Discuss Out for Justice
Discuss → Movies → Out for Justice → General
It's funny how Seagal's films gradually increased in violence. Hard To Kill seemed very tame compared to this. The bad guy here is a psychotic hot-head who loves blowing people away - whether it's an innocent women annoyed that he's blocked her in traffic, or a disabled guy whose wheelchair he's been playing around with.
This is all done, of course, so that Seagal's mass murder spree can be justified (along with having him rescue and adopt a puppy so we know 'Gino' is inherently good no matter how many he kills and maims). As ever, Seagal's opponents can barely scratch him as he effortlessly breaks their limbs and skewers them with sharp objects - most notably here a corkscrew between the eyes.
You get a clear sense that the filmmakers knew audiences come to see Seagal batter fools, so they really ramped up the brutality, and it's a joy to watch. His best films - the Under Siege duo, combined this ultra-violence with a decent budget, and the first one is a well-made thriller that proudly stands among the best Die Hard clones.
I don't think he has been particularly more violent since his early 90's hey-day - he's too old and fat to rival The Raid films. Screwface's demise in Marked For Death (1990) remains his most gruesome kill - beaten, slashed with a sword, thumbs squashed into both eyes, spine snapped over Seagal's knee, then tossed down a lift shaft impaling him on the machinery below. You almost feel sorry for the guy!
Reply by Vanski
on April 26, 2018 at 4:55 PM
I've recently starting to rewatch Seagal's earlier movies again. They have been both surprising and disappointing in some areas. I still need to watch Marked for Death, i remember it being his most brutal!
I personally prefer Hard to Kill over Out for Justice. While Out for justice is much more brutal, it sort of lacks the fun, the crazy storyline and the action it had.
This movie is also rather boring plotwise, with too little action to keep things interesting. When action does occur, despite it's brutality, it's over a little too quick. Also, Seagal seems more superhuman here than in the previous movies. Nobody's able to land a solid hit on him and when he does get shot in the gut, he doesn't even care and keeps going. This sadly takes away from otherwise well put together action scenes.
There's really no character to really root for either, since everyone is an asshole, including Gino.
Reply by rooprect
on April 26, 2018 at 7:21 PM
I remember reading a quote from some famous director/critic/whatever who said everything that happens in an action flick is simply a buildup to justify the hero's act of violence at the end. I think Steven Seagal's movies ram that point home, just like he rams his thumb in the eye of that Jamaican dude.
I used to love his films... good brainless revenge. At any time you can go to the kitchen for a sandwich, come back and you haven't missed anything critical to the plot. But yeah after a while you realize how 2 dimensional everything is.
Clint Eastwood built his career on this formula, but that's why The Unforgiven was such a landmark turning point for him. The violence leaves you with a pit in your stomach when you realize half, if not all, of the bad guys didn't deserve what they got. The scene in the desert where the bad guy is shot and pleading for water for 5 minutes really snaps you out of your bloodthirsty voyeurism. Too bad Seagal never evolved like that.