Force of Execution

I am not a huge fan of Steven Seagal nor a detractor. As I pointed out in the reviews for the other movies I saw with him, there are times when he makes enjoyable films and times where his movies are quite awful (such as PISTOL WHIPPED). And this sadly falls in the second category despite I wanted to like it.

Crime lord John Alexander (Seagal) has a good life until his best man Roman Hurst fails in a heist that should have been easier for him. Alexander saves him but paralyses his hands; he'll need him again tho when he discovers that assassin Iceman (Ving Rhames) wants to kill him.

This film has all the ingredients for a bad Steven Seagal movie; zero coherent plot, bad action scenes as Seagal has become fat in recent years and it's very noticeable and performances and timing duller than dust! Towards the end I was tempted to turn it off, and when this happens to me it's a bad sign. And it's hard to believe that Ving Rhames did such a movie considering the fact that he still does some great movies like the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE ones.

I won't recommend it to anyone, perhaps only to the die-hard fans of Steven Seagal who try to watch all his movies.

I've looked at a lot of reviews for 'Force of Execution' and they would have you believe that it's an absolute classic. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting Shakespeare. I knew I'd be letting myself in for a B-movie with stars from yesteryear, however, all I got was a pretty sub-standard affair.

The story is all over the place with one scene after the next depicting one gangland hit after the next. Steven Segal phones in his performance and Ving Rhames just grunts all the way through it (and don't get me started on his 'fighting abilities'!).

In short, this story is a mess. The settings chop and change from one location to another, never really linking together the overall tale, let alone leaving any space for the audience to care about any of the one-dimensional characters.

Yes, I know it's a B-movie, but I was hoping for it to be entertaining. Sadly, this one's better left off everyone concerned's C.V.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

I can't agree more with the review from this user Mike S from NY. He summarized everything quite well. Just when I thought I've seen the worst of Steven Seagal throughout the years, he shocked me again with this "masterpiece(of-crap)". He should not even call himself an actor or martial artist.

It's amazing that Seagal can get this low at the end of his career. Come-on? Haven't you made enough money in these many years to stop insulting viewers with this kind of trash?

What more shocking to me was who could finance this kind of movie and hope for a return for their money? Why don't you start watching some of the Korean movies? I won't be surprised that they will take a huge bite out of Hollywood market-share in the future.

Movies like this should never be made in the first place. It is absolutely garbage.

Seagal's best days are now far behind him, but he's made a niche for himself in the DTV market. FORCE OF EXECUTION, while not one of the better movies he's made, is at least watchable and has some good action to boot. This time around, Seagal is Alexander, a crime boss with a past in government special ops. He runs a southwestern town with an iron fist, to be sure, but backed up with a code of honor. Martial artist Bren Foster plays Hurst, Alexander's chief hit-man and a protégé of sorts. They are joined in the cast by Ving Rhames, an up-and-coming gangster and Danny Trejo as a bar owner with a few tricks up his sleeve. The event that sets the plot in motion is a hit that goes bad, resulting in Hurst's "retirement," and the severe injury of his hands. Meanwhile, Iceman (Rhames) maneuvers around Alexander in order to take control of his territory, climaxing in a showdown between the two gangs. First, the good parts. Seagal is playing a type of character that he doesn't usually play, an antihero of sorts in a movie populated solely with lowlifes. There is also some decent martial arts on display, but mostly from Bren Foster. Seagal is relegated to doing his usual chops and take-downs when he isn't just using firearms. Finally, Ving Rhames gives the best performance in the movie as Iceman, lending credibility to his role as a gangster and delivering some great improvised dialogue. The rest is mediocre at best. The basic plot is paper thin, and not enough time is spent developing the three main characters. Most of the dialogue scenes are corny discussions about honor and respect, tough talking without any purpose other than to make the characters seem tougher. As far as the technical aspects go, director Keoni Waxman opts for the currently in-vogue shaky-cam, and some of the editing choices obscure the action. While this was most likely to conceal stunt doubles in some shots, it makes the action hard to follow in places, especially with Seagal. Fortunately for Bren Foster, they pulled back the camera a little bit so you can see him work. Overall this should be enough to placate Seagal fans, but everyone else should just stay away.

Continuing my plan to watch every Steven Seagal movie in order, i come to Force of Execution (2013)

When I seen the cast I hoped for so much more. Ving Rhames is much too fine of an actor to be trapped in such rubbish, Danny Trejo also has a role as a cook. It had the potential to at least work out as an enjoyable, fun, simple, straightforward action flick, as the plot is surprisingly ok, but it is handled so badly, that it's hard to be interested, let alone care. In fact, it is really hard to care for any of the characters in this, since none of them are sympathetic enough (I think it is Bren Foster's Hurst we are meant to root for) and they are not really given a decent enough background. Apathy is the worst thing you want your audience to feel.

For his part, Seagal (now sporting the jet black goatee) is the head of a New Mexico criminal empire, but because he is Seagal, he has to be an ex something, so he is an ex government agent with high level military training!! He plays the kind of underworld boss that spouts zen wisdom, but will still have his protegé beaten to within an inch of his life. Once again, Seagal had to be the omnipotent leader, and he had to be a good guy despite being a crime boss, and he couldn't let anyone, especially not Bren Foster, get over on him, even if he was playing a bad guy.

There isn't really much more to say heare.