When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.
118 Reviews
In the tradition of Stephen Seagals "3 Word Movie Titles": "Hard To Watch"
lemon_magic2 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw that "The Foreigner" was ranked in the "Bottom 100" movie listings here on IMDb, so I wasn't expecting much when I tuned into it on the USA channel a week back, but I did have hopes. "Belly Of The Beast" (which aired a month ago) was a mess, but it had great scenery and photography and some pretty cool moments scattered throughout, so I thought that this movie might have some of the same.
Alas, this movie fails the standards of basic watch-ability in almost every way. The screenplay comes off as the bastard offspring of a John LeCarre novel and a Richard Ludlum movie, but done by people with none of those worthy writers' talent for plot and characterization. Instead what we got is a glum, mean-spirited, nihilistic, cryptic mare's nest of muddled motives, tangled alliances and back-shootings. And chest shootings. And bombings. And eviscerations. This carries over to the directorial style, which relies on hackneyed 'grainy shot/slow motion' shots every 10 seconds, along with wire work and hyperactive jump cuts. These filmic devices that were stale 10 years ago when MTV directors used them for Whitesnake videos, and the director works them like a punch press, hoping to inject some weird art-house techno thriller coolness into the proceedings.
Segal himself is just awful in this. He spends the entire film talking in a hoarse, throaty half-whisper and alternating between two expressions: looking like he is sucking on a lemon while someone waves a small turd under his nose, or looking constipated. And he's so chunky (and vain about it) that he never actually takes off his knee length duster on camera. I understand that it's hard to keep the girth under control as a male actor ages (although Denzel Washington and Paul Newman never seemed to have that problem). But you deal with it by being honest about it, and by growing as an actor, not by hiding it with carefully chosen camera angles and floor length robes.
So I can't really tell what's going on, and the movie doesn't give me a reason to care about what's going on, and the protagonist is completely one dimensional and visually unappealing. Not a recipe for a good movie experience.
Oddly, most of the set designs and scenery are atmospheric and striking; in fact, if you were to freeze the film on almost any given scene that wasn't a close-up of Seagal, you would be struck by the care and professionalism of the lighting,colors, and composition and by how beautiful the Eastern European settings are. But dressing up a rotten egg as a Faberge egg can't make it edible. And the proceedings are rotten at heart.
There are 'cool' movies (like "Versus"), and there are visually striking but emotionally cold movies (like "Underworld") and there are paranoia conspiracy thrillers (like "The Bourne Identity" and its remake with Matt Damon). And then there is this thing, which can't make up its mind what it wants to be, pretends to be all these things, and fails because it has no guts or soul.
This is a movie made by professionals with an actual budget, so you can't really put it in the same class as "Manos", "Killer Shrews" or "Hobgoblins". But I'd rather watch all three of those movies back-to-back several times than watch "The Foreigner" again even once.
Alas, this movie fails the standards of basic watch-ability in almost every way. The screenplay comes off as the bastard offspring of a John LeCarre novel and a Richard Ludlum movie, but done by people with none of those worthy writers' talent for plot and characterization. Instead what we got is a glum, mean-spirited, nihilistic, cryptic mare's nest of muddled motives, tangled alliances and back-shootings. And chest shootings. And bombings. And eviscerations. This carries over to the directorial style, which relies on hackneyed 'grainy shot/slow motion' shots every 10 seconds, along with wire work and hyperactive jump cuts. These filmic devices that were stale 10 years ago when MTV directors used them for Whitesnake videos, and the director works them like a punch press, hoping to inject some weird art-house techno thriller coolness into the proceedings.
Segal himself is just awful in this. He spends the entire film talking in a hoarse, throaty half-whisper and alternating between two expressions: looking like he is sucking on a lemon while someone waves a small turd under his nose, or looking constipated. And he's so chunky (and vain about it) that he never actually takes off his knee length duster on camera. I understand that it's hard to keep the girth under control as a male actor ages (although Denzel Washington and Paul Newman never seemed to have that problem). But you deal with it by being honest about it, and by growing as an actor, not by hiding it with carefully chosen camera angles and floor length robes.
So I can't really tell what's going on, and the movie doesn't give me a reason to care about what's going on, and the protagonist is completely one dimensional and visually unappealing. Not a recipe for a good movie experience.
Oddly, most of the set designs and scenery are atmospheric and striking; in fact, if you were to freeze the film on almost any given scene that wasn't a close-up of Seagal, you would be struck by the care and professionalism of the lighting,colors, and composition and by how beautiful the Eastern European settings are. But dressing up a rotten egg as a Faberge egg can't make it edible. And the proceedings are rotten at heart.
There are 'cool' movies (like "Versus"), and there are visually striking but emotionally cold movies (like "Underworld") and there are paranoia conspiracy thrillers (like "The Bourne Identity" and its remake with Matt Damon). And then there is this thing, which can't make up its mind what it wants to be, pretends to be all these things, and fails because it has no guts or soul.
This is a movie made by professionals with an actual budget, so you can't really put it in the same class as "Manos", "Killer Shrews" or "Hobgoblins". But I'd rather watch all three of those movies back-to-back several times than watch "The Foreigner" again even once.
Way too confusing
KHayes66616 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Even though Seagal movies have become less and less entertaining as he gets older, this one is an exception for it had us on the edge of our seats....but for the wrong reason.
The plot is Seagal plays Jonathan Cold, a rogue agent who's sent to retrieve a "package" and deliver it to its rightful client. Sounds simple doesn't it....wrong. This movie becomes convoluted with plot twists, heel turns, face turns and so much sub-plot that you really have no one to cheer for.
Donsoir, Mimms, Van Eagan, Seagal himself...you really can't tell who's the real bad guy and who's not. In fact Seagal spends half the movie trying to kill Donsoir and the other half working with him....and not in the same order either. One scene he tries to kill him...later on in the movie they work together to storm Van Eagan's mansion.
I know Seagal's like 80 lbs heavier than in his heydey but that doesn't mean he has to subject us to a plot like this. Its just way too confusing. I can figure out the plot, I'm sure a few others can too...but for the general public, they'll be left scratching their heads. Plus, with characters trying to team up or kill Seagal at an alarming rate, you have no one to get behind and cheer for.
The highlight of the movie is Donsoir with a cigarette in his mouth or hand basically the whole film, like Lumbergh's coffee mug in Office Space.
4 out of 10
The plot is Seagal plays Jonathan Cold, a rogue agent who's sent to retrieve a "package" and deliver it to its rightful client. Sounds simple doesn't it....wrong. This movie becomes convoluted with plot twists, heel turns, face turns and so much sub-plot that you really have no one to cheer for.
Donsoir, Mimms, Van Eagan, Seagal himself...you really can't tell who's the real bad guy and who's not. In fact Seagal spends half the movie trying to kill Donsoir and the other half working with him....and not in the same order either. One scene he tries to kill him...later on in the movie they work together to storm Van Eagan's mansion.
I know Seagal's like 80 lbs heavier than in his heydey but that doesn't mean he has to subject us to a plot like this. Its just way too confusing. I can figure out the plot, I'm sure a few others can too...but for the general public, they'll be left scratching their heads. Plus, with characters trying to team up or kill Seagal at an alarming rate, you have no one to get behind and cheer for.
The highlight of the movie is Donsoir with a cigarette in his mouth or hand basically the whole film, like Lumbergh's coffee mug in Office Space.
4 out of 10
The solution is...shoot!
calleydog9 September 2004
The movie fascinated me because of the plot, but once it got underway my fascination took a different direction. I think for the only time in my life I laughed at people getting shot. Segall's Dutch accomplice shoots everyone! He himself is shot four different times. The hotel clerk won't give out a room number? Ask her to call and see which number she dials. Then, instead of unobtrusively going to that room, shoot her!
The farce is complete when Segall faces down an opponent holding a gun 20 yards away. He flings a flight recorder CD with a little C4 stuck on like gum at his assailant. We see the disk igniting in mid-air in slow motion. Does the other guy shoot? No, he just stares at a CD coming to blow him away. The CD has the extra fun effect of propelling him backwards and upwards through a conveniently placed 2nd story picture window.
I must admit; I enjoyed this so much that I immediately went out to get another Segall movie to see if it is as ridiculous. I can't explain why this is entertaining, but it is! IT IS!!
The farce is complete when Segall faces down an opponent holding a gun 20 yards away. He flings a flight recorder CD with a little C4 stuck on like gum at his assailant. We see the disk igniting in mid-air in slow motion. Does the other guy shoot? No, he just stares at a CD coming to blow him away. The CD has the extra fun effect of propelling him backwards and upwards through a conveniently placed 2nd story picture window.
I must admit; I enjoyed this so much that I immediately went out to get another Segall movie to see if it is as ridiculous. I can't explain why this is entertaining, but it is! IT IS!!
As bad as any movie I've seen in the past year.
Scoopy27 January 2003
The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.
Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.
Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.
Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?
I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"
I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.
Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.
Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.
Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.
Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.
Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?
I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"
I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.
Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.
Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.
Adequate At Best....
rynlarson29 January 2003
What made Steven Seagal great 10 years ago continues to be sorely missed by any of his continuing fans. "The Foreigner" is yet another Seagal film that can be classified as average at best. The film is slow and plodding, badly shot, and viewers can decipher as to whether or not it is Seagal in a particular scene or a poorly chosen stunt double. Seagal is grossly overweight and wears a long leather jacket in a shoddy attempt to cover up the matter. Max Ryan is miscast as his nemesis. Kate who? is the leading lady. The action scenes are far and few between, and poorly done. Seagal's best attribute (martial arts) consumes only a few scenes in the entire film, and nifty camera work tries to cover up the fact that Seagal no longer moves like he used to. Close ups of Seagal moving his hands in a furious manner make it appear as though he is still fighting, then his stunt double takes over and finishes the scene. The similiarities between this film and his other recent release "Half Past Dead" are all negatives. The bad hairpiece, fast camera work, weakened plot, and clearly a man who no longer wants to try to succeed as an action star. Seagal appears to be depressed. It is clear why Screen Gems/Sony Pictures opted to release this straight to video.
Desperately looking for enjoyable bits as you watch will be your survival
PeterKurten9111 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I've munched several Seagal movies lately: Half Past Dead, Out of Reach, Under Siege 2... (note: review them later on) and this one is undeniably the weakest of the lot. It had a lot of potential, tough.
The opening with the changing of the guard at the monument for the unknown soldier in Warshaw was high on atmosphere & the subsequent torture scene made the viewer immediately curious about the "package" which is the center of the story. It's being obtained & retrieved numerous times by numerous villains in the service of numerous shady employers resulting in numerous shootouts & explosions and in numerous changes in loyalty.
Seagal's somewhere in the middle eternally enhancing his calmth and basically fighting off every hired gun in the movie, rather with incoming fire than with martial arts. Obviously his calmth comes from poor acting skills but it helps you keeping a grasp on what's going on, cause this type of complicated, twistful 'clash of interests' scenario demands skilled screenwriters. They were not working on this movie. It quickly winds down into a series of fights while the conversations Sagal has with several people trying to win him for their cause don't make things any clearer. When they do, the person explaining gets killed afterwards by the assassin you tought was on his side.
Apart from Seagal, there's one other red wire running through the entity: an assassin named Dunoir who's particularly eager to get to Seagal. This could've made for a decent final showdown but the chance was wasted. Dunoir's neutralized before you know it, Seagal receives another bit of explanation in a letter while floating on a river somewhere and the end credits jump on you. I'm not sure everything, or anything for that matter, was clear.
A disturbing lot of innocent people get executed in this movie. It has beautiful settings. Pumping five rounds out of a riot gun into a guy crashing through a first store window is pleasant overkill. Finishing off a person with a Molotov cocktail is pleasant overkill too. That's 3 good bits, 4 if you count Seagal. The remainder is action-packed but tedious & confusing.
The opening with the changing of the guard at the monument for the unknown soldier in Warshaw was high on atmosphere & the subsequent torture scene made the viewer immediately curious about the "package" which is the center of the story. It's being obtained & retrieved numerous times by numerous villains in the service of numerous shady employers resulting in numerous shootouts & explosions and in numerous changes in loyalty.
Seagal's somewhere in the middle eternally enhancing his calmth and basically fighting off every hired gun in the movie, rather with incoming fire than with martial arts. Obviously his calmth comes from poor acting skills but it helps you keeping a grasp on what's going on, cause this type of complicated, twistful 'clash of interests' scenario demands skilled screenwriters. They were not working on this movie. It quickly winds down into a series of fights while the conversations Sagal has with several people trying to win him for their cause don't make things any clearer. When they do, the person explaining gets killed afterwards by the assassin you tought was on his side.
Apart from Seagal, there's one other red wire running through the entity: an assassin named Dunoir who's particularly eager to get to Seagal. This could've made for a decent final showdown but the chance was wasted. Dunoir's neutralized before you know it, Seagal receives another bit of explanation in a letter while floating on a river somewhere and the end credits jump on you. I'm not sure everything, or anything for that matter, was clear.
A disturbing lot of innocent people get executed in this movie. It has beautiful settings. Pumping five rounds out of a riot gun into a guy crashing through a first store window is pleasant overkill. Finishing off a person with a Molotov cocktail is pleasant overkill too. That's 3 good bits, 4 if you count Seagal. The remainder is action-packed but tedious & confusing.
Seagal I hope you needed the money!
dunny10 March 2003
Im hoping this was made before Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds because it was rubbish, Seagal wasnt to blame it was down to the crap directing when the few action scenes took place. The plot was also confusing and basically just felt rushed out, maybe it was shelved and released to capitalise on Seagals newer films??
3/10
He's not through yet, bring on Under Siege 3 and loose some weight!
3/10
He's not through yet, bring on Under Siege 3 and loose some weight!
This film is unbelievable
ianhowellevans31 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Being ranked at Number 83 in IMDb's bottom 100 distinguishes this hopeless film as Steven Seagal's worst movie. Although, if you accept that standard you also have to accept that Sin City is the 90th best film ever made, so maybe that's best ignored. Watching it (owning it, in fact, :shameface:) makes you feel like you're joining a special club, the way victims of a terrible tragedy bond together.
The Foreigner centres on this guy (Seagal) who has to deliver a parcel to this other guy. Some other people try and stop him, as they wonder round Eastern Europe to keep the filming costs low. It's never really explained why anyone has any interest at all in the contents of the package, with characters talking at right angles to the events in the film. There's a feeling that the plot of The Foreigner is taking place around the continent, but that the director kept setting his camera up in the wrong place, so crucial events take place off screen while the camera films something banal instead, like a guy stealing a car. Then we just hear people referring to this other event we missed because the film crew were looking at this other thing.
Having said that, there's a lot to enjoy. Steven Seagal is so badly out of shape in this one he never appears in a scene with his coat off. When he smiles, his eyes disappear; when he's riding down an escalator, he folds his hands over his paunch like a pregnant woman. In a few scenes he runs up to a character to deliver a line, but can't because he's so badly out of breath.
My favourite moment was when this black dude in a camel coat rocks up and starts talking grandiloquently in a cockney accent as he tortures Seagal. You know the drill. "This is the excruciating pain of asphyxiation. You know that unpleasant tingling forming at the base of your neck? That, my friend, is the beginning of a blood clot as I starve the oxygen from your brain." It's as though this guy wandered off the set of a Guy Ritchie movie; or more likely that the scriptwriter had just seen snatch and thought the monologues were cool. Anyway. He dies of an exploding urinal while Seagal leaps out the window looking like a sack of beef being thrown into the back of a butcher's wagon.
Other great moments include Seagal burning down this innocent old peasant woman's farmhouse, putting his arms round her shoulders and kindly saying "Go stay at the farmhouse a mile from here they'll look after you". Then he drives off, without even offering her a lift.
Elsewhere, this other assassin guy knows that someone's coming to kill him because while he was in the shower his phone rang and he didn't quite get to it in time. Imagine every time you missed a call, getting dressed in your pimp suit (with hat) and hiding behind the door with a shotgun. What kind of life is that? As for the plot, there's loads of double crosses, although none of them are particularly surprising, as you never have a clue who's supposed to be doing what, anyway. Actually, they might not even have been double crosses. It's kind of hard to tell. There's some important stuff about a plane crash we never see, or even hear about til halfway through the movie but the whole thing seems to hinge on the black box recorder from the flight, which is what's in the package. Oh that's a spoiler by the way, so don't read it.
I couldn't leave this without mentioning one fella at a garage a real minor character who has got the weirdest facial deformity I have ever seen in my life. It's like, it looks like a wart or cyst or something, but when the fella smiles, it kind of rises up under his skin and it looked like it was going to break out of his face. I thought that was going to be a plot point, but it wasn't. That was just his face. Anyway. He was cool. They should make a film all about him.
The Foreigner centres on this guy (Seagal) who has to deliver a parcel to this other guy. Some other people try and stop him, as they wonder round Eastern Europe to keep the filming costs low. It's never really explained why anyone has any interest at all in the contents of the package, with characters talking at right angles to the events in the film. There's a feeling that the plot of The Foreigner is taking place around the continent, but that the director kept setting his camera up in the wrong place, so crucial events take place off screen while the camera films something banal instead, like a guy stealing a car. Then we just hear people referring to this other event we missed because the film crew were looking at this other thing.
Having said that, there's a lot to enjoy. Steven Seagal is so badly out of shape in this one he never appears in a scene with his coat off. When he smiles, his eyes disappear; when he's riding down an escalator, he folds his hands over his paunch like a pregnant woman. In a few scenes he runs up to a character to deliver a line, but can't because he's so badly out of breath.
My favourite moment was when this black dude in a camel coat rocks up and starts talking grandiloquently in a cockney accent as he tortures Seagal. You know the drill. "This is the excruciating pain of asphyxiation. You know that unpleasant tingling forming at the base of your neck? That, my friend, is the beginning of a blood clot as I starve the oxygen from your brain." It's as though this guy wandered off the set of a Guy Ritchie movie; or more likely that the scriptwriter had just seen snatch and thought the monologues were cool. Anyway. He dies of an exploding urinal while Seagal leaps out the window looking like a sack of beef being thrown into the back of a butcher's wagon.
Other great moments include Seagal burning down this innocent old peasant woman's farmhouse, putting his arms round her shoulders and kindly saying "Go stay at the farmhouse a mile from here they'll look after you". Then he drives off, without even offering her a lift.
Elsewhere, this other assassin guy knows that someone's coming to kill him because while he was in the shower his phone rang and he didn't quite get to it in time. Imagine every time you missed a call, getting dressed in your pimp suit (with hat) and hiding behind the door with a shotgun. What kind of life is that? As for the plot, there's loads of double crosses, although none of them are particularly surprising, as you never have a clue who's supposed to be doing what, anyway. Actually, they might not even have been double crosses. It's kind of hard to tell. There's some important stuff about a plane crash we never see, or even hear about til halfway through the movie but the whole thing seems to hinge on the black box recorder from the flight, which is what's in the package. Oh that's a spoiler by the way, so don't read it.
I couldn't leave this without mentioning one fella at a garage a real minor character who has got the weirdest facial deformity I have ever seen in my life. It's like, it looks like a wart or cyst or something, but when the fella smiles, it kind of rises up under his skin and it looked like it was going to break out of his face. I thought that was going to be a plot point, but it wasn't. That was just his face. Anyway. He was cool. They should make a film all about him.
Extrememly Bad
CuriosityKilledShawn8 May 2004
Lord have mercy! Why was this film made? Why did Seagal and rising star Max Ryan agree to be in it? The Foreigner is so excruciatingly bad in every conceivable way that it boggles the mind.
The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).
And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?
The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!
The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).
And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?
The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!
Nice scenery... shame about the movie!
liammurphy117 September 2003
This has got to be THE worst Steven Segal movie I have ever watched (even worse than eco-piffle like On Deadly Ground & Fire Down Below). I'll start with the good points..., It's got stylish direction for a DTV movie and has wonderful scenry... That's it! The story dosen't really go anywhere, it's just an array of well staged set pieces just so seagal go shoot bad guys (the body count can easily match Tarantino at his bloodiest!). The plot is needlessly complicated and confusing you forget who the good and bad guys are. The acting (I use the term loosely) is mediocre at best, seagal's usual ONE constipated expression and wooden acting I can take but the others especially the Brits were down right terrible.
What's in the package? Why are bad guys after it? Is seagal being set up?
WHO GIVES A S***!
When I rented this movie at my local Blockbuster (Once i'd paid) the assistant laughed at me and said it was the worst movie in the shop I could have picked! (I felt like punching him till my arm went numb)
Anyway, I haven't seen Half Past Dead or Out for a kill yet and i daren't go back for more humiliation at my store, but they can't be anyworse than this turkey
The soundtrack is supposed to be young and hip - It just gave me a suuden urge for half a dozen asprins.
All in all this is Seagal at his WORST! The guy who's gained about 100Ibs and looks well past it, he's a guy who just doesn't no when to stop, he should retire gracefully NOW! and have a go behind the camera or become a Martial arts teacher or something.
My rating 2/10 (1 point for scenery)
What's in the package? Why are bad guys after it? Is seagal being set up?
WHO GIVES A S***!
When I rented this movie at my local Blockbuster (Once i'd paid) the assistant laughed at me and said it was the worst movie in the shop I could have picked! (I felt like punching him till my arm went numb)
Anyway, I haven't seen Half Past Dead or Out for a kill yet and i daren't go back for more humiliation at my store, but they can't be anyworse than this turkey
The soundtrack is supposed to be young and hip - It just gave me a suuden urge for half a dozen asprins.
All in all this is Seagal at his WORST! The guy who's gained about 100Ibs and looks well past it, he's a guy who just doesn't no when to stop, he should retire gracefully NOW! and have a go behind the camera or become a Martial arts teacher or something.
My rating 2/10 (1 point for scenery)
Gives FOREIGNERS a bad name!
dolemite7210 October 2004
SCREEN GEMS planned to give this one a cinema release, hopefully to ride on the success of HALF PAST DEAD, when HPD flopped, this movie (THE FOREIGNER) was shelved and went straight to DVD. This is probably the best thing that could have happened to SEAGAL, i don't think i could have taken it, watching people leave or laugh at the cinema, at this (let's say) complicated-mess of a movie
With every new year, comes new excitement over a new STEVEN SEAGAL flick. And i'll say one thing about the stout sensei, his films may have gone downhill, but his 'video art' improves with every new release. This DVD cover has SEAGAL wielding a gun, a hot babe in the background, helicopters passing over the Eiffel tower and a car whizzing about in mid-air.........Sounds great! "SPECIAL DELIVERY-ACTION" proclaims the back cover, and it further announces that "Amid exotic locales and loads of explosive excitement, THE FOREIGNER is a heart-pounding thriller from the king of action (i take it, they mean SEAGAL?) that'll keep you on the edge of your seat"....Phew!......You soon find out they TRI-STAR are being (just) a little economical with the truth, on this one.
Here SEAGAL (working with hack director MICHAEL OBLOWITZ) try (and mostly fail) to go for that old school 'Harry Palmer/Dirk Bogarde' style espionage flick, were action takes a back seat, to plot. Unfortunately, what we have here is little plot, AND very little action, so the rest is stretched out with meaningless 'filler'
SEAGAL plays JONATHAN COLD (great name, eh!) who is hired by a shadowy crime boss (aren't they all) to deliver a 'mysterious-package'(tm) across France, but enemy agents try (and mostly fail) to intercept him on his mission. On paper (and certainly on the DVD write up) this sounds great, OUT FOR JUSTICE meets RONIN, but the plot makes little or no sense. And SEAGAL (as much as i like the guy) looks sluggish, and rather bloated. His (once magnificent) fight scenes are reduced to quick cut (waist upward) speed-ups. And in most cases (the fight with MAX RYAN) look terribly 'doubled' On the plus side, the movie is lensed well enough, and (god forbid) you might have to watch it 2-or-3 times in order to understand what's happening (but you might not want to waste four and a half hours of your life, like this!) Had the movie not concentrated on 'meaningless murders of (mostly) innocent bystanders, and concentrated on more SEAGAL hand-to-broken-wrist style combat, it certainly might have ranked up there with his early 90's input. However, lazy performances and little martial-arts for your money spent make this an extremely guilty pleasure, and one for the die-hard fans (that's me, then?).
This is one FOREIGNER desperately seeking asylum from it's own pretensions.
What's worse is, that not even a year later, SEAGAL further rubbished his cred, by making (the dreadful) OUT FOR A KILL (with the same director) And he's now RUMOURED to be making a follow-up to THE FOREIGNER........Don't do it STEVEN!!
Because i like SEAGAL in anything, i'll give it a 6 and a half.
With every new year, comes new excitement over a new STEVEN SEAGAL flick. And i'll say one thing about the stout sensei, his films may have gone downhill, but his 'video art' improves with every new release. This DVD cover has SEAGAL wielding a gun, a hot babe in the background, helicopters passing over the Eiffel tower and a car whizzing about in mid-air.........Sounds great! "SPECIAL DELIVERY-ACTION" proclaims the back cover, and it further announces that "Amid exotic locales and loads of explosive excitement, THE FOREIGNER is a heart-pounding thriller from the king of action (i take it, they mean SEAGAL?) that'll keep you on the edge of your seat"....Phew!......You soon find out they TRI-STAR are being (just) a little economical with the truth, on this one.
Here SEAGAL (working with hack director MICHAEL OBLOWITZ) try (and mostly fail) to go for that old school 'Harry Palmer/Dirk Bogarde' style espionage flick, were action takes a back seat, to plot. Unfortunately, what we have here is little plot, AND very little action, so the rest is stretched out with meaningless 'filler'
SEAGAL plays JONATHAN COLD (great name, eh!) who is hired by a shadowy crime boss (aren't they all) to deliver a 'mysterious-package'(tm) across France, but enemy agents try (and mostly fail) to intercept him on his mission. On paper (and certainly on the DVD write up) this sounds great, OUT FOR JUSTICE meets RONIN, but the plot makes little or no sense. And SEAGAL (as much as i like the guy) looks sluggish, and rather bloated. His (once magnificent) fight scenes are reduced to quick cut (waist upward) speed-ups. And in most cases (the fight with MAX RYAN) look terribly 'doubled' On the plus side, the movie is lensed well enough, and (god forbid) you might have to watch it 2-or-3 times in order to understand what's happening (but you might not want to waste four and a half hours of your life, like this!) Had the movie not concentrated on 'meaningless murders of (mostly) innocent bystanders, and concentrated on more SEAGAL hand-to-broken-wrist style combat, it certainly might have ranked up there with his early 90's input. However, lazy performances and little martial-arts for your money spent make this an extremely guilty pleasure, and one for the die-hard fans (that's me, then?).
This is one FOREIGNER desperately seeking asylum from it's own pretensions.
What's worse is, that not even a year later, SEAGAL further rubbished his cred, by making (the dreadful) OUT FOR A KILL (with the same director) And he's now RUMOURED to be making a follow-up to THE FOREIGNER........Don't do it STEVEN!!
Because i like SEAGAL in anything, i'll give it a 6 and a half.
Note: This is a good movie if you're cool...
nerph2011 April 2006
Steven Seagal, after making the bombastic "Half Past Dead," turned to the direct-to-video market with the film "The Foreigner," which he made with visionary action director Michael Oblowitz. I realize I'm going to get lynched by saying good things about this film, but hear me out. "The Foreigner" delivers exactly what Seagal's fans want, and more. There is nothing but complete action in this film. The plot is so ludicrous, you have no choice but to ignore it. Just sit back and let the action take you on a ride. "The Foreigner" really brought out the ugliness of Seagal fans, proving that they will never be pleased by him. He tried to do something with a plot and acting in "Fire Down Below" and it backfired. So now he does something with no plot and stylistic action and the same thing happens. Personally, I'm loving every second of "The Foreigner," and while the Seagal-Oblowitz follow-up "Out for a Kill" may have been pushing it a little too much, I even find myself smiling at that one too. No, this isn't a bad movie. It entertains on a level where one can sit back, eat some popcorn, and enjoy an explosion or two. Since when did plot or acting have to be part of that picture? If I have to expect good acting or a plot to be a Steven Seagal fan, count me out. I'll be over here watching "Universal Soldier."
All I remember is the soviet Norway
sverrehu22 September 2009
Since I'm from Norway (one of the top ten (or so) richest countries in the world), it was much fun to watch how we use trucks from the 50ies and live in cottages from the medieval times. And since we have very strict laws when it comes to handguns, it was fun to see how much guns there actually were in Norway during the five minutes of the shooting there. Mr. Direct-to-video even managed to bring his silencer on short notice, so he must have powerful friends in the customs.
Please do at least _some_ research before going to an "exotic" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.
Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.
Please do at least _some_ research before going to an "exotic" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.
Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.
Steven Seagal hits rock bottom
Dr. Gore5 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*
This movie taught me an important lesson: I should listen to the user comments. Before renting "The Foreigner", I read some of the user comment summaries on the IMDb. I didn't expect them to be too positive. I was surprised to see that they were not only negative but vehemently so. I rented it anyway while muttering that one phrase that has begun so many painful movie watching experiences: "How bad can it be?"
This movie is an abomination. It is right down there with "Ticker" as the worst Seagal flick ever. I thought "Fire Down Below" was horrid when that came out. That movie was genius compared to this one. At least in "FDB" he was fighting. Seagal doesn't fight anymore! He does not and CANNOT do martial arts anymore!! This is the overriding problem with recent Seagal movies. The camera does most of the fighting for him. It will either go in slow motion or super fast speed so we can't see what in the heck he is doing. Notice how Seagal is always wearing a jacket or a long coat? This is so we don't see his current body shape. I think they'll be putting him in cold settings from now on. Get ready for Steven Seagal in "Hard to Freeze: Antarctic Ranger!"
"The Foreigner" has many other problems too numerous to mention. It was an incoherent mess. Buildings were blowing up for no apparent reason, people were getting shot with silencers for some reason, the bad guy kept smoking through it all and Seagal was wheezing. I was wheezing too after this mess. Don't see this junk. It will only hurt your memories of better Seagal movies. See "Marked for Death" or "Under Siege". Those were good movies. "The Foreigner" is awful.
This movie taught me an important lesson: I should listen to the user comments. Before renting "The Foreigner", I read some of the user comment summaries on the IMDb. I didn't expect them to be too positive. I was surprised to see that they were not only negative but vehemently so. I rented it anyway while muttering that one phrase that has begun so many painful movie watching experiences: "How bad can it be?"
This movie is an abomination. It is right down there with "Ticker" as the worst Seagal flick ever. I thought "Fire Down Below" was horrid when that came out. That movie was genius compared to this one. At least in "FDB" he was fighting. Seagal doesn't fight anymore! He does not and CANNOT do martial arts anymore!! This is the overriding problem with recent Seagal movies. The camera does most of the fighting for him. It will either go in slow motion or super fast speed so we can't see what in the heck he is doing. Notice how Seagal is always wearing a jacket or a long coat? This is so we don't see his current body shape. I think they'll be putting him in cold settings from now on. Get ready for Steven Seagal in "Hard to Freeze: Antarctic Ranger!"
"The Foreigner" has many other problems too numerous to mention. It was an incoherent mess. Buildings were blowing up for no apparent reason, people were getting shot with silencers for some reason, the bad guy kept smoking through it all and Seagal was wheezing. I was wheezing too after this mess. Don't see this junk. It will only hurt your memories of better Seagal movies. See "Marked for Death" or "Under Siege". Those were good movies. "The Foreigner" is awful.
Flat as stale beer.
=G=1 February 2003
"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)
A real Bomb
whpratt12 May 2006
Always enjoy Steven Seagal in most of his films, however, this film was simply horrible. Steven Seagal,(Jonathan Cold),"Today You Die",'05, was a wheeler dealer of a character and had just finished an assignment for a creepy looking sinister under-world person. Once again, Jonathan decides to take on another case to deliver a package. Everybody seems to want this package for some reason and all kinds of hoods decided to go after Jonathan and secure this important package. There is one hood that Jonathan tries to kill over and over and over again and never seems to succeed. Anna Louise Plowman(Mrs. Meredeth Van Aiken),"Shanghai Knights",'03 plays the wife of a very rich man who wants this package and Mrs. Van Aiken has some dealings with Jonathan, but not romantic. This entire picture is a Merry-go-round of simply a package and hoods never being able to be Killed.
Could Not Find ANYTHING to like
lloydrmc9 September 2014
Seagal looks grossly overweight and arthritic to boot. The direction is comically choppy, inept, and clichéd. The script is a semi-coherent agglomeration of clichés.
Even the sound editing is incompetently done. In one scene Seagal's knife manages to make a locked-open clicking sound while it's still only about half open.
In short, it's difficult to find ANYTHING that's properly done in this movie.
My two star rating is strictly a tribute to the entertainment afforded by the campy ineptitude of this movie, not any merit one might attribute to a movie in the conventional sense.
Even the sound editing is incompetently done. In one scene Seagal's knife manages to make a locked-open clicking sound while it's still only about half open.
In short, it's difficult to find ANYTHING that's properly done in this movie.
My two star rating is strictly a tribute to the entertainment afforded by the campy ineptitude of this movie, not any merit one might attribute to a movie in the conventional sense.
Like going to McDonald's
albrechtcm8 February 2014
Watching a Steven Seagal movie these days is like going to McDonald's. You know it won't be very good, but you know exactly what to expect. Call us crazy but we can't help liking Mr. Seagal and watching his movies, most of which are just terrible. Some of his earlier efforts were good, well-made with decent scripts, but in more recent years, between him being grossly out of shape and scripts being written by some high school kid, not to mention the lack of budget, there just isn't much to recommend these flicks. In this outing, we have to have a highly-trained man who works outside the box to deliver a mysterious package to someone. Now the package is just a box wrapped in paper with strings tied around it. My initial thought was why the devil didn't they just ship it via UPS with no fuss and no muss? Nobody would even know it had been shipped and there was nothing about it to make it stand out. Of course then there would have been no story, and even with Mr. Seagal in charge of the package there wasn't much story. At one moment his unfailing marksmanship was deadly at any distance and at another he couldn't hit a guy across the room with a shotgun until the fourth try. As usual in this type of film everybody wants to kill Mr. Seagal but somehow he always comes through. There was absolutely no reason in the world to send the package anyway. The whole thing could have been handled by the shipper with a match. End of story. And of course, in this type of film, his handlers always want to eliminate Mr. Seagal. In one scene the baddie tells a top killer he wants Mr. Seagal dead and an empty folder at Langley tomorrow. Later, when he talks to his boss on the phone, he asks what his boss wants him to do about Mr. Seagal. I realize dead and an empty folder at Langley is pretty vague, but even so, I got the idea before this hit-man did. One other concern is that if you don't have the budget to make an action flick with lots of special effects, it's better to stick to something less spectacular, like a little love story or something. As I said above, we can't help liking Mr. Seagal. I especially loved him when he was posing as ship's cook and, despite the attack going on around him, spent a good deal of time worrying about his pies in the oven. So despite the deterioration of his films, I suppose we'll keep watching until there are no more.
Below Seagal's low standards
Maziun8 November 2013
After "Half past dead" comes a movie that was a nail to Seagal's coffin. Goodbye movie career. "The Foreigner" is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film. It was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature. God knows why , since it looks even more low budget than "Half past dead" and is even worse. At least "Half past dead" was laughable in some places and had some kind of plot (ripped off "The Rock", but still a plot).
This one is incomprehensible . Seagal is a mysterious guy hired by mysterious guy to deliver mysterious package to another mysterious guy . Mysterious guys appear and try to stop him . Lots of mysteries , eh ? This is only thing I can say about the plot . I agree with the reviewer who wrote that the movie makers filmed the action scenes first then decided to put it together as a movie. The plot is nonsense. What is the deal with the title ? It's interesting for me that this movie was made in Poland and there are some known Polish actors in it (Przemyslaw Saleta , Miroslaw Zbrojewicz). It doesn't change the fact that the movie sucks . Seagal has done many terrible DTV films over the years and this is undoubtedly one of the worst.
The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. The fight are so obviously edited that it makes head hurt. Shootouts are done in bad slow motion. The atmosphere feels absolutely miserable. There is one scene with exploding package that is so stupid , so bad I will never forget it.
ARGHHHHH ! Why I'm wasting my time with writing about this piece of s*** ?! I give it 1/10 , because I can't give 0. Enough said.
This one is incomprehensible . Seagal is a mysterious guy hired by mysterious guy to deliver mysterious package to another mysterious guy . Mysterious guys appear and try to stop him . Lots of mysteries , eh ? This is only thing I can say about the plot . I agree with the reviewer who wrote that the movie makers filmed the action scenes first then decided to put it together as a movie. The plot is nonsense. What is the deal with the title ? It's interesting for me that this movie was made in Poland and there are some known Polish actors in it (Przemyslaw Saleta , Miroslaw Zbrojewicz). It doesn't change the fact that the movie sucks . Seagal has done many terrible DTV films over the years and this is undoubtedly one of the worst.
The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. The fight are so obviously edited that it makes head hurt. Shootouts are done in bad slow motion. The atmosphere feels absolutely miserable. There is one scene with exploding package that is so stupid , so bad I will never forget it.
ARGHHHHH ! Why I'm wasting my time with writing about this piece of s*** ?! I give it 1/10 , because I can't give 0. Enough said.
Feeling dizzy...
swedzin13 October 2012
This Steven Seagal film is a perfect medicine for your insomnia! Just like any other of his films from 2000s. Just play this and voilà! Straight to sleep DVD! No problem. Seagal plays a freelance agent who gets screwed because of a package that is of high interest of mob, politics, blah blah... The film is nothing but walking, or driving around, with few boring fighting scenes... Seagal is really slow, monotone... he is not interesting anymore. Please, man, go retire while you still can, go and start an Aikido dojo in LA, or where ever, I think that's for the best. I really love Seagal's films, but at some point you need to stop. I don't understand, why insisting on continuing to work on some dumb movies that nobody wants to watch. There's nothing to say about this film, I mean what can you say about C film, straight to DVD feature. It's boring, makes you feel dizzy and finally BUMP! Sleeping...
"Sending someone to kill me was your first & last mistake." Another bad Seagal flick.
poolandrews14 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Foreigner starts in Paris where undercover agent Jonathan Cold (Steven Seagal) is hired by his friend Alexander Marquee (Philip Dunbar) to collect a package & deliver it to an address in Germany. Cold agrees but as he takes delivery of the package a load of guy's try to kill him but fail, miserably. Despite nearly being killed Cold still agrees to take the package to Germany & deliver it to rich industrialist Jerome Van Aitken (Harry Van Gorkum), however it's just not that simple as lots of guy's in long black coats want the package themselves & will kill to get it...
This Polish American co-production was directed by Michael Oblowitz & is bad Seagal which has been said more than a few times over the past few years. The script by Darren Campbell (no, not the retired British Gold Olympic medal winning sprinter! I hope..) takes itself extremely seriously & is a bit of a mess, it jumps all over Europe from Paris to Poland to Germany to Norway seemingly at random & bizarrely although there are occasionally captions to let us know where we are they appear at random & not on every occasion we need them. Then there are the terrible character's, you won't care anybody in The Foreigner or anything that happens to them. The film doesn't quite work & there are lapses of logic (the are obviously no police in Europe & you can openly kill people & carry guns & bombs across borders like it was duty free) & as a whole it just doesn't come together at all particularly the very rushed & unsatisfactory ending. At almost 100 minutes it's too long & not exciting enough to maintain ones interest or like for it. Not Seagal's best work.
Director Oblowitz doesn't do anything special here, the whole film has a very grey, muted colour scheme & it looks like Europe is constantly overcast. Then there's the decision to dress virtually all the bad guy's up exactly the same in long black leather coats, watch it & you'll notice it. The action is generally confined to dull shoot outs where the bad guy's can't shoot straight as usual & Seagal never runs out of bullets, yawn. Looking at Seagal his weight gain is really noticeable, the harsh fact is that he is like Elvis & the older he gets the fatter he gets. He doesn't really have a neck here as it's more just blubber. Set & shot in Europe this even looks bland & fails to capitalise on it's locations.
I was gob-smacked to see that this had a very healthy budget of around $20,000,000 because it certainly didn't end up on screen. This was apparently slated for a theatrical release but was canned & went straight to video after Seagal's previous film Half Past Dead (2002) bombed at the box office. Shot in Poland this probably had some expensive location shooting but not much else bar a couple of explosions. The acting isn't up to much, Seagal is Seagal & mumbles his way the film while I must admit I thought Anna-Louise Plowman who plays Meredith was pretty hot but she's not in it enough to make it watchable.
The Foreigner is a poor action film, if your a Seagal fan remember the good times & watch films like Under Siege 1 & 2 again instead. Not recommended although by no means the worst film ever as some have claimed. The Foreigner was amazingly followed by a sequel Black Dawn (2005) although it's no surprise they tried to distance themselves from this & give it a completely different title.
This Polish American co-production was directed by Michael Oblowitz & is bad Seagal which has been said more than a few times over the past few years. The script by Darren Campbell (no, not the retired British Gold Olympic medal winning sprinter! I hope..) takes itself extremely seriously & is a bit of a mess, it jumps all over Europe from Paris to Poland to Germany to Norway seemingly at random & bizarrely although there are occasionally captions to let us know where we are they appear at random & not on every occasion we need them. Then there are the terrible character's, you won't care anybody in The Foreigner or anything that happens to them. The film doesn't quite work & there are lapses of logic (the are obviously no police in Europe & you can openly kill people & carry guns & bombs across borders like it was duty free) & as a whole it just doesn't come together at all particularly the very rushed & unsatisfactory ending. At almost 100 minutes it's too long & not exciting enough to maintain ones interest or like for it. Not Seagal's best work.
Director Oblowitz doesn't do anything special here, the whole film has a very grey, muted colour scheme & it looks like Europe is constantly overcast. Then there's the decision to dress virtually all the bad guy's up exactly the same in long black leather coats, watch it & you'll notice it. The action is generally confined to dull shoot outs where the bad guy's can't shoot straight as usual & Seagal never runs out of bullets, yawn. Looking at Seagal his weight gain is really noticeable, the harsh fact is that he is like Elvis & the older he gets the fatter he gets. He doesn't really have a neck here as it's more just blubber. Set & shot in Europe this even looks bland & fails to capitalise on it's locations.
I was gob-smacked to see that this had a very healthy budget of around $20,000,000 because it certainly didn't end up on screen. This was apparently slated for a theatrical release but was canned & went straight to video after Seagal's previous film Half Past Dead (2002) bombed at the box office. Shot in Poland this probably had some expensive location shooting but not much else bar a couple of explosions. The acting isn't up to much, Seagal is Seagal & mumbles his way the film while I must admit I thought Anna-Louise Plowman who plays Meredith was pretty hot but she's not in it enough to make it watchable.
The Foreigner is a poor action film, if your a Seagal fan remember the good times & watch films like Under Siege 1 & 2 again instead. Not recommended although by no means the worst film ever as some have claimed. The Foreigner was amazingly followed by a sequel Black Dawn (2005) although it's no surprise they tried to distance themselves from this & give it a completely different title.
I love Steven Seagal
mankitten12023 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This was a Steven Seagul movie that was a little bit different than the others. In this movie he goes on a murderous revenge killing spree for no reason really. Honestly, when we watched this movie we had absolutely no idea what was going on for a storyline. It wasn't a typical Seagal movie though. One time, some black British dude hid in Seagals apartment, and knocked him out from behind, then tied a rope around his neck and interrogated him. I KNOW...KNOCKED HIM OUT!!? Well, eventually, Seagal outsmarted him and blew him up with a bomb the size of a shoebox that completely flattened a train station. Another time some black dude dressed in a silk suit that worked for the government got the jump on Seagal. Well, Seagul outsmarted him and threw a bomb at him that was attached to a CD. It cut into the guys stomach and blew him up. Seagal through out the line "I just love a BBQ". Suddenly, the movie just ended with a less than impressive fight sequence involving a guy picking up a chair, just to break it and attack Seagal with a stumpy chair leg.
Memorable Moments: Mother thinking about daughter, but apparently her only memory is of her trying to jump rope, but sucks at it and always hits her feet Bad guy constantly smoking and sneaking around, but no-one EVER sees or smells the smoke. This movie holds the record for most guns with silencers on it. They even put a silencer on an AK-47. Bad guy breaking chair to get little leg to attack Seagal, his little hop turn around, just to get chopped in the throat and killed. The numerous ways Seagal can kill a man just by pushing him into a pond or tripping him.
by UberBrian
Memorable Moments: Mother thinking about daughter, but apparently her only memory is of her trying to jump rope, but sucks at it and always hits her feet Bad guy constantly smoking and sneaking around, but no-one EVER sees or smells the smoke. This movie holds the record for most guns with silencers on it. They even put a silencer on an AK-47. Bad guy breaking chair to get little leg to attack Seagal, his little hop turn around, just to get chopped in the throat and killed. The numerous ways Seagal can kill a man just by pushing him into a pond or tripping him.
by UberBrian
Weak Seagal
Horror_Fan66627 February 2004
First, I want to admit that I have a bias opinion when it comes to Steven Seagal. I love the man. Since I was little I have been watching his stuff and I own every one of his movies. Recently he was on a bit of a hot streak as well. After the entertaining Exit Wounds and the guilty pleasure that was Half Past Dead, I had high hopes for this movie even though it was going direct-to-video. Ultimately, it isn't bad, it is just extremely average.
The actions scenes for the most part are few and far between and terribly brief. They are also, for the most part, shot with no imagination at all. There is way too much of this slow motion freeze frame nonsense trying to make nothing look like something and it gets old fast. The storyline is interesting, but in the end isn't nearly as complicated as it originally appeared due to the very amateur editing job. The movie was basically rushed out and due to this any chance the film had to reach old school Seagal levels was eliminated.
Still, a moment or two shine through. As I said before I was intrigued by the plot for awhile and was curious as to what exactly was in the package that Seagal's character, Jonathan Cold (talk about bad character names), had to deliver. Seagal still looks good and knows how to throw bad guys around when he gets the chance. Not nearly enough though. As stated before, it isn't bad, it just isn't great either. Definitely weak by normal Seagal standards. Unfortunately, I doubt things will get better. You don't get rescued from direct-to-video hell twice in your career. Exit Wounds was a beautiful comeback, but he waited three years for that picture to come along and he ain't got time like that to spare anymore.
6/10
The actions scenes for the most part are few and far between and terribly brief. They are also, for the most part, shot with no imagination at all. There is way too much of this slow motion freeze frame nonsense trying to make nothing look like something and it gets old fast. The storyline is interesting, but in the end isn't nearly as complicated as it originally appeared due to the very amateur editing job. The movie was basically rushed out and due to this any chance the film had to reach old school Seagal levels was eliminated.
Still, a moment or two shine through. As I said before I was intrigued by the plot for awhile and was curious as to what exactly was in the package that Seagal's character, Jonathan Cold (talk about bad character names), had to deliver. Seagal still looks good and knows how to throw bad guys around when he gets the chance. Not nearly enough though. As stated before, it isn't bad, it just isn't great either. Definitely weak by normal Seagal standards. Unfortunately, I doubt things will get better. You don't get rescued from direct-to-video hell twice in your career. Exit Wounds was a beautiful comeback, but he waited three years for that picture to come along and he ain't got time like that to spare anymore.
6/10
Seagal's descent into DTV hell started here, with this poorly edited nightmare
callanvass31 August 2013
*MINOR SPOILERS*
How in the world was this ever conceived, let alone be considered for a theatrical run?! Yes. It is true. Seagal's star was staring to wane, but after Segal made a brief comeback with Exit Wounds, Seagal had a chance to become a top action star again; well. He blew it big time with Half Past Dead, and they decided to send this movie straight to video; smart choice geniuses! I'm actually a fan of Steven Seagal when he's motivated, and that is very rare these days. The movie looks and feels incredibly cheap; despite that it had a healthy budget of around $16,000,000 it takes place in Warsaw Poland, and the atmosphere feels absolutely miserable. It's dull as dishwater to watch, since there isn't much action to speak of until the end and when it happens, most of it is in slow motion with very poor editing. It came off incredibly corny. It also tries to throw in a half-assed subplot with a Mother & Daughter to no avail. Not convinced on how bad this is yet? I'll continue. There is a scene where Steven Seagal is forced at gun point, and he and a villain head to the bathroom with a package. The package explodes while Steven Seagal is relieving (peeing) himself in a urinal Seagal manages to hurl himself threw a glass window with fire from the explosion engulfing him, and he escapes completely unscathed (!)
Steven Seagal is god awful here. He is completely out of shape, and has a baggy trench coat on to hide all the flab in his gut. Not only is his voice dubbed on occasion, but he is blatantly annoyed about the whole thing, with a look on his face that screams "Let's get this over and done with!" Seagal has never been great at emotion, but at least he had solid intensity. He shows off emotion here with plenty of inconsequential mumbling. He was sleepwalking here, and was very lazy to boot by doing minimal fighting scenes; I don't blame him for being unhappy with this film, but show some professionalism! Max Ryan is way too OTT as the villain. He has a cigarette dangling from his mouth in every scene! He was extremely annoying. Anna-Louise Plowman is pretty to look at, but that's it. The film didn't do enough to make me care about her, or her daughter.
Note: I couldn't resist adding some memorable cheesy lines
Meredith (Anna-Louise Plowman): May I ask Who's Calling? Jonathan Cold (Steven Seagal): No thanks. I'll call back later
Jonathan Cold: I'd say the only thing unexpected is that I'm still alive
Jonathan Cold: You kinda look like Ray Charles (referring to Mr. Mimms Sherman Augustus) then again Ray probably can't shoot as good as you, right?
Final Thoughts: Seagal has done many terrible DTV films over the years, and this is undoubtedly one of the worst. It's not as bad as Attack Force or a couple others, but it's still abominably bad. Even if you're a die hard Seagal fan, I can't on good conscience, recommend this to you. It has very little action, and you'll most likely be bored to tears. Stay away!
1/10
How in the world was this ever conceived, let alone be considered for a theatrical run?! Yes. It is true. Seagal's star was staring to wane, but after Segal made a brief comeback with Exit Wounds, Seagal had a chance to become a top action star again; well. He blew it big time with Half Past Dead, and they decided to send this movie straight to video; smart choice geniuses! I'm actually a fan of Steven Seagal when he's motivated, and that is very rare these days. The movie looks and feels incredibly cheap; despite that it had a healthy budget of around $16,000,000 it takes place in Warsaw Poland, and the atmosphere feels absolutely miserable. It's dull as dishwater to watch, since there isn't much action to speak of until the end and when it happens, most of it is in slow motion with very poor editing. It came off incredibly corny. It also tries to throw in a half-assed subplot with a Mother & Daughter to no avail. Not convinced on how bad this is yet? I'll continue. There is a scene where Steven Seagal is forced at gun point, and he and a villain head to the bathroom with a package. The package explodes while Steven Seagal is relieving (peeing) himself in a urinal Seagal manages to hurl himself threw a glass window with fire from the explosion engulfing him, and he escapes completely unscathed (!)
Steven Seagal is god awful here. He is completely out of shape, and has a baggy trench coat on to hide all the flab in his gut. Not only is his voice dubbed on occasion, but he is blatantly annoyed about the whole thing, with a look on his face that screams "Let's get this over and done with!" Seagal has never been great at emotion, but at least he had solid intensity. He shows off emotion here with plenty of inconsequential mumbling. He was sleepwalking here, and was very lazy to boot by doing minimal fighting scenes; I don't blame him for being unhappy with this film, but show some professionalism! Max Ryan is way too OTT as the villain. He has a cigarette dangling from his mouth in every scene! He was extremely annoying. Anna-Louise Plowman is pretty to look at, but that's it. The film didn't do enough to make me care about her, or her daughter.
Note: I couldn't resist adding some memorable cheesy lines
Meredith (Anna-Louise Plowman): May I ask Who's Calling? Jonathan Cold (Steven Seagal): No thanks. I'll call back later
Jonathan Cold: I'd say the only thing unexpected is that I'm still alive
Jonathan Cold: You kinda look like Ray Charles (referring to Mr. Mimms Sherman Augustus) then again Ray probably can't shoot as good as you, right?
Final Thoughts: Seagal has done many terrible DTV films over the years, and this is undoubtedly one of the worst. It's not as bad as Attack Force or a couple others, but it's still abominably bad. Even if you're a die hard Seagal fan, I can't on good conscience, recommend this to you. It has very little action, and you'll most likely be bored to tears. Stay away!
1/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
