CurtisApr 29th, 2008 - 20:09:09

Everyone is free to like what they like, but I think this reviewer has displayed little knowledge of the kind of film he's reviewing here and is just taking easy shots for an audience he assumes is predisposed to agree with him. And I'd guess he's a fairly young person as well.
Urban Justice is a low budget action flick of the kind they used to make back in the 70s--in fact, it is as close to a tribute to those films as you can get without making a period piece. For those of you too young to actually remember the hard core actioners of Charles Bronson or Lee Marvin or even early Clint Eastwood, let me fill you in--none of the characters in the classic 70s action movies displayed much emotion. They were too busy kicking ass. And they didn't have extensive backstories. For instance, the only thing you know about Eastwood's Dirty Harry is that his wife is dead and so are all his ex-partners. And all you find out about Bronson's Mr. Majestyk is that he was ex-military and did some jail time. The classic action anti-hero is about just that—action. And I don’t mean fighting and shooting. I mean that the character is defined by his actions, the things he does—not by what someone else says about him, or by flashbacks, or any of that stuff. The classic action character is derived from film noir in that sense.
People today are used to being spoon fed easy explanations for everything—big emotions, bad expository dialog, flashbacks, etc. That’s why all the movies you see in the theatres these days just seem like TV shows with better cinematography and a widescreen picture. Prettyboys trying way to hard to pretend to be something. Everything about the backgrounds of the characters in these movies HAS to be spelled out because the actors in them have NO SOUL at all. In the old 70s style of action film--at least in one that starred one of the greats--if you wanted to get that background detail, all you had to do was look in the actor’s eyes. And if you can’t look into Charles Bronson’s eyes in “Hard Times” and see his whole history, then you should simply stay at home and watch network TV. '24' is good enough for you. Stay home and watch 'Lost.'

I’m not saying that Seagal is a great actor, or that he hasn’t sleepwalked through a number of his flicks, giving nothing to the camera. But what I am saying is that this is NOT one of those flicks. Action movie clichés aside, Seagal gives a concise and deep performance in this one. Very simple, yes. But it is not blank. Look into his eyes, the crags in his face, the posture of his body; even though the standard action character is one that by definition hides his emotions and uses them only when they serve his purpose, you can still see the regret, the rage, and the determination behind the eyes.

Report this comment