This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It would be great if there was a Premise section, so one can quickly figure out what the film is about. BillMcGonigle ( talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a section about the many complaints the film got when it was released in theaters. Lots of angry Seagal fans walked out on the film after seeing his character die at about one third of the movie, even though the studios had promoted him heavily as one of the stars of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.237.250.108 ( talk) 18:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Steven Seagal was supposed to be the main star. He was apparently dismissed due to assaulting John leguziamo on set. No mention of this here. ToonIsALoon ( talk) 23:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
In December 2001, Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune wrote a retrospective review of this film. [4] Certainly there were more than a few people asking questions about life imitating art, but I hesitate to add this to the article just yet. As part of a larger more developed article, a brief mention might be appropriate but I don't want to give it too much emphasis either. For one thing, the Reception section should probably be expanded with more contemporary reviews before adding any retrospective reviews. If other similar articles could be found, any other publications name checking this film in 2001 after the September 11 attacks, that might help indicate if it mentioning it really was an appropriate and a relevant reflection of popular culture analysis or if this one retrospective review was more of an outlier. But as I said, I am in no rush to add it, not without more time, and more perspective. -- 109.77.206.34 ( talk) 19:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It would be great if there was a Premise section, so one can quickly figure out what the film is about. BillMcGonigle ( talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a section about the many complaints the film got when it was released in theaters. Lots of angry Seagal fans walked out on the film after seeing his character die at about one third of the movie, even though the studios had promoted him heavily as one of the stars of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.237.250.108 ( talk) 18:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Steven Seagal was supposed to be the main star. He was apparently dismissed due to assaulting John leguziamo on set. No mention of this here. ToonIsALoon ( talk) 23:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
In December 2001, Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune wrote a retrospective review of this film. [4] Certainly there were more than a few people asking questions about life imitating art, but I hesitate to add this to the article just yet. As part of a larger more developed article, a brief mention might be appropriate but I don't want to give it too much emphasis either. For one thing, the Reception section should probably be expanded with more contemporary reviews before adding any retrospective reviews. If other similar articles could be found, any other publications name checking this film in 2001 after the September 11 attacks, that might help indicate if it mentioning it really was an appropriate and a relevant reflection of popular culture analysis or if this one retrospective review was more of an outlier. But as I said, I am in no rush to add it, not without more time, and more perspective. -- 109.77.206.34 ( talk) 19:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)