38
Metascore
12 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 75San Francisco ChronicleMick LaSalleSan Francisco ChronicleMick LaSalleAs entertaining an action movie as you're going to find. [13 Apr 1991, p.C3]
- 70Los Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonLos Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonBut it entertained me more than Seagal's first three movies. There's more verbal energy and atmosphere, more humor: in-your-face, scabrous, wise-guy macho humor.
- 50TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineOUT FOR JUSTICE's only real weakness is Seagal himself. Always an icon rather than an actor, Seagal's face appears puffy and he's developing jowls. This doesn't bode well for his future as an action hero, since looks count; ugly guys are relegated to the heavy roles, and it's hard to imagine Seagal settling for such an ignoble fate.
- 50The New York TimesJanet MaslinThe New York TimesJanet MaslinIt really would be unfair to take such a narrow view of Mr. Seagal's appeal. In fact, he combines street-smart swagger and a flair for wisecracks with a martial arts background and the pampered look of a Hollywood eminence, all of which makes for a lively mix. [13 Apr 1991, p.12]
- 40Washington PostRichard HarringtonWashington PostRichard HarringtonThough it boasts a big budget and is indeed busier and more densely populated than Seagal's previous efforts, Out for Justice feels cheap, not only in its production but in its content. It's "Scarface" without a point of view; it's shallow plot cluttered with extreme violence, both verbal and physical.
- 30Austin ChronicleKathleen MaherAustin ChronicleKathleen MaherI didn't care much for this movie. It's brutal and it's brutalizing. It seeks to make the audience an accomplice rather than a rational observer.
- 25The Seattle TimesThe Seattle TimesThen it raids "GoodFellas" and "The Godfather" for most of its material, before winding up as the same old ultraviolent schlock. [13 Apr 1991, p.C5]
- 25Chicago TribuneDave KehrChicago TribuneDave KehrThe action sequences, when they arrive, are so poorly staged and absurdly one-sided that they contain no excitement or suspense. Again and again, the film finds the huge, hulking Seagal beating up on flabby middle-aged men - and even then, resorting to such questionable techniques as wrapping a cue ball in a handkerchief and using it as a club. [15 Apr 1991, p.C7]
- 16Entertainment WeeklyOwen GleibermanEntertainment WeeklyOwen GleibermanWhat’s numbing about this sub-Eastwood potboiler isn’t just the grisliness of the violence but the absence of any possibility that Seagal will stumble, or show doubt or pain, or have to challenge himself in order to defeat his enemies.