MovieChat Forums > Out for Justice (1991) Discussion > Marked for Death VS Out for Justice

Marked for Death VS Out for Justice


1) which ones do you think is more violent 2) which one do you think is better

reply

1."Marked for Death" is more violent.

2.Marked for Death wins (by a hair).

Screwface is a more intimidating and mysterious villain than Richie. Seagal has more at stake in "MfD" than "OfJ".

Both movies are incredible.

Seagal is still the undisputed American action/martial arts King.


"The thing is Bob, its not that I'm lazy, its that I just don't care" -Peter



reply

Marked for death is more violent and has more fight scenes. However,..out for justice is funnier. Funnier lines and charachters,..and i love the bar fight scene, and the scene at the end where he cains that guy with multiple punches, and a corkscrew if i remember correctly. I say a tie. " Hope there werent triplets" (Marked for death)

reply

Both good but I like Out For Justice better.

reply

How is Seagal the undisputed king of martial arts? How is Aikido even a viable martial art? Aikido is never ever used in mixed martial arts and truth be told you're going to get mauled using Aikido against someone reasonably versed in Muay Thai, JuiJitsu, Judo, etc. etc.

Aikido is all leverage, very ineffective as far as striking is concerned. Notice how in all of Seagals movies he provokes (or has to provoke) someone to attacking him if he's going to go hand-to-hand with them; aside that is from that one dude he punched in the gut in Hard to Kill

reply


How is Seagal the undisputed king of martial arts? How is Aikido even a viable martial art? Aikido is never ever used in mixed martial arts and truth be told you're going to get mauled using Aikido against someone reasonably versed in Muay Thai, JuiJitsu, Judo, etc. etc.....previous poster.

To each their own. Don't let that octagon stuff fool you. Aikido was originally not meant to have a sport application. And the MMA of today is not what it was in the 1990's. Actually what you see today is a result of state athletic commissions applying rules to MMA competitions about 10-12 years ago. UFC was once any combination of fighters with different styles fighting anything goes. Only rule no biting and gouging etc. No protective gear.Maybe a mouthpiece. You used to have odd pairings like Shotokan vs a boxer etc. Also eventually the wrestlers and Brazilian Ju Jitsu guys stole the show. Sometimes boring us to death for a half an hour in a stale mate. This is what I seen in watching the old UFC vids. Could be different in your eyes.




reply

LOL THANK YOU!

I'm glad someone finally told it like it is when it comes to MMA.

It's boring most times and the rules are all designed to favor grapplers/wrestlers.

We have to suffer through Joe Rogan and his BJJ fanboys constantly dogging every other martial arts that isn't BJJ or Greco Roman wrestling, when in reality it's not the style that matters but the fighter.

We've seen plenty of BJJ guys get wrecked. We've seen plenty of brawlers clean house (Tank Abbott anyone?) and we've seen plenty of kickboxers absolutely decimate (Maurice Smith ring a bell?). It's anyone's game based on their skill and technique. Sadly Dana White and his ground-pounder legion love to tout American MMA as some sort of fighting system savior. It's just silly.

I agree that Akido is not very effective in a tournament scene but when you see it applied in confrontations like the ones in Out for Justice and Above the Law, you can see how it has practical applications for wrecking someone in self defense.


reply

Also eventually the wrestlers and Brazilian Ju Jitsu guys stole the show. Sometimes boring us to death for a half an hour in a stale mate. This is what I seen in watching the old UFC vids. Could be different in your eyes.


When I was in college in the mid-90s, the local video store had a bunch of UFC tapes for sale cheap, and I think that I watched at least 20 or so. Royce Gracie was one of the most dominant that there was, but I remember watching 20-25 minute matches with him on his back in the guard position, and the person on top could never get enough leverage to strike. I remember watching a 30 minute match with Tank Abbot on his stomach and Dan Severn throwing punches at the back of his head.

Most real fights are boring as all getout, especially for people who watch a lot of pro wrestling. But I have seen some of the more recent fights, and they do stay on their feet longer than they used to.

reply

IMHO Out for Justice is more violent, because in Marked for Death I think the violence is more "justified". I mean in Out for Justice, Seagal is a real bastard, just think of the bar scene in the beginning. He's really really violent towards people that don't act like they want to kill/harm him.

Omae wa mo shinderu

reply

Mmm.

1 - Seagal *beep* Scerwface up pretty good it MFD's final showdown... Oh, and he shoots a woman in the first five minutes or so...

2 - OFJ is definitely funnier because of how ridiculous the situations/dialogues are.

But MFD, while having its bad/cheesy moments, seems a bit more "legit".

It is a rare entry in the Seagal librairy in the sense that he's not "quite" playing Steven Seagal (aka walking around acting cool, beating up bad guys for questionable reasons and never getting hit). Gotta give it points for that.

reply

[deleted]

Both equally violent in their uncut forms I'd say.

reply

I think Marked wins for violence, but Out for Justice is the better film. Although I do enjoy me a Seagal film of any kind usually. There are several I haven't seen though in the straight to video category.

"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

reply

[deleted]

1.Out For Justice
2.Marked For Death

reply

Marked For Death is an all around better movie. More entertaining...more interesting characters, better fight scenes, cool car chase and shootouts. I only saw Out For Justice twice. It seemed worse after the first viewing. Marked For Death I've seen several times and it's still entertaining.

reply

Both were entertaining, but it would be nice if Seagal ever had a legitimate opponent instead of all the hopeless riff-raff he destroys.

reply

[deleted]

"why does everyone worship UNDER SIEGE?"
Because of how well it was promoted...and Erika Eleniak.

Out for Justice was the more violent and better film for the same reason. The entire movie had a very visceral feel mostly due to the sound effects. Think of the scene at the end where Seagal kicks the guy from Attica against the wall so hard that he DIES. Compared to that, Marked for Death is kind of cartoon-ish.

reply

[deleted]

It's interesting to read the comments here about MFD being more violent than OFJ...I didnt think so. In OFJ you get more outrageous violence-the meat cleaver to the knee, then to the hand...the dude's leg getting shotgunned off...the best barfight in the history of action movies...the whole violent scene with Ritchie at the end. In MFD the only real violence is done by swords which is a bit predictable...otherwise gunshot violence. MFD had a better done overall storyline though imo. In the end I liked OFJ slightly better than MFD but they are both good action movies done by Steven Seagal-

reply

Out for justice is better than Marked for death.

reply

Let's just say I read this thread, then watched both films back to back... Marked For Death surprised me in its quality while Out For Justice surprised me in its lacking storyline. Out For Justice seems like an epic crime drama that was cut down and changed to fit Seagal's style, where Marked For Death feels like a vintage late 80's 20th Century Fox release, complete with columbians and jamaicans.

Marked For Death wins by a hair for just trying to be a dumb action movie, and succeeding well.

reply

I think they are both equally violent. However I found Screwface more intimidating than Ritchie.

reply