A Good Man (2014)

There is something very creepy about Mr Segal's character being attracted to the young lead actresses character and she with him. One is 64 and the other is 29. I know it can happen but it is just unbelievable as portrayed in this film, and once there is one daft strand, the rest of the film falls and fails. This could have been a half decent film but the dialogue is poor, the acting wooden and the action scenes poor. The goodies recover from violent beatings far too easily, and the baddies always lose quickly. Why are the baddies always such poor shots. I am a fan of Mr Seagal but this film lets him down, as a few others have and I just wish he would stop making them.

First, the credits went on so long I almost fell asleep.This movie was so cliché it was laughable, but it was not funny, just sad.They kept using the trick of shooting some bad guy, and they did it a lot, and the guy would fall against the wall where they was already a big splatter of blood, red paint, behind him. In other words cheap effects.Seagal himself, it was hard to figure out exactly what he was or where he was coming from as a character. He spoke in a ghetto dialect so it was kind of hard to figure out if he was supposed to be a brother or what.The military operations they portray were also laughable as you have your spotters and agents on the ground telling control what to do, but control decides to launch a missile anyway, with their men in the target area.Then, in almost everything else this movie is so over to the top violence. In one scene the bad buy gang runs down a mark who they are running a protection racket on, who says he paid, and they literally punch, kick, throw, slam him until if this was a real scene he would be dead, i.e. unable to pay or ever pay.This movie is just unbearable, in fact I think it is kind of psychologically toxic and I would stay away from anyone who says they like this movie. Maybe report them to the FBI because they probably have very violent tendencies and something wring with them psychologically. This movie really has no redeeming qualities, and not even good effects.Seagal's goatee even seems cheap and fake. Very sad.

It's fun to be a fan of Steven Seagal these days. I can see him espousing his odd political philosophies on television, I can go see him playing the blues in concert, and finally, I can properly enjoy his movies again. Steven's film output for the last seven years has been uneven: for every URBAN JUSTICE getting my hopes up, there was an AGAINST THE DARK knocking 'em back down again, but things seem to be leveling out now. For the longest time, I wasn't happy that Keoni Waxman had become Seagal's apparent director of choice, but their experience together is now paying off in their having made two back-to-back action vehicles that I really enjoy. A GOOD MAN is a lot like the Seagal/Waxman collaboration that came before it, FORCE OF EXECUTION, and if you weren't a fan of that one, there's a good chance you won't like this one...but personally, I had a great time with it.The story: An ex-Special Forces soldier (Seagal) on a quest of vengeance in Bucharest becomes caught up in a splintered family's troubles with the Russian and Chinese mafia.Part of the reason for the upturn in quality of Seagal's movies is his opportunity/willingness to work alongside performers who can properly bolster his pictures. Recently, these have included Steve Austin, Ving Rhames, Danny Trejo, and Bren Foster, and now, he's got top character actor Tzi Ma and martial arts stud Victor Webster on his side. Ironically, one of the biggest overall weaknesses of the film is its dramatic content, with way too many European performers phonetically delivering English dialogue, but Ma and Webster soundly anchor the movie as actors. They even have good chemistry with Seagal, who rumbles his lines but nonetheless seems pretty enthusiastic to be delivering some pompously cool phrases (e.g. "Is this how you want to go out? A man of war, a son of Guang Gong, like this? Killing a child? This is not you").Waxman's screenplay is at least a step above the average for the direct-to-video realm. There's a bit too much backstory for me and one of those uncomfortable endings that seem to indulge the lead star more than it furthers the story, but there's also some definite intrigue and noticeable character development. I like that it fully establishes most of its main stars before plunging them into action, and as such, the film takes its time getting to the brunt of its adrenaline scenes. Additionally, the production values are pretty nice. There are very few "avid farts" (as Vern would call them) and none of the technical failures you tend to get with lower-budget flicks. What's most apparent for longtime fans is Seagal's minimal reliance on stunt doubles and stand-ins. Though there is some apparent doubling in one of Steven's fights, I think that this film marks the first time in many years that we can be certain we're seeing the back of the real Steven Seagal's head, not that of a hastily-inserted double. It's a weird thing to celebrate, but the cinematography benefits from Seagal apparently being on the set more and appearing in a lot of the second unit shots.Equally or more important than any of that is, of course, the action content. In short, I was very pleased with what I saw. Seagal's last film boasted no less than ten full fight scenes, and A GOOD MAN is close behind with nine, not counting the quick skirmishes. Steven claims four of these brawls and Victor Webster takes five. Seagal isn't slouching: despite the unwelcome presence of a double in one of the battles, he's in swell form and delivers quick, brutal martial arts, unhampered by excess editing. He regularly draws a short sword. And like Bren Foster one movie ago, Victor Webster claims the more elaborate fights, but I think Webster's style of fighting is better suited to a Steven Seagal feature than Bren's: he's a fighter, not an acrobat, and as a result, his brawls are more gritty and less pretty...though they're still a lot of fun and he still finds time to wield a couple mêlée weapons.I'm not sure whether or not the "Alexander" that Seagal plays here is the same he played in FORCE OF EXECUTION, but if this persona helps generate this strong of an action movie, I'll be hoping for a trilogy. Like I said before, what I value in a Seagal flick doesn't seem to always match what other reviewers want to see, but I can wholeheartedly award these four stars and fully recommend the film based on the strength of its action scenes, quality of its storyline, and the presence of its lead star. Buy it!

After his special ops career ends in disaster, Alexander goes off the radar and attempts to lead a quiet life as a handyman at an apartment complex. But when one of his tenants and her family fall foul of a Russian gangster, Alexander is dragged into a war between rival Chinese and Russian gangs.This forces him to not only defend the family, but brings him face to face with a long forgotten enemy......After seeing the debacle that was Maximum Conviction, it took me maximum conviction to see another film starring Seagal. I've always been a fan, but in the last ten years, he has really made some terrible movies, like Attack Force, and Against The Dark.Here we have a meat and potatoes action movie, that is your typical straight to DVD fodder. It's set somewhere in Eastern Europe to keep the budget low, and even though Seagal is the main draw, he is a secondary character in the arc of the story.The story and narrative surrounds a guy whose family are under the power of the Russian mafia, and this is where the film raises similarities to the first Taken movie. We discover its all about human trafficking, and mild mannered handyman Seagal won't stand for it, so he and his stunt double go all out for the attack.And here lies the main problem, Seagal hasn't aged well, and no matter how good he is at twisting arms, you cannot help but thinking he has wondered in from the ZZ Topp movie, he looks awful, and it's totally obvious with the editing and cuts, he doesn't perform in any of his fight scenes, which is the main draw for the film, it's certainly not the story, or production value.But still, its the best thing he's done in five years, and it still gives one hope that he has that one last action vehicle in him.But the bloke is pushing 60, and he's looking more and more bloated.....