Out of Reach (Video 2004) Poster

(2004 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
72 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
An impressive achievement considering recent years, Worst Seagal film ever!!
supertom-316 September 2004
The second piece of Seagal action to come out this year, the second dire straight to video offering from him as well. While Belly Of The Beast had some enjoyment laughing at the over the top action this film is so painfully bad that it is almost upsetting. Now I have never been the biggest Seagal fan. Having said that I have enjoyed watching his earlier films. They were pure dumb and ultra violent films with an enjoyably pretentious moralistic attitude. Seagal had that kind of Italian American, Brooklyn tough guy thing going on, his kind of De Niro and Brando impersonation. Since Under Siege though, he has become the eco-Zen- Warrior with absolutely no personality. He was in decent shape as well, never the ripped muscle man like Arnie, Sly and Van Damme but a real man kind of size and he was very quick. The action scenes in those films were brutal and slick and we would see in full glory the aikido from Seagal. Nowadays Seagal, after one two many pies, is looking very withered and old and overweight. In modern Seagal fights the are film extremely tightly with the odd wide shot featuring his stunt double and is edited in such a way to hide the fact that he is just not quick enough anymore. Seagal looks tragically bloated and sweaty and almost repugnant. I cannot see how even the most ardent Seagal fan could be anything but devastated seeing him do films like this and looking the way he does. Somehow he still sells a movie but at this rate it won't be for long.

Out Of Reach is the worst Seagal film ever, and considering Ticker, Foreigner and Out For A Kill, that takes some doing. This is a film that even z grade action men like Lorenzo Lamas and Don Wilson would want scratched off their CV. The plot has Seagal as a former government agent who runs a animal shelter (oh my god, when will he realize he's not captain planet.). He then finds out that a young girl who he is pen pals with (isn't that a horrible picture, an old sweaty git having correspondence with a little girl) is kidnapped and sold as a slave, Seagal has to come out of retirement and stop the bad guys who are lead by Matt Schulze. The film despite being a reasonable 20 million dollar budget looks painfully cheap. The film is so lazily put to together and Seagal is so bad it beggars belief. There are so many signs that he can't be bothered and is past it, form constant doubling, lazy use of a stand in and several moments when he is clearly dubbed, probably because he whispers through the while film and you can't hear him. The only times you hear what Seagal is saying is when he is being dubbed. He really doesn't want to be their and being the big name of such a crappy little picture no-one would have told him to pull his finger out. Someone needs to slap him and tell him that for the money he his paid and that they plough into his movies his fans expect a lot more. He is currently the top earner and audience grabber of the straight to video action market but if he continues like this he will be overtaken by Van Damme and Lundgren and others below them. There are rumours his next film, Into The Sun is to be distributed to theaters by his beloved Warner Brothers but I really don't see it. It is tragic and says a lot about the industry that they could make the biggest pile of poo known to man and sell it simply by plastering his ugly mug on the front.

I watched this simply out of curiosity and merely because it was a Seagal film, these DTV stars release these films and although they are generally bad there has to be a certain minimal standard of enjoyment. Van Damme, Lundgren are keeping this up with their recent efforts, but Seagal who has the highest expectations must up his game or retire. He certainly is not convincing as a tough guy any more. *
33 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Seagal's Ship Is Still S(t)inking
jessecrowder14 July 2004
Well, I have to say I am very disappointed. Again. I'd like to start this commentary by saying that I'm myself a fan of Mr. Seagal and have followed his career in motion pictures since I first saw the superb "Above The Law" back in 1989. This information is just to clarify, that I'm not here to bash Seagal just because it seems to be the "hip" thing to do.

It's fair to say that Seagal's cv hasn't looked very impressive since "Under Siege" over ten years ago. It's been a slow downhill with a few exceptions like fairly enjoyable "US 2" and dumb but entertaining "Exit Wounds". With his Hong Kong influenced "Belly Of The Beast" outing I dared to expect something of a comeback for our beloved thespian, but "Out Of Reach" sends him right back where he was with the dreadful "The Foreigner" and even more horrible "Out For A Kill". You could sum this commentary with one sentence: no more polish action films. The production values of "OOR" are minimal, script has holes for trucks to go through and the acting. Oh lord, the acting. Through out the entire film it is just plain torture to watch. Let's face it - Seagal has never been exactly Oscar material, but he has had his moments. Not in this one. I just don't get why on earth they have to dub his voice with these totally moranic voice overs? And this time it happens a lot, even in the middle of the scene in where he has spoke with his own voice in the beginning.

Seagal has dropped some weight, but it is still a stretch to buy him as an action hero. His moves are slow (still the show them most of time in slow motion!!) and he uses stunt doubles a lot. Action in "OOR" is quite minimal and fairly up to basic standards even for a movie this scale. The brothel shoot out is OK, but the final duel between Seagal and Matt Schulze is a major let down. And while speaking of Mr. Schulze it should be noted that Seagal's acting really isn't the worse in "OOR". Schulze, who delivered good performances in "Blade 2" and "The Transporter" is totally lost with the role of Faisal The Ultimate Bad Guy. His pseudo sophisticated character is probably one of the most lame villains ever supplied with incredibly stale dialogue.

Like noted, the acting in whole is pure crap and it seems that many of the polish actors don't even know English - they just repeat what the director or who ever tells them to say. There really are no good performances in "OOR" except the small cameo of Nick Brimble and momentarily the girl who plays Seagal's pen pal. There are numerous just idiotic scenes like the one where the little girl is held captive in the basement of a castle where villains are having a big party. She is guarded by one of the villains and asks him something like "Why are you not invited to the party?" The bad guy totally loses it and screams: "Stop trying to get inside my head!" Whoa. Then there are the goofy scenes where Seagal wanderers in the forest "looking for injured animals". It is of course a beautiful concept, but the guy looks like a lost-in-the-woods member of a motorcycle gang. And the final still picture before the end credits start to roll. What the heck were they thinking in the editing room? "Wow, NOW this movie works like it should!"

I did my best to come up with even one positive thing about "OOR", but it just seems impossible. How can talented(?) people mess up this bad and what in heaven's name did Seagal see in this project that made him want to get into it? Is he proud of his Poland era of film making?

If you are a fan of Seagal you have to ask yourself a question: did you like him as the arrogant ass kicker from his Warner Brothers days or do you prefer this independent (no big studio wants to touch him with a ten foot pole?) filmmaker -version of him? If your heart beats for his neat ponytail wearing, black leather jacket and jeans -period then do your self a favor and leave "OOR" alone. As sad as it might seem.

This was a stink bomb. Please, let "Into The Sun" be better.
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I want to put my head in a bucket of lye and jump off a cliff.
fuffy4426 July 2007
I feel so ashamed...I watched this movie from beginning to end. What can I say? I'm an idiot. I could have spent the time doing something much more enjoyable, like blinding myself with toothpicks or drinking lit Sterno. But, no, I watched and I suffered.

Segal's acting was never passable and his movie scripts were always formulaic and tedious, but his mastery of Aiki-Jitsu made the movies great. Now, he relies on gun battles almost completely. I think it's because he has trouble lifting his arms. The use of a double was so apparent throughout the film one has to wonder if Segal spent more than a weekend in Poland working on this movie. They even had a double dubbing his lines. But, to his voice double's credit, he did do a superb job of getting Segal's voice exactly, perfectly wrong. Either he's so fat that he can't breath deeply enough to talk (can you say Orson Wells and Marlon Brando) or they couldn't keep the food out of his mouth long enough to record the tracks. Judging from his sweaty, greasy, bloated and just plain frightening close-ups, what time he spent in Poland was most likely spent at the blini stand. Really, he looks like a Mr. Potato Head that's been dipped in oil. I think he has become the evil clone of Elvis. A huge, disgusting mockery of the genre. Unlike Elvis, though, he never really had talent. His self-created persona of the "Special Ops Killer" turned Ghandi is wearing so thin that even Paris Hilton has more credibility. However, I'll bet Segal's breasts are bigger.

Another point... I don't understand going to another country to make a cheap movie. There isn't anything in this movie that isn't here in America. We have lots of nice buildings and plenty of lousy, unknown actors. But, it seems the really bad American movies have to be made in foreign countries. Perhaps his next movie can be filmed in Nauru or Tuvalu. Or, even better, how about in his backyard using his cell phone camera? Can't be any worse.

Here are a few title suggestions for his next movie:

1) Out of Breath 2) Out of Ideas 3) Out of Cheetos 4) Out of His Mind 4) Hard to Watch 5) Out to Lunch 6) The Fatriot 7) Belly of the Star 8) Box of Clementines 9) Today You Diet 10) Enormous Shadow Man 11) Heart Attack Force 12) Fat of Fury and, of course... 13) Marked for $1.99

We all know what the story line will be.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than Out for a kill!
argentobuff27 March 2006
After the semi-entertaining,back to basics approach of Belly of the Beast it appeared that Seagal was on a minor comeback.Then along comes out of reach to flush all that down the toilet.

Seagal is a retired agent(how many times can one man play a retired agent!!!)who crashes a human slavery ring in Poland headed by Matt(Transporter)Shultze.Get ready for some bone-breaking,gun-fighting,neck-breaking mania that never happens.Its not that it is totally boring,just unexceptional.

Out of reach is missing a lot of the trademarks that make up a Steven Seagal movie.Not a lot of hand to hand action.More gunfighting instead. The final Mano a Mano between Shultze and Seagal is just modest at best.Seagal actually takes a few hits.The setting seems like the same faceless location of his last three movies.

Seagal is a little better here.He handles the fights okay.But the dubbing and the raspy voice make one question his health.Ida Nowakowska holds her own and does a pretty good acting job as the cop helping Seagal.Matt Schultze is the best thing Out of reach has going for it.He plays a nasty villain as usual with high potential.But ends up wasted and Ill used.

Good Idea undone by producers?Bad Director?Star?Who knows.It had some potential.Its mauled by one of those freeze-frame-feel good endings.

I paid nearly 4 bucks to rent this and I don't feel good.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
When will it end???
CarsonTrent16 January 2006
The frowning morose pony tailed log never quits, man. I mean he has been a retired CIA/soldier/environmentalist since forever. All his crappy movies have the f**king same plot.He lives a quiet blah-blah life in a quiet place and the stupid and loud evil man comes and disturbs his well balanced life. He then turns into this quiet and wise fighter who not only beats the living crap out of the bad man, but insists on him to admit he was wrong, this being the ultimate punishment/humiliation his simple high school bully-like mind can dream of.Also he wears the same pretentious ugly three quarter length coat with an elaborate trim in every movie, be it set in the jungle, the city or a remote village.Nowadays he really looks like a retired something and he still doesn't quit, although the budget, supporting cast and generally C-type film quality is a hint as to where it's all going.I mean is he really going to make the same movie over and over to death?

I'm looking forward to the retirement from show business of this sad Buddha reincarnation wannabe. Not even good to laugh at anymore.

36 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not one of seagal's best,
daworldismine10 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
steven seagal has got many kick ass action flicks out there, sadly this ain't one of them, this time we find seagal writing to and supporting a young orphan girl, and when one day she is took away to be used as prostite, seagal goes looking for her, i mean come on the story alone is bad, steven seagal goes to rescue pen pal it's laughable, and while there are some decent little action scenes, there is nowhere near enough and that remains one of the films biggest flaws there is simply not enough action in it, sure there's more than the patriot but simply not enough, overall possibly one of seagal's worst movies if not the worse, come on seagal you can do better than that you used to be the king of action flicks
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not up to its potential
cnewf21 October 2006
Steven Seagal picks good topics and he takes good positions on them, but this film is like most of his others in failing on the level of craft. I don't know why this keeps happening to someone whose martial arts experience obviously taught him about the importance of precise execution and continuous refinement, but in any case this film is sloppy. Sometimes it's as simple as parallel action whose locations aren't clear, or too-familiar action scenes, or very slow staging of the obvious, like the initial seizure of the children. More importantly, it's careless or shallow thinking about the characters and their relationship to each other: the villains are pure psychopaths, the kids are pure innocence, the trafficking is simple kidnapping from a crooked orphanage - nothing beyond the matinée B-movie level of white/black hats is made concrete. There's something stubborn and unnecessary about Seagal staying on this mediocre level.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Are You Kidding?
bhturnow29 January 2006
Does Seagal watch his own movies anymore? This was the WORST Seagal movie EVER! And I love Seagal. It lacked everything including action and acting. This movie went no where and made no sense. It jumps from scene to scene with no explanation at all about what happened. I cannot believe I sat through this waiting for it to get better....it never happened. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME! A girl that writes codes in the Caviar? It goes to a building with phones that ring and give their entire plot away and Seagal just walks in to a dead guy on the phone after Seagal steals all the information he needs. I cannot say again....DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tracking Down Human Traffickers in Poland
Uriah432 September 2019
This film begins with a retired CSA agent by the name of "William Lansing" (Steven Seagal) enjoying some peace and quiet in a wildlife refuge area with few outside distractions. However, when a young Polish orphan that he was sponsoring by the name of "Irena Morawska" (Ida Nowakowska) mysteriously stops writing to him, he becomes concerned and decides to travel to Poland to investigate the situation. To his dismay, he soon discovers that Irena has been kidnapped by a sophisticated network of human traffickers who know how to use their connections to remain hidden from the law. Additionally, it's also at this time that some former colleagues appear on the scene with a serious grudge to settle with him which then complicates things even further. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a rather strange crime-drama which suffered from an uneven plot and poor direction. To that extent, while I typically like Stevan Seagal films, I must say that I was somewhat disappointed with this particular one and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Watchable But Laughable
slightlymad2214 July 2019
Out of Reach (2004)

This is a bit of a disappointment. It's another Taken style action movie, without much action. There is a gun fight and as shown in the trailer a sword fight, but even that is pretty bland and uninteresting.

Seagal is William "Billy Ray" Lansing an ex-military, ex-government agent who now wanders around the woods of Alaska and writing to a 13 year old girl. Which is a tad disturbing, what he talks to her about in the letters is also a bit worrying too.

Seagal's hair in this movie is just silly. It's a jet black, strange-looking mullet. A lot of his dialogue is overdubbed by someone who is clearly not Seagal and there are many scenes that are clearly not Seagal in front of the camera as well, even something simple like walking around in the woods is a double.

This was a Franchise Pictures release... remember them??

The plot is ridiculous, we don't know why the feds want him dead after he refuses to rejoin them, he has no real reason to go to Poland, no panic written letter by the girl, he is just psychic. For the second movie in a row (after years of no love interest) Seagal's female partner is unrealistically attracted to him, and the scene where he operates on her to remove a bullet is laughable.

That said, I was never bored, even if I was laughing at the absurdity of the obvious double, the voice over or what was happening on screen.

All In all, Out Of Reach is a pretty entertaining entry in the filmography or Seagal. There's enough out-and-out silliness to keep you engaged.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A martial arts master in search of a missing child
shakercoola4 August 2018
An American action thriller; Next stop Poland for Steven Seagal. The premise of the film is quite good - a martial arts master and former covert agent turned survivalist in America has lost touch with a young girl/pen pal from an orphanage in Poland. It transpires she has become a missing person. Seagal decides to investigate and track a human trafficking ring into which the young girl has unknowingly entered. "Out of Reach" bears some similarity to the film, "Taken", but it is a low budget production - badly dubbed, poorly edited. poor acting in parts. The story is directed in a style that resembles a fable rather than a feature film. As an action film, tension is at a low ebb and so the detective work becomes the main interest for the viewer. There is a memorable sword fight-off scene at the end: prey vs predator, protagonist vs antagonist, which is set in a white palace and this symbolising of purity as irony is impressive. This sequence is well directed and choreographed. For all its faults, and there are many in the storytelling, there is a heart to the film and an important subject.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Has it's moments
seveb-251797 September 2015
I've watched this film many times now and somehow, despite it's many obvious shortcomings, I still very much enjoy it. This is one of those straight to DVD grade movies from Seagal's "Fat Steven" period. By this time he has become a huge whale, waddling from scene to scene, devoid of grace. Also he is unconvincingly overdubbed in many scenes throughout the film, for whatever reason. And yet for me, there is still plenty to enjoy. Firstly the director choreographs what action there is well, so that it is coherent, while still effectively disguising Seagals physical shortcomings, and in general I found the action scenes were shot with a pleasing artistic flourish. Secondly the locations are well chosen, providing the kind of exotic glamour that has been a mainstay of the James Bond franchise for decades. For example the industrial building where the children are taken is completely impractical and irrelevant for that purpose, but it makes for a fantastic B grade "Villain's lair". It's a huge hanger like shed and when the big doors rumble back it is impressive, unfortunately the villains abandon this promising location part way through, before any battle ensues. The wonderful white courtyard of the Politechnika Warszawska Main Building is not a credible residence for a human trafficker either, but to me, an indelibly memorable location. So wonderful in fact, that in my mind it makes up for any shortcomings in the climactic battle between the ponderous Seagal and the villain. The "Stalin building" used for the cocktail party scene and the University Library are further memorable locations to enjoy. Thirdly I also found the casting to be on the money, Matt Schulze is always an effective villain, the kids were appealing and the female police officer struck the right balance in projecting both attractive and competent. Many of the supporting actors didn't speak English well, maybe they don't act well either, but a Polish accent in a film set in Poland adds an authenticity that easily offsets that. The movie follows the Seagal tradition of presenting his character as a disillusioned servant of the military industrial complex, who has become a spiritual seeker, finding peace in communion with animals and nature. And also briefly introduces some facts around human trafficking, which is a real world issue, both are architypal Seagal traits, which I find endearing, provided they don't get out of hand and reach "On Deadly Ground" proportions… The script is not so great, but that is often not the deciding factor in the action movie genre. For me it is enough that the basic premise is sound, the vulnerable find a protector and are actually saved, rather than the hero just exacting empty revenge, as happens too often these days.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fat chops
Prismark107 September 2015
The rugged and chubby Steven Seagal is William Lansing, a caring ex- CIA agent who takes care of injured animals and sponsors an orphanage in Europe who also corresponds with one of the orphan's as a pen pal, Irena (Ida Nowakowska.)

The orphanage is actually a front for a child sex trafficking ring run by Faisal (Matt Schulze) that kidnaps the teenage girl along with others to sell them to some Middle Eastern types it seems.

Seagal springs into action to rescue the girl. Of course as Seagal has put on some girth we get less action here, presumably not many fat stunt doubles around with martial arts expertise and we see Seagal using more brain power to solve riddles. Which presumably is the reason why he has a carpet on his head.

The plot is nonsense with lots of plot holes. At least Schulze takes it all seriously as the baddie and brings some style and menace as the villain. As an action film its boring and shows us a Seagal way past his glory days.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Out Of Reach is a pretty entertaining entry in the 2000's DTV canon of Seagal.
tarbosh2200030 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
William "Billy Ray" Lansing (Seagal) is an ex-military, ex-government agent who now spends his time wandering around the woods of Alaska aimlessly and being a penpal to a 13 year old Polish girl. Seems like a natural career transition. When Billy Ray senses something amiss, he heads to Poland to see if Irina (Nowakoska), his penpal, is alright. While there he teams up with local law enforcement agent Kasia (Wagner)...and discovers a nefarious human trafficking operation led by the super-evil Faisal (Schulze). Luckily, he taught Irina how to create and read secret codes (which is perhaps why she signed on to this penpal program in the first place, why else would she?) - so they continue to communicate via code even though they are separated and he's hot on her trail. Will Billy Ray find her and take down the baddies in the process? Seagal's hair in this particular outing is just silly. It's a black, strange-looking mullet of some kind. Perhaps he caught it in the wilds of Alaska where he now lives. By "him" we mean Billy Ray, of course. This movie might even make an ideal double feature with Radical Jack, because that features one Billy Ray Cyrus. And it's not just his odd hair and choice of winter coats that's funny. A lot of his dialogue is overdubbed by someone who is clearly not Seagal. The guy they chose to do this voice-over work has a much higher-pitched voice, not to mention the fact that he speaks clearly and doesn't slur his words. So that's funny, and there are many scenes that are clearly not Seagal in front of the camera as well, most notably his "walking around in the woods" scenes. Did they think the audience wouldn't notice it's some other guy? But while the movie gets off to a very strange start, it eventually falls into a cross between Taken (2009) and the TV show To Catch A Predator, with a little Seagal on top for good measure. (Also, Seagal is some sort of master of disguise in this movie and goes by a bunch of different fake names, one of which is "Nikolai Rachenko". This is also Dolph Lundgren's name in Red Scorpion, 1988. Could this be just a coincidence? But if not, the writers really shouldn't remind the audience of a far superior action star). Schulze makes for a good baddie, and you know he's evil because A. He has evil blonde highlights, B. He plays chess and enjoys fencing and C. He seems to live in an M.C. Escher painting. But don't forget that there's an illegal Polish internet. And to never eat sushi without decoding the secret message invariably buried within the California rolls.

But this is another slyly insulting title for a Seagal movie, along the lines of Belly Of The Beast (2003) and Shadow Man (2006). Who's titling these things? And are they getting a good chuckle? And is Seagal getting wise to it? Isn't it a bit too easy -- "Out Of Reach" -- for a sandwich? For a donut? Make up your own fat joke. And the fact that some of the movie was set in Turkey can't be an accident. The filmmakers probably asked Seagal where he wanted to shoot the movie and he just blurted out "Turkey". But odds are he was just going to blurt that out anyway and wasn't paying attention to what they were saying to him. But to be fair, there is some cool camera-work and good shots in this movie. But Out Of Reach needed more Martial Arts. Fencing battles and gunplay is all well and good, but we want to see Seagal do more of his classic slap-fighting. Isn't that why we're all really on board? In all, Out Of Reach is a pretty entertaining entry in the 2000's DTV canon of Seagal. There's enough out-and-out silliness to keep you engaged, and that's more than you can say for a lot of his other work.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Seagal's arrogance is really starting to get on my nerves,what a load of rubbish!,I miss the OLD Seagal!
callanlovesmickie27 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Out Of Reach is as bad as it gets,Being the big Seagal fan I am,I check out his films even though most of his DTV films are terrible,I stay loyal,but if this keeps up,I don't know for how much longer. What really irritates me is that Seagal's arrogance has gotten so bad,he didn't even bother coming back to dub his own voice!,I think the man is a great martial artist,but the looks on his face in this film describe "I just wanna get this over and done with I want that paycheck". Does he even care anymore?,or does he let all those Cheeseburgers he's been shoving down his mouth do the thinking?. The action is very limited and when it is,it's extremely cheap and amateurishly executed. What also annoys me is Seagal's obsession with Nature and environment ,for Pete's sake man,we get it,we saw it in On Deadly ground,Fire Down Below,The Patriot and god knows what else,I appreciate it,but don't shove it down our throats.I didn't give a damn bout what happened to the kids,the film certainly didn't seem to either,and how bout that unintentionally hilarious scene with the kid drinking Seagal's alcohol. The only worthwhile thing in this film was a little better then average fight at the end with the villain,even that underwhelmed me.

The Acting is Terrible!. Steven Seagal coasts his way through this film,barely showing any emotion and when he does it looks forced,He mumbles his lines,fights with hardly any effort,the paycheck must have been big for this one,Seagal where oh where did you go,will the real Seagal please stand up?.Ida Nowakowska is a typical kid wooden and unconvincing. Matt Schulze is a decent bad guy we all know that,and here he tries his best with what he's given but even he can't save it.

Stay away from this film at all costs,even die hard Seagal fans will wanna skip it,this is sad man,just sad to see what a legend like him has become,burn all the copies you see cause that's what it deserves! 2/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Seagal reaches new low
=G=31 July 2004
Seagal reaches a new low in "Out of Reach" in which he plays a guy with a past (we don't know what exactly) who hangs out in a forest and looks for injured animals so he can heal them while communing with nature. He also corresponds via snail mail with a young girl in a Polish orphanage. When she is sold into slavery, Seagal has to travel to Poland where, of course, he gets to hang out with a babe, shoot it out with a bunch of heavies, and do some hokey martial arts stuff as well as try to act and conceal his big, fat gut. A sorry attempt at film making, "Out of Reach" has too many deficits to list here. Suffice it to say this B-flick is probably not worth your time and will probably be the last Seagal flick I'll be watching. (C-)
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Steven Seagal Superstar.
Captain_Couth30 April 2005
Out of Reach (2004) was another Seagal straight-to-video film. Originally this film was set to be directed by Ringo Lam. But during the production, Mr. Lam was frustrated by the bad script and tried to re-write the film. He was let go and another Hong Kong film maker Po Chieh Leung was brought on to helm the production. The film is pretty uneven and questionable at times but the director has managed to create a watchable film.

Steven Seagal stars as a retired federal agent who corresponds with a Eastern European girl. One day she stops writing and a bored Seagal decides to fly to Bulgaria to find out why his little pen pal has stopped writing. Whilst in country, he finds out that there's more than meets the eye and nothing is as it seems. The main villain is a very creepy individual who prefers the company of adolescent girls instead of women and likes to fence with his spineless lackeys for pleasure. Can Steven find the girl, polish off the bad guys and bring some rogue agents to justice or will the be Out of Reach!!??!

Not a bad film but it's marred by a lot of post production tinkering and looping (they couldn't even bring back Seagal to do his own dubbing). The last twenty minutes are the best in the film with a nice finale between Seagal and the sleazy scumbag.

Recommended for action fans.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
it ain't art
friaz14 February 2006
When you go to see a Steven Seagal movie, do not look for Sir Laurence Olivier class performances. the scripts are not written by William Shakespeare or Ernest Hemingway. His character sees a problem and by dint of physical violence eliminates the problems. The good guy wins and the bad guys die. His movies are escapism, pure and simple. If you are looking for Oscar winning performances, you are in the wrong venue. During the hour and a half i watched this flick, I did not think about the bird flu, the war in Iraq, aids in Africa. I watched the movie. I enjoyed the movie. I do watch message flicks. This was not one of them. gGet a life London..He ain't john Gielgud...
12 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
getting worse
sscnkenney6 August 2004
steve!steve!steve! what ever you do stay away from this "franchise productions".It was so painful watching this movie and hoping it would get better. guess what? it never did. the production, filming, story, it was terrible.run steve!run to the nearest American Production company you can,i know you can do a whole lot better. My 17 year old son and I just got finished watching your movie. We have always enjoyed watching your movies but feel this movie has put you at a low point. We were very disappointed and felt that it wasn't worth the money we spent to rent it. The plot was there but the filming was very poor. The voices didn't seem accurate and was very distracting. The story line didn't seem to make sense for us. We were very let down.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slightly disappointing for his fans, too little action
Auke Wind14 July 2004
The plot is like the movie: pretty neutral and not above standard, like almost every Seagal movie.

Clean settings - the white building is beautiful as a setting, a little highlight.

For the Seagal-fans, there is a bit of fighting in here, I think not enough for you guys. Seagal acts like always, somewhat 'unpersonal'.

All kinda standard things we'll see: typical bad-guy, in Poland everybody drinks :-( and there are a few one-liners (like "wrong answer").

Because I have a bit weakness for Seagal (he was like a small hero over ten years ago in his old movies).

So for that, I'll rate the movie ** out of ****
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Loved the idea, but the movie doesn't live up to it
TheLittleSongbird8 July 2011
Out of Reach had a truly wonderful idea to work from, and as a film it had the potential to be powerful and compelling, but turned out to be neither. For me, the two only reasons why Out of Reach isn't any lower as a score is the idea it had to work from and final sword fight, which was the only well choreographed and performed action scene in my opinion. Steven Seagal looks unkempt and his performance both in the delivery of the dialogue, where he sounds monotone and bored, and the action sequences, where he looks as though he can't keep up with the speed of the choreography, is truly lazy. To be fair though, the film also does have several other things that bring it down. The acting is dire from the whole cast, nobody is believable and it doesn't help that the characters are written and explored badly, while the film making and direction are inept. The pace is sluggish, and this is including in the action which is not very well shot or choreographed excepting the final sword fight, the story is derivative and the dialogue is awful. All in all, there was a good movie in this somewhere but for some reason the good movie didn't come out. 2/10 Bethany Cox
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"This could get a little bit dangerous." Steven Seagal's worst film thus far, period.
poolandrews30 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Out of Reach is set in Warsaw in Poland where the 14 year old orphaned Irena Morawska (Ida Nowakoska) has enjoyed a pen-pal type relationship with ex-CIA agent William 'Billy' Lansing (co-excutive producer Steven Seagal) who spends most of his time walking around a forest where he lives in America looking for injured animals & then nursing them back to health, he's just a nice bloke you see. So when Colonel Faisal (Matt Schulze) pitches up outside Irena's orphanage & takes a group of nice looking young girls including Irena to be sold to the highest bidder in a multi million dollar human trafficking scam & Billy finds out he gives up his 'caring' ways, flies out to Poland & decides someones going to pay big time...

Yet another straight-to-video/DVD American Polish co-production to star Seagal after the almost as bad The Foreigner (2003) this was directed by Po-Chih Leong & in my humble yet worthwhile opinion I felt Out of Reach (a title which bears no relation to the actual film) was the single worst Steven Seagal film I have seen, now I've stuck with him through thin & thin (or should that be fat & fatter?) but Out of Reach just takes the cake as quite simply a downright awful film in just about every respect. The predictable & strictly by-the-numbers script by Trevor Miller & a wisely uncredited James Townsend starts out in mind numbingly embarrassing fashion with Seagal's character rescuing a falcon from a miniature bear trap it's leg is caught in! Then there's the unpleasant storyline about young teenage girls being taken away to be sold to the highest bidder which is just stupid all by itself but the film gets even worse. Some of the scripting & plot holes in Out of Reach are just hilarious, the classic scene when Irena makes a coded message for Seagal to warn him using caviar canapés! If that's not bad enough the main bad guy actually knew about her message yet still let Seagal read it as well as another hidden message written on a mirror earlier on in the film, why did the bad guy let Irena leave these warnings & messages for Seagal? It just doesn't make a blind bit of sense. Then there's the other enormous plot holes like what happened to the kids that were taken from the orphanage? What happened to the guy's who were after Seagal at the start? Why did that black dude warn Seagal & then seemingly try to kill him mere moments later? Everyone in Poland speaks perfect English, even police detectives within the Polish police force talk to each other in English. How can Seagal run around around Poland killing & destroying property & yet not get arrested? What happened to the main bad guy's who were running the operation ahead of Faisal? The story is weak, the plot is weak & not very well conveyed with things happening almost at random & it's also one of the slowest most boring action films ever. For the first 75 minutes there are a grand total of three action scenes which clock in at about a combined 5 minutes in length, the rest of the time is dialogue driven & it's pretty god damned bad dialogue too.

Director Chih Leong doesn't seem to realise that what people want in a Steven Seagal action flick are some decent action scenes as you won't find any here. There is also the horrible dubbing used for Seagal on several occasions, surely Steven wasn't that busy he couldn't pop into the studio to do some post dubbing work? It's particularly noticeable during the opening scene where the guy providing Seagal's voice sounds nothing like him. As usual for Seagal's latter films he has at least two chins here & is really out of shape, actually out of shape would have made for a more appropriate title than Out of Reach! The action is almost none existent, the few fights that are here are OK but nothing we haven't seen before, disappointing & there isn't a single explosion in the entire film.

With a supposed budget of about $20,000,000 the money certainly didn't end up on screen as this is a very cheap looking action flick devoid of any sort of action. Shot in Poland the white building used at the end looks fabulous but as one might expect it is wasted & underused in a lacklustre & dull ending. The acting is poor from Seagal to the rest of the predominately Polish cast.

Out of Reach is Steven Seagal's worst film to date, if it isn't I dread to think how bad the film that is is. Do yourself a favour & avoid this at all costs, even Seagal fans (both of them...) should give this a miss!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
mr_pivac198528 March 2007
Isn't this supposed to be an action movie or something?If you consider solving riddles action,then you will be overwhelmed.Also,then you're probably one of those people who think chess is a sport.Oh,I can't believe it,he's going for the 250-pound pawn! Anyway,in this movie,Seagal plays an ex-CIA-agent(no kidding)who helps the Polish orphans(the Polish heard of Tsjernobyl and said:"Sounds better than here")by sending them challenging puzzles that usually end up having "friends forever" as a solution.Hot-dogs weren't smart enough to solve them,so he just sent them to a random Polish girl as plan B.The orphans' manager is up to no good and the orphans are all having a terrible time.Eventually,he sells the girl.He must have lied a lot in the brochure.So how is this going to end?Anyone?Want a hint? Steven Seagal gets paid for doing this?All he does is walk around a little,some of his lines are even dubbed for this movie.And of course he doesn't do the action scenes himself anymore.Totally used the plural,don't know what came over me.You can't really call this the worst Seagal,cos then your review is dated in no time,but it's definitely amazingly awful in every aspect of film-making.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
whpratt15 July 2006
Noticed that this film was produced in 2004 and was being shown on TV, which was some indication that it was a down hill film. As it turns out, it was not too bad if you are a fan of Steven Seagal,(William Lansing),"Black Dawn",'05. Bill Lansing plays a kind hearted type of Robin Hood who loves children and will go completely out of his way to help or protect any child he comes into contact with, even from a distance. Bill Lansing will get himself involved with shady business deals and make certain the funds are given to the correct charities. In this film children are being bought and sold like slaves, and the bad dudes involved are into other undercover business deals. There is swords being used like in Robin Hood and plenty of action, however, the film is entire too long and drawn out.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed