Espions dans l'ombre

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.

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.

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

The former CIA agent Jack Foster (Steven Seagal) travels to Bucharest with his daughter Amanda (Skye Bennett) and his father-in-law George (Michael Elwyn) to spend vacations in Romania. In the airport of Bucharest, Jack sees his daughter being kidnapped by the taxi driver Anya (Eva Pope) and the limousine of George exploding. He chases the taxi with the CIA agent Harry (Vincent Riotta) and he finds that different groups believe George gave him the research of a lethal virus. While trying to rescue his daughter, Jack is entwined in a network of traitors and criminals that are disputing the powerful biological weapon and he has to fight to survive.

"Shadow Man" is another messy and noisy movie of Steven Seagal. The screenplay is terrible with an awful development of the characters and the situation, and along the first fifteen, twenty minutes, the viewer does not know what is happening. The cast is above average, highlighting the awarded Imelda Staunton and Eva Pope, but unfortunately the story is not good. I found funny to see the character of Steven Seagal with a girlfriend (with a wonderful body) and having a romance with Anya, since it is unusual in his movies this type of situation. The locations in Bucharest are very beautiful and with a better screenplay, this film could have worked. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem Sombra" ("The Shadow Man")

I mights add upfront, that i am no Steven Seagal fan.

The movie is similar to all Steven Seagal movies. So if you don't mind that you never see "stevens" head/face in any stunt ( which includes anything with more action that jogging or crouching) nor worse effects then a 1950 movie "high speed" chase, then you might enjoy this movie.

if you hate to see slowly moving vehicles through a shaking camera (which somehow is supposed to make it look more action/speed loaded...) i suggest not to waste your time with it. If you hate flat dialogs (there a re a few "good" ones, but Steven manages to spoil them by reading them with no emotions nor ambition) then again, this movie should probably not to waste your time.

summery: Steven, if you are a good guy, which i hope, then you wont take this personal: please stop trying to be an actor. you are wasting peoples lifetime.