Code of Honor

Code of Honor_360P

I'll give this a 3 because generally I like Steven Seagal, but it could easily have qualified for a 1. Slow moving and dull, without very good acting - in fact some of it downright bad - without a compelling story line, and without any particularly sympathetic characters. I mean, even the doe-eyed-cute mother, who should be sympathetic, is little more than a caricature. And not enough of the beautifully choreographed martial arts fight scenes that Seagal built his reputation on. These are why I watch Steven Seagal movies, and they were sadly lacking. And the clichés. Oh my god. If you like clichés, you need not watch any other movie. Ever. Just watch this one over and over because it has every bad cliché that has ever been in any movie. Any movie. Ever. So bad that I was saying lines out loud before the "actors" said them! There went an hour and three quarters of predictability that I will never get back.

seriously?! this is only good for action and shoot em up, but even at that it fails, every bad guy in the movie can't hit anything at all, emptying full magazines on full auto at point blank range... such unbelievably bad shooting along with a script written with clichés from every B action flick in history... unbearable acting could be tolerated for what this is, but bad guys with 3 bullets in each leg still shooting and wildly missing, are just too poor to be accepted... absolute waste of time... Steven Segal, just does his usual bad ass performance; the agent, is in reality a 55 yr old actor with a bad hairpiece!; the * is not even on coke, yet babbles her lines incoherently anyway!; the detective is so dumb, you can't even buy a cop that dumb!; ...it is funny, I mean, the fact that anyone still makes corny stuff like this,,, oh boy, then some more smart agents come to take over the super vigilante case, oh I won't spoil the plot twist though! it is so stupid, you must enjoy the brain freeze!

They do not need to worry. Not only because Steven Seagals character won't be after them (he's hunting criminals you see?), but also because this just tries to mash a couple of things and take a decent idea and make something out of it. I'd say it doesn't succeed, but at least it doesn't shy away from showing the violence behind it all (even if most of the blood, if not all is CGI). Youz also get some nudity (a friend of mine told me that Steven Seagal movies nowadays have at least one scene shot in a strip club, haven't checked if that's accurate but wouldn't be surprised at all) if that floats your boat. And a story of sorts of someone being after a guy, although they have the same goal and ... well who am I kidding, you're not going to watch this because of a plot. Even when it sounds decent and made me reconsider my own recent ban on Seagal movies and watch this. He did worse, but if you're not a fan, you probably should just stay away ...

So it's another few months, and another Seagal DTV flick. Nowadays we have to get used to Seagal having even less movement that he did 10 years ago, and he's pretty sedentary in this one. He spends most of this film sniping, but does occasionally shoot some guys and gets into one hand-to-hand fight, so I guess there's that. Honestly, the film is just so bland and like so many of his other stuff that he's done since the turn of the century that it's hard to differentiate between the films these days. Seagal plays Robert Sikes, an ex-special forces guy who is specialised in everything and is extremely dangerous, blah blah blah. Whenever they have Seagal play these characters and they try to give background, they should just put in R Lee Emery's line from On Deadly Ground about him drinking a gallon of gas and all that. His character is a Punisher type thing where his wife and child have been killed so now he's a vigilante on a one man mission to kill any criminal he sees. This would be alright except there's very questionable choices of killing - he decides to snipe a group of drug addicts (because it's them that's the problem, not the dealers, apparently) at a point in the movie and also kill the mayor (whose major crime is cheating on his wife), with no real explanation. Seagal's supposed to be an antagonist in this, I suppose, but that doesn't mean he can kill people for no reason. The other main guy is a guy called William Porter, who was under Seagal in the military and knows all about him and his mission, and is out to stop him with the help of the police. He is portrayed as the polar opposite to Seagal's character - a man whose wife and son abandoned him of their own merit because of his life of drinking, cheating, and crime but is now out to "atone for his sins" by stopping Seagal. Fairly generic, like everyone else in the film. A lot of humour in this comes from the atrocious CGI. It has to be seen to be believed, with the blood in the film being the main culprit. The acting is pretty much universally terrible also. So with all that said, it's one to avoid...unless. Unless the theory I developed is correct. You see, near the end of the film the police guy believes that Sikes and Porter are in fact the same person, and that Porter is using the Sikes name to cover up his actions. This leads to a final encounter where the police kill Seagal as Sikes, but they believed they killed both Sikes and Porter as it was an alter ego. In fact, Porter had ran away never to be seen again. Of course, the fatal flaw in this is that when they take a look at the body they're gonna see a big fat old guy, not Porter. Then, when sitting on the toilet after watching this, I suddenly came to a realisation... They could be right. Sikes could be Porter, and vice versa. It is a split personality disorder sort of thing - Sikes and Porter are these two polar opposites, ying and yang. Sikes and Porter are never actually seen together by any of the major characters. In the one scene when they're in a club together, Sikes said that Porter had a bomb under his seat which would explode if he got out, allowing Sikes to walk away unscathed. Turns out the bomb was just a ruse. Before he is killed, Seagal/Sikes jumps through a window and lands on a spike, putting a bloody hole through his hand. Porter gets shot in his hand earlier in the film - an injury that is exactly the same. There is a scene where it switches between Sikes and Porter sitting in the same position in a motel room that looks exactly the same. There's plenty more hints to this idea in the film which I won't go into, but if it is actually the case that they are the same person, it makes it a LOT more interesting. Just a thought.

Vigilante Robert Sikes (Steven Seagal) is taking out the bad guys (standing by wall with 666 graffiti) , mostly with a sniper rifle. As the police investigate the carnage, Federal Agent William Porter (Craig Sheffer) helps the police with the identity of the sniper aka Richard Crenna style. 16 minutes into the film we are into the proverbial strip joint with a girl needing help. Sikes is like a ghost, he can disappear anywhere and blend in anywhere as long as everyone is wearing a Navy Peacoat, have a goatee and an Eddie Munster black dyed hair-do. Seagal was lumbering again. Fast karate moves were done with him as a shadow so they could use a body double about half his size. Unlike other Seagal films( he didn't write this one) they attempt a small twist at the end. Okay, the cops thought there was a twist, but there wasn't really a twist. Guide: Swearing and * nudity. 8 stars on the new adjusted goatee Eddie Munster Seagal scale. (Better than Sniper or that Asian thing.)

CODE OF HONOR is the very latest in a series of star action vehicles for bloated and charisma-free Steven Seagal, the former great who has been making bad film after bad film for just under twenty years now. Bizarrely, this one's not been shot in Eastern Europe but Utah for a change, although ironically it's even worse than Seagal's previous Romanian and Bulgarian adventures. The story sees Seagal as a high-tech vigilante who goes around taking down drug dealers and criminals with his sniper rifle. The police are on the case and so are various bad guys who want to take revenge for the slayings. What quickly becomes apparent is that Seagal is nothing more than a supporting player in his own movie. He gets little screen time and just one or two fight scenes which are laughably poor. The film has plenty of cheesy CGI blood which looks even more ridiculous than that we saw in THE EXPENDABLES. Despite the violence it's a real bore to sit through with barely any plot, a distinct lack of characterisation, and irrelevant sub-plots. Craig Sheffer and James Russo are two of the tired looking actors who show up to pick up their pay and keep their heads down. The ridiculous climax is particularly poorly handled and leaves the viewer thinking "is that it?".

Horrible acting, editing, cgi and everything else. Trash

Steven Seagal plays a Colonel called Robert Sikes who's wife and son were killed in some sort of accident involving criminal activity. Now, being the ever faithful husband and loving father, he spends the rest of his days mooching around unnamed cities killing absolutely anyone who commits a crime, much like Max Von Sydow in Judge Dredd. Drop a cigarette butt, he will find you, and he will kill you, because he's got a particular set of skills... He's not that extreme, but if your dealing drugs on the street, or meeting up in a car park at night, make sure you look up first, because there may be a bearded obese man with his sights on you. Enter Craig Sheffer, looking disturbingly like he's actually wearing a Craig Sheffer mask, playing an FBI agent assigned to capture him. Trouble is, Seagal is just too fast and too good for him, so they only ever bump into each other in the one nightclub in the whole world, and it just happens to be run by bad guys, so he blows it up anyway. But it's all not what it seems, Axel Foley's mate who got killed in Beverly Hills Cop is the main bad guy, and him, Sheffer, and the cops are all after Seagal. Just look for the gigantic shadow..... It's a step up from the debacle that was Sniper: Special Ops, but that's saying that breaking your leg is better than breaking your neck. We all know, us the long suffering fans of Seagal, that he will never reach the giddy heights of Marked For Justice, Hard to Siege, Above Deadly ground, or even Out For Death, and we all know that he is phoning in his performance now, just like he's been doing for the last ten or so years. And he knows this, that's why he's churning out as many films he can, because he's getting old, and becoming more ridiculous looking with every film. Here, he doesn't utter a syllable units the 48 minute mark, when he bumps into Sheffer, and this is the best part, because he some random body movement to make it look like he's moving fast. It's not a good film, the final fight is like watching two fat man swat a fly first, and when we get to see them actually doing some decent fighting, it's just two visibly skinnier men in the shadows. And then it all finishes without any real closure. But it's worth seeing for Seagal wearing his outfit ready for his next film, and to see just how hilarious Sheffer looks now. He actually looks like a creature from Nightbreed. Not good.

Continuing my plan to watch every Stephen Seagal movie in order; I just watched Code Of Honor (2016) Seagal does Death Wish, sort of, except it's not just muggers he kills; he actually blows up a strip club, where I'm sure there were innocent workers and customers in there!! The explosion at least looked real, unlike the rest of the CGI on display here. As for Seagal, he is as bland and uncharismatic as always; and I don't even think he even spoke until almost an hour in it. His character is as awesome and brilliant as always, the way he is spoken about is laughable!! Craig Sheffer comes off as a girly fan boy gushing over how awesome he is, there is a hint of it in the trailer, but the full thing is longer. The movie hinted at a HUGE twist which actually peaked my interest in the final act, but then it didn't have the balls or imagination do it, so I was just left annoyed.