MovieChat Forums > Out for Justice (1991) Discussion > One of Seagal's better flicks

One of Seagal's better flicks

posted 3 years ago by CraigJamesReview (1754)
3 replies | jump to latest

Out for Justice” just might be one of the unicorns of the entire Steven Seagal filmography. It’s terribly dumb and doesn’t really offer too much but its fairly relaxed viewing and also well paced by director John Flynn, who made Stallone’s “Lock-up” and the thriller “Best Seller”.

Seagal plays a cop with the hilarious name of Gino Fellino, who in the opening moments loses a friend to a crazed, drugged out capo (William Forsythe) with the mob. He vows to kill the capo, to which his fellow officers and superiors say “right on, go get em.” The mob is also upset with Forsythe, who also vow to take justice in their own hands.

What the film finds interesting is that Fellino is from this Brooklyn neighborhood and has some kinship with the residents, mob bosses, ect by name. He considered becoming one of them, but in a twist of fate, became a cop instead. But since Seagal is always a better ass-kicker for justice than an actor, is there really even a conflict here?

He’s still an Eastwood clone with limited range; Seagal showing a human side usually looks more like throwing an abuser of women through a windshield. It’s funny how he even makes acting alongside a puppy in certain scenes look so anti-cuddly. I do think his one-liners have improved though- “C’mon, be a nice guy, alright” after kicking the shit out of someone made me laugh hard.

In his search for the Capo, Fellino rattles every cage in the neighborhood, usually meeting resistance that requires him to easily dispatch thugs, who rush him one at a time for some reason, in what now feel like slow-motion fight sequences. None of this is great but it’s not terrible either and the stereotypical wise-guy accents and dialogue put on by many of the thugs is both hilarious and cringe-worthy enough to want to see them get hit.

This doesn’t leave a lot of room for performance but Forsythe, always an underrated asshole in movies, makes for an intimidating mad-dog villain and future Junior Soprano Dominic Chianese has some affecting scenes as his long-suffering father. Mostly the film is just a silly shoot-em-up though, which director Flynn keeps moving with violent abandon. It’s serviceable enough, and Seagal looks a tad better than previous efforts. Not by much though.

I'm a movie reviewer who also likes to take a trip back to the 90s. If you like this, why not join my facebook group for more. Much appreciated! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1539592586087385

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 3 years ago

I just finished it.

It was overall a solid early 90s action movie. Could've used a little more Aikido. There are only two good hand-to-hand fight scenes, but those two scenes are pretty good, aside from the comical sound effects.

I remember some people back in the day saying that they preferred Seagal's movies and his way of fighting because it seemed "more realistic" than what guys like Van Damme and other martial artists were doing. I do agree that it SEEMS more realistic. It's too bad that no one can actually make Aikido work like it does in his movies.

Something else I took specific notice of were the sets and locations, and the atmospheric cinematography. That all came together in such a way to give the whole movie a certain feel to it.

Near the end of the movie I remembered something someone once told me, and that's that in his movies Seagal NEVER gets hit. And at the end I was like, you know, shit, I don't think I remember even one dude landing a punch on him this whole movie. He's invincible. He never has to battle back from getting his ass kicked.

I liked the brutality of it. The practical effects with squibs and the like gave action movies of that time a realism and rawness that doesn't exist in most films today.

Watching the film was a nice walk down Nostalgia Lane for the way that action movies used to be.

[–] Ismailov (165) 2 years ago

Near the end of the movie I remembered something someone once told me, and that's that in his movies Seagal NEVER gets hit.

Yeah, his character in Hard to Kill enters a coma after being repeatedly shot, but wakes up years later and makes a full and remarkably quick recovery. When it comes to hand-to-hand combat the character is, of course, essentially untouchable.

I've seen all of his films up to 2003's The Foreigner, and can recall no greater damage inflicted in the course of physical fighting than a broken nose in the final fight of The Glimmer Man, and that was after telling the bad guy to "take your best shot."

I think it's a situation where his "badass" reputation is founded on being great at aikido and on showing off aikido techniques in his films. So aside from his own ego, he probably felt he can't have his characters get beaten up as it would undermine the aura of aikido as a god-tier martial art and consequently undermine his reputation.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 2 years ago

It is highly ironic that Aikido has been shown to be, if not entirely worthless in a real fight, at least not a fighting art that can be reliably used in the way that it appears in his movies. It is portrayed as being almost invincible when it terms of actual combat effectiveness it is in fact near the bottom of the list.

At least Van Damme wasn't so ego-driven that he wouldn't show himself getting his ass beat on camera. That is, at least until the big comeback.