Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Michael Ledo Mr. Alexander (Steven Seagal) is an ex-government agent who learned "things" in the mountains of Thailand. He is now the crime boss over the city of Albuquerque. Iceman (Ving Rhames) has recently got out of prison and is challenging Alexander, who simply wants to be bought out honorably. In what passes for a Seagal subplot, Roman Hurst (Bren Foster)who works for Alexander, gets double crossed by Iceman and is forced to retire, losing the use of his hands- somewhat, but he can still slow motion kickbox. He now lives in a room off a diner owned by Alexander and run by Jimmy Peanuts (Danny Trejo). The waitress (Jenny Gabrielle) becomes a focal point, because that is where the crime boss likes his girlfriend to work.The plot, like Seagal is straight forward. Trejo supplies us with a surprise, but the plot is not twisty. The tough guy dialog is cliche, using lines like, "You broke the code." Seagal is a bad guy who kills people, but commands with over doses of corny respect speeches. At one point Seagal sits down and describes his gun collection, giving us the advantage points of each piece, topping it off with "Isn't that amazing."I found this to be a better quality Seagal film, as he is not in every scene and shares with Rhames and Trejo.

popnruss I don't know why I am drawn to these Steven Seagal disasters. Maybe I'm trying to discover if the films can get any worse or by some miracle, improving. I have to admit, though, that I am a Danny Trejo fan so that was a draw in itself. Back to Mr. Seagal . He has to be one of the worst actors out there. His character in this film is like all of his other characters: totally unbelievable. Is he still able to do his own stunts? I think he's in his mid 60's. The actor who played his protégé was so not talented except for his flying hands and feet. The actress who played Karen was so blah she could have put the viewer to sleep. And as always, I watched it till the conclusion. I am going to have to talk to my therapist about this.

Leofwine_draca Another ostensible vehicle for action star Seagal, and another dull and derivative movie helmed by Keoni Waxman, whose films seem to be getting worse instead of better as the years go by. This time around, Seagal's a supporting player in his own film, with no less than three other leading roles. He really only appears at the beginning and end and even then his appearances aren't up to much.The story is a convoluted tale about rival gangsters and their criminal empires, but it's all so cheap-looking that you don't believe it for a second. Seagal turns up, mutters a few expletives and punches a few people to death, and that's all you're getting from him. Ving Rhames bags a great deal of screen time as the villain, but his role is bland and derivative. Danny Trejo gives the best performance but again, his part lacks substance and it's only the actor's charisma that gets him through.For the most part, the film's plot rests on the shoulders of newcomer Bren Foster, an Australian martial artist also seen in Seagal's MAXIMUM CONVICTION. Foster is pretty good in the action stakes, but the fight choreography is pretty poor here and there didn't seem to be as much decent action as in the other Waxman films I've watched. It's fair to say that FORCE OF EXECUTION is one of the worst of all Seagal's straight-to-DVD movies.

leonblackwood Review: This movie was exactly what I expected. Bad storyline, with some great action but bad acting. Steven Seagal was cool throughout the movie, like Ving Rhames who acts the same in all of his movies and the Colin Farrell lookalike who was playing the lead was a good fighter, but a dead actor. It's your usual fight for territory type movie with everyone fighting for power. Danny Trejo gets stuck in the middle of the war but he doesn't get involved in all of the violence. Personally, everyone looks a bit old in this movie, but Seagal can still kick butt which looks good on camera. I've always been a fan of his effortless way of fighting. Anyway, it's not bad for action and it's good to see the veterans on screen together, but don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Watchable!Round-Up: No matter how big, in weight, or how old Seagal gets, the guy can fight. He has a way of making his opponent looking completely useless which I've always enjoying watching. As for the Colin Farrell lookalike, he just seems to be jumping off of walls, kicking like a mad man but it does look impressive. I'm sure that Ving Rhames is getting fed up with playing the same roles all of the time. You just know what to expect once you see his name in the cast, which is blamed on his role in Pulp Fiction. Anyway, the movie isn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it's not brilliant.Budget: $10million Worldwide Gross: N/AI recommend this movie to people who are into there gang war type of movies with loads of violence. 3/10