I love this movie so much

That was an excellent one.

Fresh and Exciting

Absolutely the worst movie.

I saw this film on sat TV in a hotel and I was riveted from the first moment. Many times I switched channels, but I always came back, wondering - did they hate Steven Seagal so much, or did he just want to go out with a bang? At first I thought this was made in the 80's or 90's - the lighting is really bad, always hinting at the (tiny) point where the action will be. And the action - you don't get to see many good moves, just flashing arms and gushing blood.The story is silly, of course, but was it necessary to get the technical details so painfully wrong? None of the radar or computer screens in this film make any sense. Too much flashing and scrolling info where static screens would be enough.The choice of exteriors for Northern Afghanistan was distracting too because of all the vegetation and greenery. And Lada's.The film has so many technical flaws that I could not really follow the dialogues, but I could not fail to notice that one of the villains is a beautiful woman, as is one of the 'good guys'. One of the baddies is black, and of course, anyone vaguely Arabic needs to die. Every silly cliché on one heap.It is not as if all this was tongue-in-cheek. From watching this film I get the impression, that it was cobbled together by people who really had no clue, or could not face Mr Seagal and tell him that what they were making was rubbish.

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

Who would have thought that a Steven Seagal movie would employ loads of stock footage in it? Not me, not in 2001 at least when I last saw Big Steve on the big screen in the terrific "Exit Wounds"."Flight of Fury" is hokey entertainment at best. The stock footage is painfully obvious and (probably) used to make the film look bigger. The story is awfully thin and it took Seagal and another dude to pen it. The fight scenes are uninspired and the gun play is fairly pedestrian. The flight scenes were far better some twenty years ago in "Top Gun" and the acting not very good. In fact, Old Steve mumbles his lines in such a relaxed manner that I expected him to fall asleep every now and then.Despite all it's faults; "Flight of Fury" isn't all that painful to sit through. It moves along pretty well, the one on one fight with Steve at the end is well played out and an extra star must be awarded for his best physical form in years. There's even a lesbian scene here (completely out of the blue and pointless) but they're always quite the eye candy.All in all, not a good movie by any means but for fans of Steve it may be worth the hour and a half on a slow night.

Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?