Fire Down Below

Why? Why does Steven Seagal feel the need to make films like this? Why doesn't he stop and why does he continue making such films even after receiving criticism from both critics and audiences? Maybe he is as stubborn as his heroes and believes that films with an ecological message must be made even if no one is going to watch them. I might regret for a long time the moment when I opened the TV guide late in the evening and found out that this film was starting on TV. I will long regret turning on the TV and starting to watch it, knowing that the film is two hours long. I was even more surprised when the film ended so quickly. I watched it fairly diligently, and even though I took a fifteen-minute break, when I returned to my seat, I realized that nothing interesting had happened at all. I correctly predicted about 95% of the plot about 2/3 of the way through. Even though the film is an absolute mess from a screenwriting perspective, I realized that from a technical standpoint, it's not as bad as it may seem. The director works like a skilled bricklayer and the pace is surprisingly fast. I did mention the two hours that passed quickly. Nick Glennie-Smith's music is a somewhat contradictory affair, as there are occasionally unsympathetically awkward motifs, but otherwise, it works. Steven Seagal can't act, but he can still kick and punch just like he does in his better films. So why didn't I like it? Because even the best execution cannot cover up the terribly naive screenplay. (13/11/2004)

The guitar in Seagal's hands was probably meant to suggest to the viewer either that Seagal has something extra, or it was an artistic intention to make the viewer identify more with the main character. Of course, even if Seagal played guitar while blowing into a saxophone and drumming with his feet, it probably wouldn't help him. (20/09/2003)