anddeter Terrible picture, not worth to spend space on it on internet..... Story, acting, camera work, it is all below any standard. This was a production of $ 12.000.0000 I read elsewhere, but every dollar was one too much. Looking at it is a waste of time and this picture is a real insult of the public. Why do they make pictures like this?

TheLittleSongbird I don't think Flight of Fury is his very worst, I think Out for a Kill and Submerged are worse, but for me it is down there. Seagal gives one of his laziest and phoned-in performances here, but fortunately for him he isn't the only bad thing about Flight of Fury, next to nothing works. The photography and editing looks cheap, as does the stock footage, while the direction is next to non-existent. The action is tedious, the characters indifferent, the dialogue atrocious, the story predictable and full of holes, the pace pedantic and sluggish and absolutely nobody gives a good, let alone credible, performance in the cast. All in all, a mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox

callanvass I've tried sitting through the entire duration for this twice now, and each time I've failed. The lackadaisical approach here is an understatement. We have many scenes with characters just wandering around, shooting at nothing, with plot points that don't even make sense. Apparently this is a shoot by shoot remake of Michael Dudikoff's Black Thunder. I've not seen that movie, so I can't say, but if it is anything like this, I won't be looking forward to it. It's incredibly cheap looking. It consists of stock footage for a lot of the plane shots, and Seagal looks bored to tears, phoning it in at least in almost every scene. The most unintentionally funny scene has to be when two chicks make out, and Seagal sits and watches with a blank and expressionless stare. Come on bud its chicks, at least show a little emotion. I remain a fan of Seagal despite his laziness now a days, and I guess I am a sucker for punishment for checking out his recent works.Performances. Steven Seagal. Seagal honestly could care less about this project, and I know that for a fact. He runs around with a machine gun, seemingly just shooting wildly in the air, aiming at nothing. He mumbles his way through the part, and doesn't even show emotion during critical plot points. He once more wears baggy clothing to hide his fat belly. He does occasional fighting, but really just a couple of mediocre snippets of it.Bottom line. If you got this far in the review, you will know how torturous I find this movie to be. Watching dry paint on a wall, is more entertaining than this. Please even if you are a die-hard fan of his, stay away. There is nothing entertaining about this movie.0/10

unbrokenmetal When a stealth bomber with the latest technical secrets is stolen, a general must get his best pilot John (Steven Seagal) out of prison to bring it back. Fortunately, the plane is meanwhile hidden in Afghanistan where you can bomb anything anytime you like without any consequences (except the occasional reviewer's sarcasm). The 60 terrorists are even polite enough to attack one after another and not all at once, so it is easier for John to kill them. Remember, this is the same guy who got effortlessly arrested by 2 cops for fighting with shoplifters earlier on. Of course the movie provides a traitor who has to be defeated in a battle up in the sky, heroes never leave a show without that. Seagal may be miscast as a pilot; he was more convincing in the good old "my fist, your face" fight movies. "Flight of Fury" would probably have been better if it had a sense of humor, but even the ridiculous "girls only" scene during the raid tries to be serious. And they couldn't even resist to include something about saving the world from a biological weapon, absolutely unnecessary in my view.