** ?! I give it 1/10 , because I can't give 0. Enough said.
paulkresearch-gen01
The most puzzling thing for me is trying to work out exactly who the makers of this film were aiming at. In all of Seagals's early films, seen I'm sure by everyone with an interest in the genre, one was treated to reasonably competent acting, a script which, for all its fantasy, was at least partly logical and convincing, and athletic, fast-moving action which kept the attention fixed. By now, in 'The Foreigner', all remnants of his athleticism gone, Seagal trudges through an admittedly meaningless story with a bored and indifferent manner: perhaps this must happen to any special agent who knows he has a charmed life and unbeatable fighting skills. This, however, is only part of what what ultimately drags these films, and Seagal's presence, down. In 'Above the Law','Under Siege', 'Under Siege 2', etc., although we knew he would win through, there was just that slight degree of uncertainty about the outcome which kept you on the edge of your seat during the action sequences. The opponents appeared evil and seriously menacing, since care and attention had been given to their character build-up, however slight, but this certainly added a raw immediacy and tension to the inevitable confrontation. Allowing opponents to be transient cardboard cut-outs, as in 'The Foreigner', destroys their credibility, and renders the confrontations, which should be gripping high-points, almost casual and unimportant, hence removing interest, excitement, and entertainment value. What upset me most about the film was seeing such a vastly-experienced and talented actor as Gary Raymond playing the part of Jared Olyphant.
disdressed12
i can't say i was really impressed with this Steven Seagal offering.i guess it was passably entertaining.i wasn't completely bored out of my skull.it's supposed to be an action/thriller,which is great.there's just one minor problem.there isn't a lot of action,and it's even less thrilling.really it's basically a genre movie.for me,this is the first time i have noticed Seagal use a stand in for some of his dialogue scenes. sometimes his character is shown in shadow or from behind or from a distance and it's clearly Seagal's stand in who also does some of the dialogue.this actually doesn't bother me,because to be honest,i thought the double actually had a better voice than Seagal does.anyway,that may have been the best part of the movie for me.anyway,i've seen worse movies.for me,The Foreigner is a 5/10
AD
