MovieChat Forums > Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995) Discussion > Forgot how awful this movie was

Forgot how awful this movie was

posted 12 years ago by SeasonalAffective
11 replies | jump to latest

I just caught the last bit of it on TV and it's ATROCIOUS.

-awful overacting by most people
-silly, implausible action
-Eric Bogosian is just...weird in this film. A curly-haired joker is not a bad guy to be taken seriously
-...which brings us Everett McGill, who is so badass that he hardly gets a shot in on Seagal in their (anti)climactic showdown in the end
-really bad miniature model work (the Stealth destruction was terrible)
-really bad bluescreen footage
-really bad stunt double work
-ridiculous shootouts (it's like a videogame at the end, with countless baddies just streaming into different train cars for the sole purpose of being shot
-the annoying--miserably annoying--Morris Chestnut, whose role is completely useless

The only good thing about the movie is the score, by (I believe) Basil Poledouris.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

I agree with everything you said.

But for some reason, I own it on blu-ray and watch it once in a while. It's odd - sometimes films as bad as thins start to grow on you and become guilty pleasures.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] SeasonalAffective 11 years ago

The first Under Siege is a guilty pleasure, for sure. I know what a douchebag Seagal is in real life, but thanks to Andrew Davis' direction, and the hammy bad guy acting by Jones and Busey, it's a fun film. No doubt.

But this? I found it to be so bad, but not so-bad-it's-good. To each his own, of course.

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

I hated this movie when it came out after loving the original but it's actually grown on me a bit. I've watched it a few more times recently and I got to say for a plain old 90s action flick it's great. I've changed my tune on it. I don't love it like the first movie but I do like it now. Call me crazy, I know. Lol

[–] DeckardB26354 (1195) 2 months ago

SeasonalAffective, I agree with most of what you said, but the only thing I don't agree with is what you said about the score! Like the film, that too is fucking awful, it's your typical 90's action type music of films of that era.

All in all the film was dire, and a complete waste of my viewing time.

[–] bobbydallas (8515) 7 years ago

this is one of those extremely terrible movies i like to watch over and over and laugh and laugh

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 4 years ago

Honestly, I liked this better than the first one. Jones and Busey remain better villains.

[–] rateater (10013) 4 years ago

it flies right by, it's action packed and never bores.

[–] SpiritualLiar (283) 3 years ago

This movie was awesome. Especially the music. And the villain is funny as hell.

People who complain about "poor model work" or something are complete nerds, I have no idea that he means, there was no special effect in the movie that would make any normal person complain.

[–] Ismailov (160) a year ago

There's definitely subpar special effects (for example, Travis Dane is very briefly copy and pasted into a scene as shown at 0:21 in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UigTHxygL18), but I figure that if I'm watching a Steven Seagal movie it'd be ridiculous to treat it like Blade Runner. I'm expecting a silly action film set in an alternate reality where aikido is the deadliest martial art known to the universe.

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) a year ago

I didn't think it was bad at all. First was better though.

[–] Melton (4439) a year ago

It’s terrible, but its shitness, combined with Seagal’s brutal kills, makes it entertaining.

A perfect example is the final fight with McGill. He barely gets a single hit in. Seagal just throws him around like a ragdoll for five minutes and then snaps his neck like a twig. This is supposed to be the epic final battle and it has been drained of all tension to service Seagal’s ego 🤣

Definitely a case of so bad it’s ‘good’.