"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFollowing the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.
In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.
Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).
The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **
\n
assistant\n0
\n"