O Homem Sombra

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.

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.

Steven Seagal made some good movies earlier back in his career such as UNDER SIEGE (1992) ABOVE THE LAW (1988) & MARKED FOR DEATH (1990) but that was a very long time ago.

Since his last Theatrical Flop, The Rapper's in Alcatraz nonsense that was HALF PAST DEAD (2002) - Seagal's career as been in the Straight- to-DVD doldrums and has starred in 19 Movies in 8 years to date, but it's a case of quantity rather than quality I'm afraid.

SHADOW MAN has Seagal playing an Intelligence Operative whose Daughter gets kidnapped and spends the rest of the movie trying to get her back, that's pretty much it, but SHADOW MAN has a needlessly confusing and overly complicated screenplay - There's far too many different sets of baddies (Cops,Americans,Romanian Mafia) and too many pointless scenes by half which add nothing to the story, it does become quite a chore to sit through.

The Film is poorly directed by Michael Keusch - who went on to direct another couple of Seagal starred stinkers in FLIGHT OF FURY & ATTACK FORCE.It's very disjointed,The Screenplay is woeful - Seagal co-wrote and co-produced it himself so has to take a lot of the blame here.

There's plenty of action, none of it very interesting and most of it poorly edited.

The Acting is pretty awful, but I've come to expect that in a Seagal Flick - What Oscar Nominated British Actress Imelda Staunton in doing appearing in such mindless trash I really don't know.

Filmed in Romania on the cheap - Not the worst Film I've ever seen,but Seagal DTV releases have become interchangeable, none are better or worse than the one before, but ALL are pretty dire - there hasn't been a really decent one since UNDER SIEGE 2, 15 years and 30 odd Films ago.

I used to be a sucker for his Flicks, buying every release, but this is the last one I paid my hard earned money to buy - Make of that what you will.

I was surprised to notice the Film is only 95 Minutes long, because it felt far far longer.

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.

The photography appeared to be foreign made and of poor quality. In many scenes Segal appeared passive and bored and just along for the ride. Overall it lacked the crispness of most of his prior films.

It appears that the shirt that Segal is wearing upon arrival at the taxi driver's apartment is not the one he was wearing in the taxi while on the way there.

The plot was difficult to follow and I found myself relying on the action scenes to maintain interest. There is an excellent body count if that is your bag, although some innocent people needlessly died at Segal's hands. He is usually for the underdog, but in this film he does not appear to care who he terminates.