Out of Reach (2004) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Out of Reach is the latest straight-to-vid from Steven Seagal, which is about all the description you really need, isn't it?

Actually, it isn't as bad as the 3.7 IMDB score would lead you to believe. In 2003, Seagal made two absolutely terrible movies directed by Michael Oblowitz (The Foreigner, Out for a Kill), and the IMDb scores indicate that this one is in that same territory. It is not. It is far better than those two abominations. It is more on the level of his last 2003 film, the mediocre Belly of the Beast, so if you're a Seagal fan and Belly was entertaining enough for you to sit through, this one will be as well.

  1. (6.29) - Executive Decision (1996)
  2. (6.09) - Under Siege (1992)
  3. (5.50) - Get Bruce (1999)
  4. (5.29) - Exit Wounds (2001)
  5. (5.18) - Above the Law (1988)
  6. (4.89) - Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)
  7. (4.88) - Out for Justice (1991)
  8. (4.88) - Marked for Death (1990)
  9. (4.87) - My Giant (1998)
  10. (4.79) - Hard to Kill (1990)
  11. (4.79) - Glimmer Man, The (1996)
  12. (4.31) - Belly of the Beast (2003)
  13. (4.30) - Fire Down Below (1997)
  14. (4.11) - Patriot, The (1998/I)
  15. (3.91) - Half Past Dead (2002)
  16. (3.75) - Out of Reach (2004/I)
  17. (3.51) - On Deadly Ground (1994)
  18. (3.38) - Foreigner, The (2003)
  19. (3.34) - Ticker (2001)
  20. (3.12) - Out for a Kill (2003)

Seagal plays a retired secret agent (doesn't he always) who is corresponding with a brilliant Polish orphan girl. When he finds out that his pen-pal has been sold into white slavery, the Weighty Warrior is steamed, you betcha! If there's one thing those Poles still haven't learned about Western culture, it's that you should not tick Seagal off. When the Stout Sensai figures out the problem, he promptly gets on a plane with a bushel basket full of false ID's, and heads off to Eastern Europe to kick Poland's ass and rescue his young friend.

I'm kidding around, but the basic storyline really wasn't so bad. Seagal did OK in the action scenes for a 50ish, 300 pound man, and his acting was no better or worse than usual. Po-Chih Leong did a serviceable job as the director. The competent Polish/German actress Agnieszka Wagner played a Polish cop, and she brought some charm and talent to the part of the mismatched buddy cop (slash) love interest. Matt Schulze was a suitably menacing baddie, as his usual cruel, psychotic character.


Several hookers. played by Polish extras, are shown walking around a Polish bordello in thongs. This exposes about a half dozen Polish behinds.

If the story had stayed focused on that core story with that cast, it could have been a pretty decent little movie. Unfortunately, for some reason which completely baffles me, the script also included a totally useless sub-plot about the intelligence agency Seagal used to work for, whose honchos decided, in their infinite wisdom, that Seagal must either come back to work or be liquidated with extreme prejudice. Apparently it wasn't enough plot for Seagal merely to defeat the entire country of Poland, rescue an orphanage, and stop the white slave trade through Eastern Europe.

I guess it was just a matter of needing a suitable challenge for a man of Seagal's stature. If they hadn't come after him, he probably would have killed a few innocent CIA guys, just to get them into the fray.

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-. Not one of Seagal's better films, but his fans will find it watchable, and it might even have been an entertaining watch if it had developed the main story better instead of attempting to cover so much ground.

Return to the Movie House home page