Shadow Man - Kurier des Todes

The former CIA agent Jack Foster (Steven Seagal) travels to Bucharest with his daughter Amanda (Skye Bennett) and his father-in-law George (Michael Elwyn) to spend vacations in Romania. In the airport of Bucharest, Jack sees his daughter being kidnapped by the taxi driver Anya (Eva Pope) and the limousine of George exploding. He chases the taxi with the CIA agent Harry (Vincent Riotta) and he finds that different groups believe George gave him the research of a lethal virus. While trying to rescue his daughter, Jack is entwined in a network of traitors and criminals that are disputing the powerful biological weapon and he has to fight to survive.

"Shadow Man" is another messy and noisy movie of Steven Seagal. The screenplay is terrible with an awful development of the characters and the situation, and along the first fifteen, twenty minutes, the viewer does not know what is happening. The cast is above average, highlighting the awarded Imelda Staunton and Eva Pope, but unfortunately the story is not good. I found funny to see the character of Steven Seagal with a girlfriend (with a wonderful body) and having a romance with Anya, since it is unusual in his movies this type of situation. The locations in Bucharest are very beautiful and with a better screenplay, this film could have worked. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem Sombra" ("The Shadow Man")

Steven Seagal's straight-to-DVD releases really can't be judged by the usual standards, because then you'd have to give them all a zero and that would be depressing. They have their own set of standards, so here goes. How many obvious doubles do we get this time? Surprisingly few, but then again, this movie barely contains any martial arts. All Seagal has to do is pull the trigger a bajillion times. Still, it's refreshing to see him do action scenes where he doesn't mysteriously lose or gain 80 pounds with every new shot. Which people who used to be in actual movies embarrass themselves alongside Seagal? There's Imelda Staunton in a very minor role, but for the most part these are complete unknowns we don't have to feel bad for. How moronic does the plot get? Not very, it's just pretty confusing. Do we really need twenty-five different sets of bad guys when you know Seagal is just going to kill them all in the end? Just have one really big crime organisation chase him, same result but way less filler. Overall "Shadow Man" isn't nearly the worst I've seen of him though, this is one of those recent ones that are actually sorta entertaining. And you even understand what Seagal is saying in this one, even if doesn't matter much. If it's in the bargain bin, there are worse ways to spend a dollar.

I always wonder if Steven Seagal reads the forums here.I think he does as his latest,Shadowman is actually an entertaining action movie that does not mock(most of the time)or insult the audiences Intelligence. Did I just say that?The story is another matter.

Yes he is Jack foster.Not a bad name this time.He is yet another CIA agent.Yes his daughter has been kidnapped by shady types.All in a eastern European area.What is a shadow man to do but kick some ass.

Whats different here is that Seagal actually tries and succeeds in giving a decent turn here.He does most of his own fights.Gone is the raspy voice and Dubbing.The stunt doubles are kept to a minimum.He gets into quite a few scraps here that recall his early days glory.

The only bad thing is they needed to get some better actors to back him up.With the exception of Eva Pope most of the Bad guys are what else?Clichés.I do remember when the villains were written good even for low-budget movies.

The other problem is the most common plaguing DTV movies today.The Badly-done CGI.Its the same problem in the Detonator and Second in command.

Director Michael Kunesch Keeps the movie rolling,gives it a nice look,but winds up a little uneven.He is the best since Anothony Hickox though.Production values are good.

Its a few notches above Seagals latest work which was depressing me.What is good to see is that Seagal has woken up to the fact that we want the old-time Seagal action.

The last time I saw Seagal, was in Exit Wounds. He'd really packed on the pounds since his glory days, but then I watched this film, during an action man rampage (Icidentally, Dolph Lundgren's The Russian Specialist was my clear winner) and boy was Seagal looking fat, old and horribly sweaty.

Shadow Man has no plot to speak of, it's just a bunch of guys who turn up to get beaten up by Steven Seagal. The film is poor. Seagal as well is half asleep, he's awful here. It was actually saddening to see once one of my idol's (I took up Aikido cause of him) looking so unwell. It's my estimation that he's probably done a few too many films past his prime, a bit like Brando, without the talent.

Shadow Man has in its favour some nifty, and violent action, but not nearly enough of it, to overcome the boredom elsewhere.

I mights add upfront, that i am no Steven Seagal fan.

The movie is similar to all Steven Seagal movies. So if you don't mind that you never see "stevens" head/face in any stunt ( which includes anything with more action that jogging or crouching) nor worse effects then a 1950 movie "high speed" chase, then you might enjoy this movie.

if you hate to see slowly moving vehicles through a shaking camera (which somehow is supposed to make it look more action/speed loaded...) i suggest not to waste your time with it. If you hate flat dialogs (there a re a few "good" ones, but Steven manages to spoil them by reading them with no emotions nor ambition) then again, this movie should probably not to waste your time.

summery: Steven, if you are a good guy, which i hope, then you wont take this personal: please stop trying to be an actor. you are wasting peoples lifetime.