Code of Honor

Horrible acting, editing, cgi and everything else. Trash

This is definitely a Punisher rip-off, as fatboy Seagal is referred throughout the film as the "super vigilante". However most of Seagal's scenes are him sitting in a chair while the majority of the action is carried by his co-star. It's a typical roll for Seagal...ex military, expert in everything, never gets touched, ect. There is a predictable plot twist toward the end, but most likely you won't care by that point. Oh, and the CGI blood and gun flashes were cringe worthy. The film started off with potential, but quickly faded into another forgettable Steven Seagal movie.

CODE OF HONOR is the very latest in a series of star action vehicles for bloated and charisma-free Steven Seagal, the former great who has been making bad film after bad film for just under twenty years now. Bizarrely, this one's not been shot in Eastern Europe but Utah for a change, although ironically it's even worse than Seagal's previous Romanian and Bulgarian adventures.

The story sees Seagal as a high-tech vigilante who goes around taking down drug dealers and criminals with his sniper rifle. The police are on the case and so are various bad guys who want to take revenge for the slayings. What quickly becomes apparent is that Seagal is nothing more than a supporting player in his own movie. He gets little screen time and just one or two fight scenes which are laughably poor.

The film has plenty of cheesy CGI blood which looks even more ridiculous than that we saw in THE EXPENDABLES. Despite the violence it's a real bore to sit through with barely any plot, a distinct lack of characterisation, and irrelevant sub-plots. Craig Sheffer and James Russo are two of the tired looking actors who show up to pick up their pay and keep their heads down. The ridiculous climax is particularly poorly handled and leaves the viewer thinking "is that it?".

I know what your thinking. It's a Seagal movie so it has to be god awful, right? Well the concept of the movie was actually pretty cleaver. Most of the plot had to do with Seagal playing a punisher- like character, a soldier who while was overseas thought his family would be safe, but they end up getting killed in a gang related shooting. His head snaps and he begins a vigilante crusade to kill organize crime.

One of the things that makes this an...interesting Seagal picture is that, technically Seagal is playing the Antagonist. He thinks he's doing the right thing, but the cops this movie really focus on are assigned to take him down.

That's another reason why this could have been a good Seagal movie, he's barely in it. Most of Seagal's scenes look like they were inserted after the movie was finished. It was like the filmmakers made a bad movie and thought they could make it better by finding the money to hire Seagal, film him saying some corny stuff and doing his once bad ass but now cheesy Akido movies, and edit it into the rest of the movie.

Code of Honor could have done for Seagal what JVCD did for Van Damme (not that it did so much), but unfortunately the film making looked very amateurish even for a Straight-to-Video film. It is a Seagal film, but I do expect better quality in sound and visual effect than what I got.

Even though you can see it coming before it does, the movie has a pretty decent plot twist that made it interesting, but it does not sit well because of all the really bad acting (and I'm not even talking about Seagal)

It had potential, but overall it's not even worth it to watch to make fun of Steven Seagal. Skip it.

Ugh. It's a foregone conclusion that Seagal will never make anything again that lives up to his heyday in the 80's and 90's, but at least his DTV work up to this point had been quirkily interesting. As Seagal has aged and grown more portly, he's done less hand-to-hand combat and relied more on guns and knives, but the new trend seems to be that he barely appears in movies where he has the top billing. SNIPER: SPECIAL OPS was guilty of this, but at least that one had the good sense to be on the short and simple side. CODE OF HONOR is, quite frankly, one of the most cynical and shoddy pieces of work (and I use the term loosely) to ever have Seagal's name slapped onto it. Here, he plays Colonel Robert Sikes, a Punisher-like character who acts as a vigilante in his city to clean up crime. On his trail is a former protégé/friend who is trying to bring him in along with the help of the police. And, for some reason, there is a sleazy news team who follow them around trying to get a good story. So, you have elements of THE PUNISHER, SURVIVOR (the generic Pierce Brosnan movie from last year), and NIGHTCRAWLER, with none of the nuance or sophistication of each (at least the first and last ones). There are no characters with significant screen time to root for, as government, the police, and news media are all painted in such a bad way. Even Seagal who normally is likable, if stoic, is stuck playing a character who straight up murders people. Of course, I was with the movie for about two-thirds of it because it was kind of entertaining in a bad way. However, a third act plot twist completely ruined the film for me. It's like the filmmakers/screenwriter were like, "Just kidding!" It honestly angered me a little bit, making the last half hour or so a real chore to get through. As for the action, which is what most people will care about, there is a decent amount of it although it's mostly shootouts and some knife-fighting. Seagal gets very little to do, and I was disappointed here just like with SNIPER: SPECIAL OPS. The opening scene was probably the best, and there was a couple short fight scenes towards the end that partially made up for how dismal the rest of the film was. Seagal also gets one of his trademark speeches about halfway through, although the politics of it rubbed me the wrong way. Ultimately, I feel like I've been tested for the last time as a Seagal fan. These last two films were a whole new level of lazy, and I don't know if I can take it anymore. CODE OF HONOR is for Seagal fans only, and even then I'd still be cautious