IMDb > Attack Force (2006) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Attack Force
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Attack Force (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
Index 90 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: Mike M (airingofgrievances) from United States
24 February 2014

At the beginning I thought I could stomach this Seagal flick but after some time the over- dubbing of voices became intolerable. Even Seagal's voice is unmistakably not his at multiple times, while his face is on camera, no less. I can honestly say I'm so confused as to where to start a rant, but I'll try. I've seen some pretty bad movies but nothing like this. Whatever you do, do NOT waste any time or worse, money, on this catastrophe. Any Seagal movie comes with its required amount of tolerance in order to view but this has transcended what I thought was possible. The only good thing to come out of this movie is Evelyne Armela O'Bami, whose wardrobe is phenomenal. Still, though, it's not enough to distract from the trainwreck of a 'film' going on around her.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"Revenge is a two-way street".

Author: lost-in-limbo from the Mad Hatter's tea party.
15 June 2012

I've seen my fair share of Steven Seagal straight to DVD entries, but "Attack Force" has to be the lowest dominator in his cannon fodder. Oh it's bad. I know at times it can be hard to understand whispering Seagal, but where did that croaky dubbing come from?! It's laughable. However I did read this film was tampered with in post-production. Don't know how much of a difference that would have been, but you can only go with what's in front of you and "Attack Force" is a cheaply shot-on- video mess. Quite an insufferably bland one too. In this silly actioner Seagal plays some sort special agent whose special forces team (really they're quite useless) is wiped out and he goes about investigating why. There he digs up some covert military cover-ups and a drug-dealer who plans who contaminant the water supply with a lethal drug. In all honesty I had no idea what was going on, nor was I that interested to find out either. When it came to the action, while bloody in its aftermath… blotchy was best to describe it. It's a clinical display and its climaxes are a frenetic muddle. Looking more noticeable because of many boring secondary characters, Seagal lazily goes about his business looking all steely eyes, as conspiracies, scheming and back-stabbing fly about. It's terribly unfocused, as there's too much going on with its plot details. Characters come and go, while Seagal uninterestingly rambles on and impresses his young lady co-star.

"I'm flattered. You recognised my voice"

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

What the...?

Author: DigitalRevenantX7 from Australia
2 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Plot Synopsis: Three members of an US Special Forces team are killed in their hotel room by a woman they had brought with them for some fun. Their boss, Commander Marshall Lawson, tries to track down the killer, only to find that the woman was infected by CTX, a substance created by a covert arm of the US military in order to turn ordinary people into mindless killers. With government agents after him, Lawson teams up with the scientist who created CTX in order to stop the spread of the substance.

The Review: After the modest success of his debut film ABOVE THE LAW, Steven Seagal has spent the early half of the 1990s making action films, his career reaching its zenith with UNDER SIEGE. Like most action heroes of the era, Seagal's popularity dropped down a couple of notches (he tried to regain favour with the public by making a couple of films where he attempted to reinvent himself as a crusader for the environment), resulting in his career becoming stuck in a rut. Aside from a couple of modestly budgeted action flicks, Seagal found himself in the same arena as his arch-nemesis Jean-Claude Van Damme – the DTV market.

Starting with THE FOREIGNER in 2002, the third era of Seagal's career began. From The Foreigner right up to FLIGHT OF FURY, Seagal made a whole heap of B-grade action films where he played a government agent (or ex-government mercenary, secret agent or CIA spook) out to avenge a friend's murder, stop terrorists from committing some nefarious scheme or unravel a government conspiracy. In all these films, Seagal goes about dispatching evildoers with brutal aikido moves & / or gunplay (in real life, Seagal is quite a crack shot with a pistol) while wearing a long black leather coat that he never takes off (possibly in a vain attempt to hide the pot belly he gained). Most of these films do not make any attempt to advance Seagal's career or even elevate themselves above the flood of DTV action films that have come out in the early-to-mid 2000s. Of these, Attack Force is the worst.

On a technical standpoint, Attack Force is pretty standard stuff as far as these things go. The action set-pieces are competently conducted, although they do tread on absurdity, with people being thrown through brick walls. Seagal does the usual rounds of being a military Special Forces commander with access to a top-secret military operation, something that is only hinted at, slicing his way through baddies with a pair of blades attached to his wrists.

Where Attack Force fails is in its scripting department – the story featured here is only the start of the film's woes. Seagal might be a decent action star but when it comes to writing, his characters range from absurdly defined stereotypes to faceless ones. Here the flaw is at its most magnified, with Seagal writing himself into a deep hole by featuring some real half-cocked military conspiracies involving some kind of drug that turns people into mindless killers; some fine examples of 'faceless' intelligence agents out to silence Seagal by sending entire strike teams after him & his men; a central villain who is not seen until the very end & so forth (don't get me started on the film's title, which is ridiculously generic to say the least).

While some of Seagal's films also featured banal writing, most particularly The Foreigner, they also had something else to offset these problems (usually plenty of plot twists & some real clever kills on Seagal's behalf, as well as slick direction by the various directors involved). Here none of those things apply – Attack Force is not only stuck with an incompetent writing team & poor direction but reeks of laziness as far as the story goes – not only is the villain's motivation for committing his evil plan ill-defined, the hero's motivation for tracking the villain down is attributed to mere coincidence – Seagal's team is killed by a hooker who has been infected by CTX by Adam Croasdell's villain as part of an experiment. There are also some unnecessary digital effects of victims having their eyes blink sideways, which doesn't make a lick of sense biologically.

When it comes to acting, Seagal goes through the motions with the same one-dimensional performance that he has made a career out of, but minus the self-righteousness that he displayed in most of his films. None of the other actors make anything even resembling a performance or even an impression. Speaking of Seagal, I noticed something strange – Seagal has had his voice dubbed over in half the scenes. Rumour has it that the film's plot was changed after shooting had ended. This makes the film quite dishonest.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I love terrible movies but this.....

Author: Phil Shaw from Norwich
20 February 2012

So to continue my mammoth Seagal season I just finished watching 2006′s direct-to-DVD Attack Force. I IMDb'd the flick before watching to see what I'm in for and was greeted with a measly 2.4 rating. I thought to myself "it can't be that bad, I love terrible movies anyway!" I was, on the whole, wrong.

The premise is good, it's an atypical Seagal revenge flick full of dead bad guys, bullets and blood. Everything I look for in a movie but the narrative, production and overall execution was the worse I can ever remember seeing!

There are numerous times in which Seagal gets his voice dubbed by someone that sounds nothing at all like him for no apparent reason. I'd suggest it's poor recording equipment or a crap editing. Other flaws include very obvious set decoration, stones moving in the breeze by the wind, **ahem polystyrene**, stunt doubles of a different ethnic background and the aforementioned atrocious post production work. The editor needs to be shot!

Seagal was actually OK to be honest, no Oscar winning performance but conventional and entertaining. I don't like bad mouthing Seagal but if I were his Steamroller Productuons team I'd have pulled this off of the shelves years ago.

I gave it a 3 out of 10 and would only recommend watching this if the only thing on TV is X- Factor, otherwise give it a miss.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Another failure of Steven F. Seagal!

Author: swedzin from Deadwood
26 October 2010

Yep, another one! Another bad Steven F. Seagal film... And remember "F" is for FAT! A sony pictures production, a low budget film, shoted in Romania... Jesus... Steven, come back to USA, we forgive you! What the hell we did wrong to leave your audience like this! Anyhow, Seagal is slow here, some funny fights with funny music, Seagal is dubbed and that sounds so ugly! You can hear that is not him! What to say here... a bunch of B actors here, funny, with no sense of acting... boring. The movie is very, very boring! You just can't stand it. 2000s were just a decade of "Steven Seagal's fat Films - Cure for Insomnia". And this one is very special for you! There's also some high tech stuff in the film, like Seagal uses some blades on his hands that have some small flashy blue light on the wrist, to look more cool, ya know... I watched this film, because... I am a S. FAT S. fan... And I enjoy his Aikido! But, no Aikido here! If you are a fan, you can watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I'll keep watching more Seagal DTV disasters, but I'm running out of patience...

Author: Comeuppance Reviews from United States Minor Outlying Islands
12 May 2010

Here we go: another Seagal flick, another donut. Starting with the most generic title you can think of, tons of post-production retooling, and the big man himself, this is not going to be pretty.

This is what I scrounged up for a plot: A drug called CTX is being distributed by some unknown force with weird eyes. It's up to Marshall Lawson (Seagal) and his "Attack Force" to stop it.

Where should I start? The first thing you'll notice immediately is that Seagal has not done his ADR voice-over work. Almost 100% of the movie does not feature his voice. They got some guy who sounds suspiciously like Bill Pullman to record over the missing Seagal bits. I can't believe Steve is that lazy - to not find the time to go into a studio and record the dialogue HE WROTE! In the first 10 minutes every time they show Marshall speak, they cut very quickly to another person in the room. If that's not enough, Seagal has the gall to say in the script: "I'm glad you recognized my voice" (??!!?).

From what I heard, They re-edited this movie three times with two different plot lines: 1. Russian Mafia, 2. Aliens. They already shot footage for both, but Sony and Nu-Image haphazardly put this together to make a quick buck and a deadline.

On the plus side, the action scenes, when coherent, are passable and there's a lot of blood during most killings. Don't get me started on the ending! A lot of it goes unexplained...

I'll keep watching more Seagal DTV disasters, but I'm running out of patience. But I have an idea for Steve: Make a movie with your craft service table and then shoot it in the harshest light imaginable, film it on the cheap in Romania and make the action scenes complete rubbish... wait a second, He already did that. The movies were "Out Of Reach", "The Foreigner", "Out For A Kill", and "Submerged". Hey, he's reading my mind! Scary...

For more insanity, check out:

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Bad on every level

Author: j-p-walsh from United Kingdom
4 November 2009

As with all of you writing here, I'm in dismay at what I've just seen. I have worked in television for a long time, and now teach on a Media course. As such I am well used to the many cheats we have to do to improve any project, be it in adding SFX (sound effects) ADR (additional dialogue recording) or Gating (taking out unwanted sound (wind noise, traffic etc) during pauses while no-one is speaking. In fact I even tell my students that television (and film for that matter) is all about cheating: Making people believe the unbelievable.

BUT this has to be the worst example of my trade I have ever witnessed. As someone already mentioned previously, I too replayed the beginning several times, because I figured that there must have been some problem with my recording. The lip sync and dubbing (not the same as straightforward ADR) was diabolical to the point of comical. And it doesn't seem to get much better throughout the whole movie. Surely even the guys responsible must have thought at the time, that this was a bad joke to play on their potential audience! The same thing also occurs with the lovely agent Tia too. Especially when she is on the phone to her baddie boss. It's as though she must have thought that her lines were just so crap that she got someone else to say them for her! Truly dreadful on every level.

Oh dear, oh dear.

John Walsh, TV Studio Manager, Media Arts Department, Royal Holloway University

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Shame on you, Seagal

Author: sveknu
21 February 2010

This is without a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie Steven Seagal has ever made. And that says a lot. Don't get fooled by the rating, it's way too good. This abomination hadn't even been worthy of a 0/10 rating, if such a thing existed.

- Absolutely no plot

- Worst action scenes ever, and there aren't too many of them either

- Seagal doesn't do anything himself, including the fighting, talking (lots of dubbing), and so on. As always.

- Seagal is fat, lazy and couldn't care less about this movie. Something which is very obvious all the way through

Take all the other garbage DTV movies Seagal has made, multiply them with each other, multiply this with a thousand billions, and all the badness you then get won't even describe 1 % of this absolute crapfest.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Helium Anyone

Author: dkhoover from Jamul, California
17 May 2008

I was really disappointed in this film. Steve seems to have inhaled Helium before some of his lines and then is his own voice again. It is not to brilliant to have someone dub a voice that does not even sound close to the persons own voice especially if their own voice is heard in much of the production. "Rated it 1 as awful" Which it really was. The team members with him did not seem to bright either. People keep dropping down from above to attack them, but through the whole thing nobody bothers to look above them as they search. DUH. Oh well thats why they call it Science Fiction I guess. Super human strength, but no super fast moves? Who knew.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I miss the old Seagal

Author: kmckibb from United States
22 February 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history