Ruslan

Recently, I was reading a review of another Steven Seagal movie, and in it the reviewer commented to the effect that it was just the same as his other movies. Watching "Driven To Kill", I got the same feeling. Oh sure, there are a few minor changes, like making Seagal a Russian (which leads to some unintentional hilarity, hearing Seagal's wheezy and pause-filled whisper doing a bogus accent.) But with the rest of the movie, you will see nothing new. Seagal is still fat, and he continues to wear heavy coats to mask his weight, and is mostly filmed from the chest up. (There is a very funny moment when we see him run for several seconds - he can barely do it.) It should probably come as no surprise that there aren't that many martial arts moments here compared to his early films, and they are rapidly edited and filled with shots of what appear to be doubles doing his work. The gun battle scenes are also equally hard to make out as well. The general production values (cinematography, set decoration, etc.) are passable, and that's about all that's positive I can say about this.

Not been able to see a preview before I saw this made me a little worried, but I thought, what the hell? Seagal rules. I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. The only flaw was that at times I couldn't understand Seagal. It also appeared as if he did most/all of his fighting and that was nice. It was a pretty good story. It's was your standard revenge flick. It's nice to see Seagal go after bad guys that messed with his family. It was like Urban Justice in a way. I was glad it wasn't that European package crap or conspiracy from the early 90's or 2000's. This was way better than Kill Switch and of course that vampire crap. But not as good as Pistol Whipped.

This is easily one of Seagal's better DTV efforts. Its on a par with Urban Justice but not as good as Belly of the Beast. To compare it to his earlier movies would be unfair as he makes much smaller budget movies these days. First off if you are a veteran of Seagal films of the last ten or so years you can tell if he cares about the movie or not and he certainly seems to be putting a bit of effort into this one. No body doubles of bad dubbing in this which is good. The story is very generic, a basic revenge movie. Not unlike the movies Charles Bronson made when he was a similar age to Seagal now. The action scenes are well done with some good shoot outs and fist and knife fights. The acting is a little hit and miss although the bad guy who will be familiar to people who seen the awful Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull was very good. So worth a rent on a Friday night but i really wish Hollywood would give Seagal another big budget action movie. Hell lets get another Under Siege movie out before its too late.

"Driven to Kill" (originally, and more appropriately, titled "Ruslan") is one of the best Steven Seagal flicks in a long time. Now, after total crap like "Kill Switch" and "Against the Dark," almost anything in focus would seem good. But D2K actually has a lot to recommend it--it has a strong, engaged bada$$ performance by Seagal, one with no obvious body/stunt doubles or voice dubbing, a straightforward story, and the kind of action you'd expect. The direction, while not splashy, is competent (a rarity for recent Seagal flicks).

Now, to be honest, it would take a few more million dollars, a lot of retakes, some recasting of supporting roles, and a car chase or two to make this into a theatrical action-exploitation flick along the lines of "Taken." But for a DTV movie Driven to Kill is actually quite exceptional. And for a Seagal DTV this is up there near the top of the heap with Urban Justice and better than Pistol Whipped. It reminds me of a Charles Bronson low budget mid-80s movie like Murphy's Law. However, the shortcomings that affect all direct to video movies with their short shooting schedules and low budgets also brings D2K down a bit as well. The biggest problem is that about half of the supporting performances are embarrassingly lame--the female police officer and the oily lawyer in particular. And there were also some really strange choices made for the film's score. Upbeat Russian folk music during dramatic and violent beatdowns? Seems odd to me. In fact, sometimes the music behind the action is so ill-fitting that it seems like we're listening to a placeholder score that the filmmakers intended to replace. They might as well have said "hey, get that old polka album--we'll use that music for the part where Ruslan cracks the guy's neck!"

But, despite these flaws, I really enjoyed D2K. It has a small scale old school action vibe that I could get into and little to none of the unintentionally comedic incompetence we have come to expect from Seagal's output over the past decade.

Forget is enormous shape, the man can still kick your ass. Yes, he could afford loosing weights, I will give you that it would make him more credible. Other then that, Seagal is offering good fight scenes. Plus for once, he is not using any double to cover his own stunts. He demonstrated martial arts skills. Not sure why using the Russian background for the story but it is good to see him not done!!!

The movie is good entertainment, nothing more, nothing less but looking at his past few awful movies, he definitely deserves a 10!! No more cliché then the usual, Seagal is in control. This is best JOB since ''Urban Justice''. Hopefully, the next movie will be at least as good as this.