IMDb > Flight of Fury (2007) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Flight of Fury
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
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
Flight of Fury (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 46 reviews in total 

59 out of 65 people found the following review useful:

A waste of Celluloid

Author: rsimm from Canada
23 February 2007

I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

Mediocrity, a step up for Seagal.

Author: Thomas Jolliffe (supertom-3) from Marlow, England
11 February 2007

Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.

In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.

Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).

The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 59 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste Your time.

Author: p-zeddi from Poland
14 February 2007

I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.

It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Simply... don't bother...

And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Dire Stuff - The worst Seagal movie I've far

Author: Welshfilmfan from Cardiff, Wales
12 February 2009

'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured


Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:


Author: indioblack117 from United Kingdom
4 August 2007

Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Don't bother. No, seriously - don't bother.

Author: Voluntary-Pi from United Kingdom
14 July 2011

I have always been a fan of a good Segal romp, even a bad Segal romp, but this takes the biscuit. I have just sat through this and agree with previous reviews, the ONLY good bit about the movie is the completely unnecessary brief girl-on-girl scene.

The direction is terrible, the script is worse, the sound quality is dire and the (ab)use and rapid repetition of stock footage is diabolical, especially during flight scenes.

I've not written a movie review on here before, but this film was so bad it actually drove me to warn other movie-lovers NOT to watch this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Never takes off

Author: Bjorn (ODDBear) from Iceland
2 June 2010

Who would have thought that a Steven Seagal movie would employ loads of stock footage in it? Not me, not in 2001 at least when I last saw Big Steve on the big screen in the terrific "Exit Wounds".

"Flight of Fury" is hokey entertainment at best. The stock footage is painfully obvious and (probably) used to make the film look bigger. The story is awfully thin and it took Seagal and another dude to pen it. The fight scenes are uninspired and the gun play is fairly pedestrian. The flight scenes were far better some twenty years ago in "Top Gun" and the acting not very good. In fact, Old Steve mumbles his lines in such a relaxed manner that I expected him to fall asleep every now and then.

Despite all it's faults; "Flight of Fury" isn't all that painful to sit through. It moves along pretty well, the one on one fight with Steve at the end is well played out and an extra star must be awarded for his best physical form in years. There's even a lesbian scene here (completely out of the blue and pointless) but they're always quite the eye candy.

All in all, not a good movie by any means but for fans of Steve it may be worth the hour and a half on a slow night.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Borderline Unwatchable

Author: Top_Salmon from United Kingdom
30 March 2009

Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.

The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.

The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.

Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.

Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

More awful trash from Seagal 1/2 * out of *****

Author: Celticnationalist from Wales
26 March 2010

FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - more like $1.2M

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - A B-movie remake of a B-movie.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 *

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Should never been made....

Author: m-de-graaf from Netherlands
3 February 2009

This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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