Good start, but then it gets ruined

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It's fun to be a fan of Steven Seagal these days. I can see him espousing his odd political philosophies on television, I can go see him playing the blues in concert, and finally, I can properly enjoy his movies again. Steven's film output for the last seven years has been uneven: for every URBAN JUSTICE getting my hopes up, there was an AGAINST THE DARK knocking 'em back down again, but things seem to be leveling out now. For the longest time, I wasn't happy that Keoni Waxman had become Seagal's apparent director of choice, but their experience together is now paying off in their having made two back-to-back action vehicles that I really enjoy. A GOOD MAN is a lot like the Seagal/Waxman collaboration that came before it, FORCE OF EXECUTION, and if you weren't a fan of that one, there's a good chance you won't like this one...but personally, I had a great time with it.The story: An ex-Special Forces soldier (Seagal) on a quest of vengeance in Bucharest becomes caught up in a splintered family's troubles with the Russian and Chinese mafia.Part of the reason for the upturn in quality of Seagal's movies is his opportunity/willingness to work alongside performers who can properly bolster his pictures. Recently, these have included Steve Austin, Ving Rhames, Danny Trejo, and Bren Foster, and now, he's got top character actor Tzi Ma and martial arts stud Victor Webster on his side. Ironically, one of the biggest overall weaknesses of the film is its dramatic content, with way too many European performers phonetically delivering English dialogue, but Ma and Webster soundly anchor the movie as actors. They even have good chemistry with Seagal, who rumbles his lines but nonetheless seems pretty enthusiastic to be delivering some pompously cool phrases (e.g. "Is this how you want to go out? A man of war, a son of Guang Gong, like this? Killing a child? This is not you").Waxman's screenplay is at least a step above the average for the direct-to-video realm. There's a bit too much backstory for me and one of those uncomfortable endings that seem to indulge the lead star more than it furthers the story, but there's also some definite intrigue and noticeable character development. I like that it fully establishes most of its main stars before plunging them into action, and as such, the film takes its time getting to the brunt of its adrenaline scenes. Additionally, the production values are pretty nice. There are very few "avid farts" (as Vern would call them) and none of the technical failures you tend to get with lower-budget flicks. What's most apparent for longtime fans is Seagal's minimal reliance on stunt doubles and stand-ins. Though there is some apparent doubling in one of Steven's fights, I think that this film marks the first time in many years that we can be certain we're seeing the back of the real Steven Seagal's head, not that of a hastily-inserted double. It's a weird thing to celebrate, but the cinematography benefits from Seagal apparently being on the set more and appearing in a lot of the second unit shots.Equally or more important than any of that is, of course, the action content. In short, I was very pleased with what I saw. Seagal's last film boasted no less than ten full fight scenes, and A GOOD MAN is close behind with nine, not counting the quick skirmishes. Steven claims four of these brawls and Victor Webster takes five. Seagal isn't slouching: despite the unwelcome presence of a double in one of the battles, he's in swell form and delivers quick, brutal martial arts, unhampered by excess editing. He regularly draws a short sword. And like Bren Foster one movie ago, Victor Webster claims the more elaborate fights, but I think Webster's style of fighting is better suited to a Steven Seagal feature than Bren's: he's a fighter, not an acrobat, and as a result, his brawls are more gritty and less pretty...though they're still a lot of fun and he still finds time to wield a couple mêlée weapons.I'm not sure whether or not the "Alexander" that Seagal plays here is the same he played in FORCE OF EXECUTION, but if this persona helps generate this strong of an action movie, I'll be hoping for a trilogy. Like I said before, what I value in a Seagal flick doesn't seem to always match what other reviewers want to see, but I can wholeheartedly award these four stars and fully recommend the film based on the strength of its action scenes, quality of its storyline, and the presence of its lead star. Buy it!

This won't take long:Anyone who's concerned with clichés and prefers to avoid them then maybe this isn't the movie for you. Continue reading if you may.Steven Seagal, probably one of the worst actors but fine action stars, is back to his usual tricks of never taking a beating and playing either an ex- soldier, agent, marine, black ops operative - whatever! The point is his movies are as clichéd and dull as any movies ( theatrically or Direct-to-DVD release ) and he coincidentally proves otherwise in this movie. The best movie he's appeared in DTD is probably 'Maximum Conviction.' He stars alongside Steve Austin the former wrestler, and the acting, storytelling and action scenes were brilliant. I gave it a 8/10 rating as it was well deserved. 'A Good Man' manages to bring a huge standard of stability to its storytelling as well; the only downside: hardly any action. That aside the performances from most of the actors were splendid and kept the movie watchable. At times it felt like elements of the screenplay might start to slip, but the actors keep the spirit of the movie alive. As an action movie fan I hate say, but this movie I would suggest only recommendable if you feel only good storytelling would put you in the right mood to enjoy this flick. If you desire action and wouldn't want to waste time watching something with hardly any action then this isn't the movie for you. I wouldn't recommend buying it either; there's way better action movies.

I used to love Seagal's movie, his fighting style, even over the years, he is getting old, his movie is getting old, but it is OK, I still enjoyed it.But, this movie is killing me....throughout the movie, the most said line by Seagal is mother...er,the fight scene is joke, other actors has to get in the position and pause so Seagal can do his move... They probably got his sword from a dollar store judge by its look. The most expense on the equipment could well be the remote airplane they called drone in the movie.And the actors, omg, if I didn't know, and I didn't start from the beginning, I would thought it was a low budget porn movie without the porn.What can I say?You are warned.

This was a well made movie. The movie felt polished, and thought out. I have seen most every Seagal movie made, and he did a really good job with this one. His sword work looked really well done.If you like Seagal, and you would like to watch a good movie, then this will do. I didn't expect much from this movie when I sat down to watch it, but I'm really glad I did. I see myself rewatching it at a later date.Victor Webster does a good job as well. Had some good fight scenes in it. Iulia Verdes was good, as the good looking girl who needed protection. I've never seen her before, but I wouldn't mind seeing her in more movies.Really, all the characters in this movie did a creditable job, and I didn't notice any bad acting, for a action movie.