I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

I saw this film on sat TV in a hotel and I was riveted from the first moment. Many times I switched channels, but I always came back, wondering - did they hate Steven Seagal so much, or did he just want to go out with a bang? At first I thought this was made in the 80's or 90's - the lighting is really bad, always hinting at the (tiny) point where the action will be. And the action - you don't get to see many good moves, just flashing arms and gushing blood.The story is silly, of course, but was it necessary to get the technical details so painfully wrong? None of the radar or computer screens in this film make any sense. Too much flashing and scrolling info where static screens would be enough.The choice of exteriors for Northern Afghanistan was distracting too because of all the vegetation and greenery. And Lada's.The film has so many technical flaws that I could not really follow the dialogues, but I could not fail to notice that one of the villains is a beautiful woman, as is one of the 'good guys'. One of the baddies is black, and of course, anyone vaguely Arabic needs to die. Every silly cliché on one heap.It is not as if all this was tongue-in-cheek. From watching this film I get the impression, that it was cobbled together by people who really had no clue, or could not face Mr Seagal and tell him that what they were making was rubbish.

Ever since Steven Seagal entered his "Fat Elvis" period his fans have had a lot to groan about. But the enjoyment of these direct to video, low budget, foreign made movies is dependent on, as a Seagal fan, would you rather he retire and therefore be remembered in his prime, or continue to work with results such as this? It is a conundrum.So if you are in the latter, here goes. This has a lot of stock footage of stealth aircraft and such and some hand to hand mostly shot in close ups, with some striking knife scenes. Quite a few gun battles with squibs that are not bad. Seagal again whispers his way through the thing, also using some voice-dubs but he does look a bit thinner in this one.If you are in the former category (those for retirement) this is another reason to make your case. There is only a pale remainder of his once sleek and smooth style, and the production values and talent in these DTV releases are almost always forgettable at best, and painful to watch at worst. Flight of Fury falls somewhere in the middle of this stuff, so go for it or keep your fond memories.

I don't think Flight of Fury is his very worst, I think Out for a Kill and Submerged are worse, but for me it is down there. Seagal gives one of his laziest and phoned-in performances here, but fortunately for him he isn't the only bad thing about Flight of Fury, next to nothing works. The photography and editing looks cheap, as does the stock footage, while the direction is next to non-existent. The action is tedious, the characters indifferent, the dialogue atrocious, the story predictable and full of holes, the pace pedantic and sluggish and absolutely nobody gives a good, let alone credible, performance in the cast. All in all, a mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox

When a stealth bomber with the latest technical secrets is stolen, a general must get his best pilot John (Steven Seagal) out of prison to bring it back. Fortunately, the plane is meanwhile hidden in Afghanistan where you can bomb anything anytime you like without any consequences (except the occasional reviewer's sarcasm). The 60 terrorists are even polite enough to attack one after another and not all at once, so it is easier for John to kill them. Remember, this is the same guy who got effortlessly arrested by 2 cops for fighting with shoplifters earlier on. Of course the movie provides a traitor who has to be defeated in a battle up in the sky, heroes never leave a show without that. Seagal may be miscast as a pilot; he was more convincing in the good old "my fist, your face" fight movies. "Flight of Fury" would probably have been better if it had a sense of humor, but even the ridiculous "girls only" scene during the raid tries to be serious. And they couldn't even resist to include something about saving the world from a biological weapon, absolutely unnecessary in my view.