Un aller pour l'enfer

This movie was horrible. But then again, this is Steven Seagal we're talking about here. I just love how movies have the "good guy" or in this case, the fat man with a ponytail, have the incredible ability to dodge AK47 machine gun fire from 20+ guys. One scene has Steven armed with a Colt 1911. O.k, so that guy has no more than 12 shots in a clip.... and Steven uses 20 and hits 20 guys armed with Ak47 machine guns. But here's the best part..... Steven is rolling on a handcart thats on the train tracks which is moving about 1 mph. This guy cannot act and never has been able to act. His emotions never change. Even in Hard to Kill, he managed to keep his scowl on when he was having a little special time with his naked wife. This movie is no different. He takes on a dozen guys, one at a time I might add, and always walks away the winner.

Even though Steven Seagal has made movies who are much worse than this, this is still far from being his best work. I wonder if the whole movie was made just for self-ironical reasons (remember, Seagal fortunately has a lot of self-irony). The main problem is that Seagal is too fat too be a real action-star right now. Some of the fights in this movie still are pretty cool, but there are just something that isn't there. Maybe it's because some of the fights are so overdone so that everyone know that it isn't Mr.Seagal doing most of it anyway? The worst part about the fighting is the roundhouse kicks. Even though they're rather cool, they're as far from the typical Seagal fighting style that it's possible to be. And you never see Steven's face when these are performed..........................

The story is standard, but that's totally OK. No one cares too much about that anyway in a movie like this. This is in fact one of Seagal's best movies after "Exit Wounds". That doesn't mean that this one is any good, because some of the others are pure garbage.

Steven Seagal movies exist in a pop culture vacuum. They cannot be judged against any other films in existence. They're such an acquired taste that to compare them to movies with other actors is almost pointless. In a sense, Seagal movies are very nearly critic-proof. What can I do, complain that Ticker just wasn't on the same level as Jaws?

Anyway, if you've seen pretty much any other direct-to-video Seagal venture lately, you know exactly what this one is all about- a distant and emotionless man with a shady history must take the law into his own hands and rescue/avenge his wife/daughter/Neopet. The movie is virtually indistinguishable from others he's released in the last few years.

Honestly, if you played this film alongside The Foreigner and Out For a Kill, you'd have one hell of a time telling them apart. All of the usual elements are there: bad acting/dialog, distracting music, and annoying editing. Jesus, the editing... has the slow-bullet effect been exhausted yet? Has anyone NOT used this in a movie? It's only used once or twice in Belly of the Beast, but it's played out to a ridiculous point. I'm still waiting for the day when technology will have advanced far enough to enable Seagal to smile or even laugh with the help of CGI.

You already know if you'll like this movie or not, unless in the case that you haven't seen a Seagal movie. If this is true for you, go and find Out for Justice, Above the Law, or Marked for Death. Any of these are far preferable to this monumental waste of time.

First things first, I love the classic Seagal movies. I own every one on DVD from Above the Law to Exit Wounds. Since then, Seagal hasn't made one good film. I couldn't believe that his output had gotten so bad, so I was researching his stv output on IMDb and trying to see which one was the best of the trash pile. Lots of hardcore Seagal fans seemed to like this one, so I rented it. What a forgettable mess. There are little glimmers of hope here and there, but overall this is garbage. If this is good compared to his other films of the past four years, he's really in trouble. The only other STV Seagal films I've seen are "The Patriot": not bad but boring, and "The Foreigner": terrible. Steven, what's up man? Instead of making 10 bad movies a year, make one good one. And, I'm sorry man, but lose some weight, too.

Continuing my plan to watch every Steven Seagal movie, I come to Belly Of The Beast (2003)

On a whole, it is actually a whole lot better than you'd expect. The plot is a bit confusing, there are some huge plot holes and the wore work is more than a tad silly at times.

This is the first time is Seagal looks bloated, and his close ups are mostly framed to cut out his chin and hairline

But he still looks like he can kick ass. His wardrobe is on the ridiculous side again but he does seem like he still cares (I think it was Evan who said it previously) even if he uses stunt doubles and is dubbed at times.

I didn't like how the right scenes were shot (especially nor the one in the market) clearly not Seagal doing most of it.

I really like the Buddhist monk who was Seagal's friend. He was awesome, a great sidekick for Seagal. I didn't like the ending for his character at all.

Director Siu-Tung Ching filmed most of the action scenes without the involvement of Seagal, opting to film his shots last, but conflict arose when Seagal insisted on filming his shots in a way that wouldn't accommodate the existing footage. Ching is said to have left the set, taking his stunt crew with him and welcoming Seagal to finish the scene by himself. This infuriated the producers, who convinced Seagal to go along with Ching's approach.

All in all, ridiculous and totally implausible, but a watchable dtv flick.