IMDb > Attack Force (2006) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Attack Force
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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 5 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
Index 89 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

He can barely talk for himself now!

2/10
Author: Tankard22 from United States
8 March 2007

This movie was heavily marred by the presence of Steven Seagal. Or as I should say Steven So-dull! Like before Seagal is either too good or too stupid to re-dub his own lines, leaving someone to impersonate his voice for the shots where the sound needed to be looped. A few films before this was he has done this too, but I don't think to this extent! To be honest the film looks pretty good, the script could use some work but parts of this film looked like a real movie! Of course, all told, this film is pretty bad.

It would have been much better without Seagal who has become a cartoon of himself. Don't bother. Anything over a buck for this one is too much! I honestly think this is the last time for me and a Seagal film. What's taken me so long to realize this?!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Really Bad, Bad movie.

1/10
Author: ioid from United States
26 January 2007

Really Bad, Bad movie. I wished that I had come here to read the reviews first, it would have saved me the 4 buck rental. Glad I didn't buy this piece of crap. Who the hell was his voice over? Sounds like Tom Sizemore (Blackhawk Down) fame. According to the IMDb review page the gentry for this picture is Horror. It should have bee listed as horror-able. This movie is not even close to Segal's par performance. He either need to stop making movies of go back to his "siege" sequels. I do like Steven. I will continue to watch his movies, but now only after I read the reviews first. "Attack Farce" is so bad it is difficult coming up with 10 lines of review.

Was the above review useful to you?

What's going on here?

3/10
Author: Sandcooler from Belgium
4 March 2014

The back story to "Attack Force" is really depressing, even to Steven Seagal's standards. Apparently he really tried to do something different with this one. It was supposed to be his first stab at a horror/sci-fi movie (originally it was called "Harvester"), featuring a Seagal 2.0 that fought an army of vampires in what must have been some kind of off-brand "Blade" (at times the style is clearly reminiscent). Unfortunately, the executive producers usually get the final cut and they suddenly figured: why take a chance with something new when there's always a buck in generic action movies? A bajillion reshoots, redubs and recuts later we got "Attack Force", which is about 5% action and 95% explaining how the old footage is supposed to fit into the new plot (but seriously, why would an "experimental drug" make you want to lick blood off a window?). Any dialogue scene will usually start with Seagal saying a line from the original movie, then it will cut away from his face and the worst impersonator of all time takes over to give us all kinds of new exposition. Like most recent Seagal movies, this movie also has way too many sets of characters that are mainly there to pad out the running time. We have Seagal's team, and then you have the vampires/drug addicts/whatever, what else do you need? Why is there a French cop following everyone around, why are there extra government guys that are supervised by more extra government guys? Who needs all that crap in a B-movie, get to the fighting. I've got to say though, the fights are quite jumpy but really not that bad. Most of it is done by a stunt double, but it looks fine and pretty stylish. Kinda makes you wonder what "Harvester" would have been like. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know and are stuck with this headache-inducing mess.

Was the above review useful to you?

Over-dubbed?

1/10
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?

People who spend money on this should be quarantined immediately

1/10
Author: callanvass from victoria b.c canada
28 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was just kidding in my summary. I do question people's state of mind, if they do like this movie, though. You know what the sad thing is? I actually like Steven Seagal when he tries. He'll never be considered a great actor, but he was one of my favorite action heroes growing up. He had charisma in spades, and a huge mean streak in his fights. Those days appear to be long gone, so Seagal makes unwatchable, STD garbage like this. This is his worst STD film. That dubious honor is saying a lot, because of the stinkers he puts out these days. The plot is a convoluted mess, which makes little to no sense. It's got some weird alien like creatures in it, that aren't even remotely menacing These creatures happen to have these laughable looking retractable blades of sorts. It's all done with minimal effort. There is even a soft-core porn sequence involving a girl and two guys. They briefly flirt, before she slashes them to bits. This movie is extremely talky, and excruciatingly boring. It's very hard to pay attention at times, because there are so many talky scenes, with uninteresting dialogue. When an action scene does commence, it's not pretty to watch. It has some cheap explosions, and some mundane fight sequences, which you can't see well at times, because it's so dark. Steven Seagal is god-awful. He's not as overweight as he appears in some others, but that doesn't excuse his lethargic performance. He walks around with his hand in his pockets, delivering his dialogue with no emotion what so ever, and he almost seems to be annoyed to be in this film to begin with. There is one scene where he says "You're really pissi******ng me off" he says it with a whisper, and with little emotion as possible. He waves his hands around while people come at him in fight scenes to block attacks, and doesn't do much in the way of ass kicking. He is also dubbed in certain scenes. If Steven Seagal doesn't care, why should you? I realize he's not a young man anymore, but at least put in some effort. This movie is good for something, though. If you're out of toilet paper, it's good to wipe your ass with. If you need a coaster, the DVD will be a suitable replacement. Think of that, if you're tempted to chuck this out onto the street. In all seriousness there is not much Seagal can do to placate the anger I have for wasting his talents in dreck like this. Why can't there be a zero rating for movies?!

DUD

Was the above review useful to you?

Poor effort

3/10
Author: Don Mc Cormick from United Kingdom
27 July 2013

This was an average movie made WORSE by post production editing. I stayed up late to watch this but I should have gone to bed !! The "voice" double had the effect of distracting me from some of the other mistakes seen by other reviewers. Like the Stone angel waving in the breeze and the wound on the last baddie changing direction. Sorry Steven must do better. But I do accept that whoever decided to post produce this is mainly to blame. I thought the action was lack lustre as it was mainly gun play. I preferred the earlier films that showed Steven's Akido skills. I would suggest that Steven makes sure that there is provision in his future contracts to veto this type of post production hatchet job. The post production team deserve to be censured for this awful effort. They took a bad film and made it worse.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

worst of the worst

Author: Robert Austin from San Diego, CA
23 September 2008

after reading the reviews of others posted here, I am not going to blame any of this on Steven Seagal, however one must wonder what concessions Mr. Seagal must have made in order to be chosen for a part in the movie. This fiasco kinda reminds me of Executive Decision, that I remember being billed as "starring Steven Seagal" but he was actually only in the movie for about 10 minutes. Okay, maybe Seagal was in this movie for longer than 10 minutes, but I think in the case of this movie, less would have been better - at least for Mr. Seagal. If he could have distances himself away from this film, all the better for him.

Okay, I won't waste more of anyone else's time here, I'll just agree with everyone else that have posted here - don't waste any of your time, if you haven't seen this movie yet. I forced myself to sit through it because I didn't read up on anything about this before I decided to place it on my DVR, and now for some strange reason, my DVR won't delete it ... ARGH!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Crappy but entertaining

4/10
Author: sarastro7
3 November 2007

I don't know what the rest of you guys watch Steven Seagal movies for, but I watch them because, as silly as they are, they're at least always good for a laugh. Why would you rate this movie a 1 out of 10 based on the dubbing, when that kind of thing is exactly what makes a movie like this into a cult favorite that you can laugh at the silliness of?

Attack Force is by no means a great movie, but I felt it was as worthy a Steven Seagal vehicle as many of his other movies; in fact I didn't think it was one of his worst by a long-shot. It had, most of the time, a half-way coherent plot line, and it was, most of the time, fundamentally exciting. The ending really sucked, but even that had some enjoyably trashy elements. In the end the story itself did not deliver what it promised, but I actually thought that the acting, characterization (if I may use such a big word) and the rest of the production values delivered exactly what a true Steven Seagal fan would expect. Seagal himself in particular was exactly the stone-faced, no-nonsense man's man that we've come to expect, and the rest of the cast backed him up pretty well, without ever up-staging him. This, people, is what a Steven Seagal movie does. Deal with it. Or even better: laugh at it.

4 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Garbage...nothing short of it....

1/10
Author: Hugh Ilung
31 August 2007

As a fan of Seagal, I am appalled by this abomination of a film.

What is going on with it? It is all over the place like a drunk. To top off the mess, who was the moron who decided to voice over Steven's own voice with a very different voice? That alone turned me right off, then you have the poor effects, pathetic plot and structure. The film doesn't flow and seems to be the efforts of a first year film study student. In fact I am sure they could do better.

So, overweight, over dubbed, and over the top.... one can only wish for the movies like Out for justice etc that were the best. This one is pure crap, and if the next batch are like it, I'd rather watch the lawn grow.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Shame!

1/10
Author: morbels from Belgium
28 August 2007

This was the worst film I ever saw. I have never seen anything like it. Steven Seagal had some nice, entertaining films, but "Attack Force" is NOT one of them.

The story of Attack Force is very weak, actually there is no plot at all (except the good-guy kills bad guys routine). Also, the theme of the movie, CTX, a new drug, is vaguely linked with a sci-fi atmosphere (flashing eyes!) which is very disturbing and destroys all credibility. As a viewer, I did not feel the least involved with the characters since they are all very flat and dull. In addition, the film is full of flaws and goofs. Statues made of concrete move in the wind (i swear!), a chest wound suddenly switches place during a sequence and the dubbing is awful.

The biggest problem of this film however is that it is very boring. Nothing happens in the movie and when something does, you ask yourself why. Some parts of the movie make no sense at all. A very strong WTF at certain points. Even the Seagal-fighting scenes (only one at the end!) are filmed poorly and uncreatively.

What a shame!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 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