First of all, this (again) is not a Steven Seagal movie; it is a movie with Steven Seagal in it (in considerably limited role). I would even say this is not a Mike Tyson movie but (like Seagal), it's a movie that has Mike Tyson in it. (In a strong supporting role but still not the main character nor the backbone of the film.) Like a couple of other films, the producers plastered Seagal's (and Tyson's) faces on the poster art in an attempt to draw audiences. (Seriously? What were they thinking?) Personally, I have mixed feelings about this particular film, however, because - in spite of the horrific acting by Tyson (Seagal, as per usual, really didn't do any "acting" or character development; his role was simply to be a thug and fight Tyson in one early scene.) it was supposedly "based on the true story" . I have yet to find the actual "true story" although poking around the internet, you can find a lot of film review sites that reinforce that claim. If it was, indeed, based on actual events, then we have a real superhero running around disguised as mild-mannered Clark Kent....er, Yan Jian. The film advertises itself as a Steven Seagal/Mike Tyson action-type film (come on, with that horrific scowl and clenched fists, do you really expect a documentary here?) but in reality, this is more of a drama with some action thrown in for good measure. Yes, there's a fight scene between Tyson and Seagal (it's early in the film so you'll get that out of the way pretty quickly) but after that, this is pretty much just a drama story with a lot of military/insurgent-type action. The acting throughout is very wooden and stiff, and the translations from the variety of different languages to an English audience suffer massively. This might actually be based on real events but that by no means makes it fun to watch; there are far too many implausible moments and, all that aside, the acting - on the part of EVERYONE - is just atrocious. Sometimes a film gets made (whether it has Seagal in it or someone else) where the lead is just flatly terrible but the supporting cast is enough to compensate. Here, that is not the case. If you're into "true" stories, you might find this one interesting but be prepared to sit through some of the most awful portrayals of "actual events" that you'll ever witness, The story was good; the film was not .
Review by ShubesBlockedParent2022-10-28T17:08:25Z
First of all, this (again) is not a Steven Seagal movie; it is a movie with Steven Seagal in it (in considerably limited role). I would even say this is not a Mike Tyson movie but (like Seagal), it's a movie that has Mike Tyson in it. (In a strong supporting role but still not the main character nor the backbone of the film.) Like a couple of other films, the producers plastered Seagal's (and Tyson's) faces on the poster art in an attempt to draw audiences. (Seriously? What were they thinking?) Personally, I have mixed feelings about this particular film, however, because - in spite of the horrific acting by Tyson (Seagal, as per usual, really didn't do any "acting" or character development; his role was simply to be a thug and fight Tyson in one early scene.) it was supposedly "based on the true story" . I have yet to find the actual "true story" although poking around the internet, you can find a lot of film review sites that reinforce that claim. If it was, indeed, based on actual events, then we have a real superhero running around disguised as mild-mannered Clark Kent....er, Yan Jian. The film advertises itself as a Steven Seagal/Mike Tyson action-type film (come on, with that horrific scowl and clenched fists, do you really expect a documentary here?) but in reality, this is more of a drama with some action thrown in for good measure. Yes, there's a fight scene between Tyson and Seagal (it's early in the film so you'll get that out of the way pretty quickly) but after that, this is pretty much just a drama story with a lot of military/insurgent-type action. The acting throughout is very wooden and stiff, and the translations from the variety of different languages to an English audience suffer massively. This might actually be based on real events but that by no means makes it fun to watch; there are far too many implausible moments and, all that aside, the acting - on the part of EVERYONE - is just atrocious. Sometimes a film gets made (whether it has Seagal in it or someone else) where the lead is just flatly terrible but the supporting cast is enough to compensate. Here, that is not the case. If you're into "true" stories, you might find this one interesting but be prepared to sit through some of the most awful portrayals of "actual events" that you'll ever witness, The story was good; the film was not .