Invictus

Contrary to what Mr. Van Damme says in the "Making of In Hell" (DVD), this was not his best film. The action was adequate, the best technique being an awkward Ippon Seio thrown by the initial antagonist in the film.

I recognize that this film seeks to be more of a drama than an action film. Frankly, I think that it did not go far enough. It was stuck between two genres. What makes this film intriguing is the appearance of former new York Giants running back Lawrence Taylor (LT). He does a splendid job, especially considering that he is not a professional actor.

Van Damme puts forth a good effort in trying to delve into the dark realms of his character's psyche. I will concede that the scenes is isolation with the moth bouncing in and out of the light was a touch of genius. I also applaud Van Damme's effort to try something new.

My advice to Mr. Van Damme is to keep on trying to push the boundaries of the martial arts genre. I am his biggest fan, and I like seeing him try new things. However, alongside this new found pursuit, I would strongly suggest he aim for another Hollywood "blockbuster". His next movie should aim to hit theatres big time. He needs the large budget and a strong supporting cast. He needs to hit it big again. There is nothing wrong with films that go straight to video/dvd, but I feel that he needs to redeem himself with a film that will hit a larger viewing audience. He deserves the adulation of the common movie-goer, if only just somewhat. Foe us specialists in this genre, it will nice to see him assert himself again.

I was shocked to see how utterly poor this film was. I am huge fan of Steven Seagal and martial arts films in general. The plot was very hard to follow: he is in France, then Germany, Poland, back to Germany, then back to Poland, then to Norway (!). What in blue blazes in going on?

The action is very stale. There are way too many gun battles, which do not really become Mr. Seagal. His success has been through showing the audience his Aikido skills: they suit his personality so well. There are a few instances in which he uses those skills, but the context just isn't there. Perhaps the problem is that Seagal is playing the character of an "assassin" or "bad guy for hire". His fortee is is playing a police officer in an American urban environment.

My next plaint is against the director of this film. There are far too many camera techniques right before Seagal or the main Bad Guy (Benoit) shoot someone. What is with that? I am no expert in cinematography or film (as a technical subject), but these techniques are as outdated as star wipes. They are simply not done any more.

I advise Mr. Seagal to stick with what he does best. This is not to say he should be predictable, but that he should be creative within a framework that most suits his abilities.