Shadow Man

It's fairly obvious to see, to non fans, that Steven Seagal over the last few years has seen a decline in film quality, since Exit Wounds, which itself briefly reversed a falling trend in the big guys, post Under Siege works. By the time Wound's came out Seagal hadn't actually done all that many films, 11 in all, including Executive Decision which was merely a cameo for Steven. Since wound's though he's so far done another 13, shot and in the can awaiting release. Including another 3 awaiting release, and several potentials yet to be shot. So in the last 5 years his career has shot up in terms of output. Unfortunately the sheer amount of films, has seen a decline in quality. Furthermore Seagal has put on a lot of weight and is no longer looking the part, in the way he used to. Similarly trends have emerged such as voice dubbing, stand ins, stunt doubles and a real lack of enthusiasm, which is remarkable considering Seagal's wooden demeanour has been in question from critics since his glory days, but in some recent films he's nearly asleep. Seagal films these days, ridiculously, are rated on his participation in fight scenes, his own dialogue, etc, which in a critical standpoint is really no way to rate a movie. However in that respect this film is good in one respect: Seagal kicks ass! He does all his own fights, aside from an opening fight probably needlessly added in post production using his double, as naturally Seagal shoots these things and moves on to other things.

Shadow Man though marks an upturn in quality for Seagal. In most respects it's his typical DTV dreck, but this film at least has Seagal half interested and also has a good pace. At least Seagal is IN the movie. Some of his previous DTV films have seen him actually only appear in about 75% of the film (in Mercenary Seagal doesn't even properly appear until 12 minutes in.). What we have in Shadow Man is Seagal in most scenes, albeit with the use of a stand in for a lot of reverse shots and far off shots. But this is favourable to him disappearing for huge gaps, and since he's the main draw some films where Seagal disappears from proceedings, suffer immensely (MFJ, Black Dawn). Seagal also does his own fights, and what's more he has a lot of action in this film. Shadow Man does feature some vintage Seagal moments, including a great fight against a group of Russian gangsters. Also this has a classically violent climax worthy of the Seagal of old. Seagal too is ably supported by a good cast, something missing in some of his previous films. Alex Ferns, Imelda Staunton (surprisingly) and the lovely Eva Pope, all appear to give fine support.

The plot is quite simple but as usual in some of these movies the storytelling is poor, with Seagal travelling from scene to scene with little indication as to why. There is no cohesion in the narrative but at the same time Seagal is essentially going from action scene to action scene and as such the pace is brisk. Shadow Man at least isn't a trial to sit through like his last few films were, which suffered terribly from dull patches. There's enough carnage, bone breaking and car chases to keep things moving briskly. Essentially this film gets by on the nostalgic value with some classic Seagal moments that seem vintage. Some moments bring a sudden breezy memory from his glory days, while you still of course acknowledge that these are not nearly as well made as say Nico or Under Siege. It's all competently done though from the crew, and Barry Taylor in particular produces a decent musical score that although mimicking John Powell's Bourne scores, is simple and effective. At the same time director Michael Keucsh is okay. It seems that there could be a brighter next year or so for Seagal fans as he's got another 2 films with more or less the same crew, working with Keusch both times. However the real turning point is likely to be Prince Of Pistol's which seems to at least have Seagal's undivided interest and enthusiasm. Anyway Shadow Man is by no means a very good film, but it is still pretty good fun. **1/2

Steven Seagal's straight-to-DVD releases really can't be judged by the usual standards, because then you'd have to give them all a zero and that would be depressing. They have their own set of standards, so here goes. How many obvious doubles do we get this time? Surprisingly few, but then again, this movie barely contains any martial arts. All Seagal has to do is pull the trigger a bajillion times. Still, it's refreshing to see him do action scenes where he doesn't mysteriously lose or gain 80 pounds with every new shot. Which people who used to be in actual movies embarrass themselves alongside Seagal? There's Imelda Staunton in a very minor role, but for the most part these are complete unknowns we don't have to feel bad for. How moronic does the plot get? Not very, it's just pretty confusing. Do we really need twenty-five different sets of bad guys when you know Seagal is just going to kill them all in the end? Just have one really big crime organisation chase him, same result but way less filler. Overall "Shadow Man" isn't nearly the worst I've seen of him though, this is one of those recent ones that are actually sorta entertaining. And you even understand what Seagal is saying in this one, even if doesn't matter much. If it's in the bargain bin, there are worse ways to spend a dollar.

Steven Seagal made some good movies earlier back in his career such as UNDER SIEGE (1992) ABOVE THE LAW (1988) & MARKED FOR DEATH (1990) but that was a very long time ago.

Since his last Theatrical Flop, The Rapper's in Alcatraz nonsense that was HALF PAST DEAD (2002) - Seagal's career as been in the Straight- to-DVD doldrums and has starred in 19 Movies in 8 years to date, but it's a case of quantity rather than quality I'm afraid.

SHADOW MAN has Seagal playing an Intelligence Operative whose Daughter gets kidnapped and spends the rest of the movie trying to get her back, that's pretty much it, but SHADOW MAN has a needlessly confusing and overly complicated screenplay - There's far too many different sets of baddies (Cops,Americans,Romanian Mafia) and too many pointless scenes by half which add nothing to the story, it does become quite a chore to sit through.

The Film is poorly directed by Michael Keusch - who went on to direct another couple of Seagal starred stinkers in FLIGHT OF FURY & ATTACK FORCE.It's very disjointed,The Screenplay is woeful - Seagal co-wrote and co-produced it himself so has to take a lot of the blame here.

There's plenty of action, none of it very interesting and most of it poorly edited.

The Acting is pretty awful, but I've come to expect that in a Seagal Flick - What Oscar Nominated British Actress Imelda Staunton in doing appearing in such mindless trash I really don't know.

Filmed in Romania on the cheap - Not the worst Film I've ever seen,but Seagal DTV releases have become interchangeable, none are better or worse than the one before, but ALL are pretty dire - there hasn't been a really decent one since UNDER SIEGE 2, 15 years and 30 odd Films ago.

I used to be a sucker for his Flicks, buying every release, but this is the last one I paid my hard earned money to buy - Make of that what you will.

I was surprised to notice the Film is only 95 Minutes long, because it felt far far longer.

I always wonder if Steven Seagal reads the forums here.I think he does as his latest,Shadowman is actually an entertaining action movie that does not mock(most of the time)or insult the audiences Intelligence. Did I just say that?The story is another matter.

Yes he is Jack foster.Not a bad name this time.He is yet another CIA agent.Yes his daughter has been kidnapped by shady types.All in a eastern European area.What is a shadow man to do but kick some ass.

Whats different here is that Seagal actually tries and succeeds in giving a decent turn here.He does most of his own fights.Gone is the raspy voice and Dubbing.The stunt doubles are kept to a minimum.He gets into quite a few scraps here that recall his early days glory.

The only bad thing is they needed to get some better actors to back him up.With the exception of Eva Pope most of the Bad guys are what else?Clichés.I do remember when the villains were written good even for low-budget movies.

The other problem is the most common plaguing DTV movies today.The Badly-done CGI.Its the same problem in the Detonator and Second in command.

Director Michael Kunesch Keeps the movie rolling,gives it a nice look,but winds up a little uneven.He is the best since Anothony Hickox though.Production values are good.

Its a few notches above Seagals latest work which was depressing me.What is good to see is that Seagal has woken up to the fact that we want the old-time Seagal action.

The last time I saw Seagal, was in Exit Wounds. He'd really packed on the pounds since his glory days, but then I watched this film, during an action man rampage (Icidentally, Dolph Lundgren's The Russian Specialist was my clear winner) and boy was Seagal looking fat, old and horribly sweaty.

Shadow Man has no plot to speak of, it's just a bunch of guys who turn up to get beaten up by Steven Seagal. The film is poor. Seagal as well is half asleep, he's awful here. It was actually saddening to see once one of my idol's (I took up Aikido cause of him) looking so unwell. It's my estimation that he's probably done a few too many films past his prime, a bit like Brando, without the talent.

Shadow Man has in its favour some nifty, and violent action, but not nearly enough of it, to overcome the boredom elsewhere.