One question I always wanted an answer too, why is he treated so bad and most of his films written off before they are made? This really annoys me about critics, a new film comes up and if Steven Seagal's in it, then it must by rubbish, yet its a good film. Then a film comes along with someone like tom cruise or reeves and its an awful film but critics and everyone goes, that is one off the best films of all time, which isn't true, even if it is their own opinion. I sometimes picture someone else playing one of Seagal's roles, and I don't think anyone can, even if they could, it would be a 1 in 1 chance that it would be a blockbuster! They say he can't act - RUBBISH! I've seen many films and therefore lots of acting and Steven Seagal is a good actor. In a couple of films its wasn't his best performance, but then again all actors end up doing this every so often. All in all he is a good actor and a star, and totally underated. once I read a review of one of his films that made me laugh, it said "He (Seagal) seems to go around beating up people shorter than himself". What a stupid comment, of course he does, he's 6'4" for God's sake!
Why is he always treated bad by critics?
- Thread starter crumps
- Start date
KATHYPURDOM
Steven Seagal Fan
You took the words right out of my mouth Steve. Critics have got to have something wrong in their mind. They only give their opinion and most of the time it's wrong. This is why I don't even listen to them.
tora
Funmaker
First thing I'd say is...Jealousy.
Second thing would be...Prejudice of the public sentiment.
Third...when someone is too much different from the crowd it's labeled as a disease.
And finally...if you say something bad about someone then perhaps first you should look in the mirror at yourself and you might find there something you may not like as well.
Second thing would be...Prejudice of the public sentiment.
Third...when someone is too much different from the crowd it's labeled as a disease.
And finally...if you say something bad about someone then perhaps first you should look in the mirror at yourself and you might find there something you may not like as well.
Before everyone goes off the deep end about critics, remember, a lot of the film critics on the internet, for example, are just people who like the sound of their own voice and don't really know how to crit a film. They usually have an agenda or an axe to grind, and they think that the only way to crit a film is to beat up who's in it - in this case, our own Steven Seagal (as soon as I see comments about his weight, his hair, etc. I immediately know that the crit is going to spurious because the critic is less interesting in looking at the movie as a whole and more interested in seeing how many unoriginal swipes he can make against the movie's star).
In my travels, one day, I found Roger Ebert's site. I'm sure most of you here know who Roger Ebert is - not exactly small fry in the legitimate movie critting world, and very well respected. Until Half Past Dead, he was in fact a big fan of Steven Seagal's. Half Past Dead is what killed his enthusiasm for Seagal, and, of course, Steven has had no theatrical release since HPD, and Ebert doesn't review stv films (I shudder to think of what he'd say about Out for a Kill - probably the same thing I did).
So before anyone makes a generalisation that all critics hate Steven Seagal movies, do your research, and find out who is doing the critting, and the location of the source. (For example: you cannot expect a good review of any movie if you find it on rottentomatoes.com.)
In my travels, one day, I found Roger Ebert's site. I'm sure most of you here know who Roger Ebert is - not exactly small fry in the legitimate movie critting world, and very well respected. Until Half Past Dead, he was in fact a big fan of Steven Seagal's. Half Past Dead is what killed his enthusiasm for Seagal, and, of course, Steven has had no theatrical release since HPD, and Ebert doesn't review stv films (I shudder to think of what he'd say about Out for a Kill - probably the same thing I did).
So before anyone makes a generalisation that all critics hate Steven Seagal movies, do your research, and find out who is doing the critting, and the location of the source. (For example: you cannot expect a good review of any movie if you find it on rottentomatoes.com.)
Lotussan
I Belong To Steven
Because they are jealous, and they have a deep inferiority complex...
I think that for most men (not all though) only because his fans idolize him, and want to be him, so it can go either way, they can like him, and aspire to be like him, or they can get sick with jealousy...
Most men probably look at Steven, and see his sheer size, and then discover the way he can kick ass, and probaby start to feel like real whimps, and shrimps, so they natural envy him, not that it's not a natural reaction or a weird one, but it is one that is very negative that they need to work on controlling...
Not to mention that women like him, I don't think I need to explain why, eh?
So, basically these average Joe's feel bad about themselves, they feel inferior, they feel he is more magnetic, more attractive, more virile more successful, more powerful than them, and want to destroy all of his success, so they don't feel as threatened, so they can feel better about themselves...
So, what better way to do this, then to bad mouth his work before it's even given a chance?
It's what they do, and it's who they are...
They don't want him to do well, they can't even stand the idea...
I think it's sad and disgusting...
I hope Steven doesn't let it bother him, even though it may affect his career, and that is just so wrong...
I think that for most men (not all though) only because his fans idolize him, and want to be him, so it can go either way, they can like him, and aspire to be like him, or they can get sick with jealousy...
Most men probably look at Steven, and see his sheer size, and then discover the way he can kick ass, and probaby start to feel like real whimps, and shrimps, so they natural envy him, not that it's not a natural reaction or a weird one, but it is one that is very negative that they need to work on controlling...
Not to mention that women like him, I don't think I need to explain why, eh?
So, basically these average Joe's feel bad about themselves, they feel inferior, they feel he is more magnetic, more attractive, more virile more successful, more powerful than them, and want to destroy all of his success, so they don't feel as threatened, so they can feel better about themselves...
So, what better way to do this, then to bad mouth his work before it's even given a chance?
It's what they do, and it's who they are...
They don't want him to do well, they can't even stand the idea...
I think it's sad and disgusting...
I hope Steven doesn't let it bother him, even though it may affect his career, and that is just so wrong...
A legitimate critic is someone who has made a study of his particular area of expertise and uses his knowledge to ensure that the people who are producing the works know what works and what doesn't. A legitimate critic looks at the movie in question as a whole, and assesses whether it works, taking into account everything - the actors' performance, the direction, the script, what the movie conveys to its audience, etc.
I take issue with the comments that "all critics have inferiority complexes" or are "sick with jealousy" or that "critics are always wrong" or any other generalisation that puts critics into a box. I agree, and I have already said this, that there are some critics out there who have an agenda, in this particular instance, of Steven-bashing; but I do not consider them legitimate film critics. What they are, are wannabe fanboys who like to think they're clever. I do not count them as film critics, however, because they have no credentials, and, for the most part, fall into the category of "I may not know what a good film is, but I do know what I like." That does not lend them any legitimacy, in my book.
When it's somebody's actual job to be a film critic, they may have started out as someone who knew nothing, but if they have been reviewing films for any length of time, the legitimate film critic will have acquired a wealth of knowledge and experience. It's true that some may let personal prejudices influence them from time to time (ex. Roeper on Roeper and Ebert completely missed the boat on Hidalgo, mostly because he doesn't like those kinds of movies), but you may be certain that the serious film critic has made a study of that which he is being paid to review.
The bad film critic is one who doesn't bother to acquire knowledge of the film industry, of movie history or of filmmaking in general, and that applies to the wannabe fanboys on the internet as well as reviewers working on newspapers.
A good film critic knows his stuff; he knows good storytelling, he knows good direction, he knows good performances, he knows how to put all of that together and to come up with a balanced assessment of the film. To say that someone who has made the effort to acquire the knowledge of filmmaking and the experience of how to assess a film has an inferiority complex, are wimps when they see Steven on screen, are channelling the prejudice of public sentiment, or any other negative generalisation is insulting in the extreme.
If one decides that the only good film critic is the one that sings nothing but praise for any of Steven's films no matter how awful they are, while anyone who makes an honest assessment of those same films that may not be as full of blind admiration is a bad film critic, that, too, is unacceptable.
A good film critic doesn't let his personal prejudices and feelings decide whether or not a film is good. A bad film critic does. It's important to remember that when reading film reviews. Consider the source as well as the content.
I take issue with the comments that "all critics have inferiority complexes" or are "sick with jealousy" or that "critics are always wrong" or any other generalisation that puts critics into a box. I agree, and I have already said this, that there are some critics out there who have an agenda, in this particular instance, of Steven-bashing; but I do not consider them legitimate film critics. What they are, are wannabe fanboys who like to think they're clever. I do not count them as film critics, however, because they have no credentials, and, for the most part, fall into the category of "I may not know what a good film is, but I do know what I like." That does not lend them any legitimacy, in my book.
When it's somebody's actual job to be a film critic, they may have started out as someone who knew nothing, but if they have been reviewing films for any length of time, the legitimate film critic will have acquired a wealth of knowledge and experience. It's true that some may let personal prejudices influence them from time to time (ex. Roeper on Roeper and Ebert completely missed the boat on Hidalgo, mostly because he doesn't like those kinds of movies), but you may be certain that the serious film critic has made a study of that which he is being paid to review.
The bad film critic is one who doesn't bother to acquire knowledge of the film industry, of movie history or of filmmaking in general, and that applies to the wannabe fanboys on the internet as well as reviewers working on newspapers.
A good film critic knows his stuff; he knows good storytelling, he knows good direction, he knows good performances, he knows how to put all of that together and to come up with a balanced assessment of the film. To say that someone who has made the effort to acquire the knowledge of filmmaking and the experience of how to assess a film has an inferiority complex, are wimps when they see Steven on screen, are channelling the prejudice of public sentiment, or any other negative generalisation is insulting in the extreme.
If one decides that the only good film critic is the one that sings nothing but praise for any of Steven's films no matter how awful they are, while anyone who makes an honest assessment of those same films that may not be as full of blind admiration is a bad film critic, that, too, is unacceptable.
A good film critic doesn't let his personal prejudices and feelings decide whether or not a film is good. A bad film critic does. It's important to remember that when reading film reviews. Consider the source as well as the content.
Well, the one thing I've learned since becoming a short fiction reviewer is that you really have to set aside what you like/don't like and look at each work on its own merits. That's hard, sometimes.
For instance, I don't happen to like the horror genre very much, so I didn't know much about it from a critical point of view. I ended up having to research the genre and then I was much better able to assess any story in the genre that came my way. I still don't like the genre; but I appreciate its nuances more, and I'm more qualified now to be able to review a horror story on its own merits instead of saying "it's bad because I don't like it." I can tell now if a story in that particular genre works or doesn't, and why (and I've had some good feedback on my reviews by qualified writers in the genre, as well, so I know I'm doing something right).
People don't have to agree with the reviewer; but to suggest the reviewer/film critic is somehow sub-human because their assessment is not an unqualified love-fest regardless of the quality of the work in question is, to me, outrageous.
For instance, I don't happen to like the horror genre very much, so I didn't know much about it from a critical point of view. I ended up having to research the genre and then I was much better able to assess any story in the genre that came my way. I still don't like the genre; but I appreciate its nuances more, and I'm more qualified now to be able to review a horror story on its own merits instead of saying "it's bad because I don't like it." I can tell now if a story in that particular genre works or doesn't, and why (and I've had some good feedback on my reviews by qualified writers in the genre, as well, so I know I'm doing something right).
People don't have to agree with the reviewer; but to suggest the reviewer/film critic is somehow sub-human because their assessment is not an unqualified love-fest regardless of the quality of the work in question is, to me, outrageous.
Littledragon
Above The Law
crumps said:
WELCOME TO THE SITE!
ORANGATUANG
Wildfire
Well critics suck?...Because if they see an movie with a certain star in it and they flop it..Its just natural that that star is always going to be judged wrong.Even though the next movie is better..NO critics are the ones who should treated bad i would like to shove there reveiws right up they butts,because all that comes out there mouths is crap.Heather.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
ABOVE THE LAW
(Rating: 3 stars)
Date of publication: 04/08/1988
By Roger Ebert
Some people in Hollywood think Steven Seagal is the hot new action star - heir to Eastwood and Bronson, contemporary of Stallone, Norris and Schwarzenegger. The influential Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times carried a cover story more than a month ago outlining the campaign to establish Seagal in the box office big leagues. His stats: He's 6 feet 4 inches tall, with a sixth-degree black belt in aikido. He ran his own martial arts school in Japan before returning to Los Angeles, where he worked as an aikido instructor and bodyguard (as the press information says) for stars and heads of state. He's married to actress Kelly La Brock, the one with the great lips. A studio executive was quoted as saying Seagal has "extraordinary" screen magnetism.
With a buildup like that, doesn't Seagal's first movie almost have to be anticlimactic? And yet the curious thing is, Seagal more or less deserves the buildup. He does have a strong and particular screen presence. It is obvious he is doing a lot of his own stunts, and some of the fight sequences are impressive and apparently unfaked. He isn't just a hunk, either.
He can play tender and he can play smart, two notes often missing on the Bronson and Stallone accordions. His aquiline face and slicked-back, slightly receeding hairline accentuate the macho exterior. He moves around too much in closeups, but then he moves around a lot anyway, seeming restless on screen, sometimes swaggering instead of walking.
His first movie is "Above the Law," and it is nothing if not ambitious. It contains 50 percent more plot than it needs, but that allows it room to grow in areas not ordinarily covered in action thrillers. When was the last time you saw Norris or Schwarzenegger in a film where they ran cars through walls and killed people with their bare hands and went to mass, stood up at baptisms, meditated, hugged their wives, kidded their partners and made speechs about the need for a free and open society? If this film is an audition, it demonstrates that Seagal will try anything.
The movie co-stars Pam Grier, who plays Seagal's partner but not his squeeze (he's a happily married father). She was one of the most intriguing action stars of the 1970s before the collapse of the black film market temporarily took her down with it. Seagal and Grier play Chicago police detectives who engineer a major drug bust, only to find their arrests have been quashed by the FBI and they've been ordered to stay away from a cocaine kingpin. Why should this guy be immune?
In a less ambitious picture, we'd find out about a payoff, blackmail or extortion. "Above the Law" does not lack ambition. We get flashbacks to the hero's service in the CIA in Vietnam, where he first stumbled across evidence that a CIA official (Henry Silva, venomous and sleek) was using the agency as a cover for drug smuggling. Now there's another element: Central American political refugees have taken sanctuary in the basement of Seagal's church, and their priest has information about Silva's plan to assassinate a senator.
The movie was co-written and directed by Andrew Davis, whose "Code of Silence" remains the best movie Chuck Norris ever has made and contains the best use of Chicago locations I've seen. "Above the Law" also exploits great locations, from the unexpected (a vast old Catholic church) to the bizarre (there's a struggle to the death on the roof of the Executive House). Davis also seems concerned to create a community around the Seagal character, and so we spend time in well-written scenes with his wife (Sharon Stone), his priest (Joe Greco), his uncle (Jack Wallace) and a tough cop (Joseph Kosala, a real Chicago cop). As in his previous film, Davis gets mileage out of supporting players who do not look or sound like professional actors and so add a level of realism to the action.
Seagal doesn't look or sound like a professional actor, either, but he's effective in his film debut. His voice has a certain quality to it, like Richard Gere's, that suggests he sometimes would rather keep talking after he barks out typical action dialogue. He is physical enough to create a believable menace in the violent scenes, and yet we can believe that sensitivity coexists with brutality in his makeup. Is he indeed Hollywood's hottest new action star? Who knows. But he has the stuff.
ABOVE THE LAW
(Rating: 3 stars)
Date of publication: 04/08/1988
By Roger Ebert
Some people in Hollywood think Steven Seagal is the hot new action star - heir to Eastwood and Bronson, contemporary of Stallone, Norris and Schwarzenegger. The influential Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times carried a cover story more than a month ago outlining the campaign to establish Seagal in the box office big leagues. His stats: He's 6 feet 4 inches tall, with a sixth-degree black belt in aikido. He ran his own martial arts school in Japan before returning to Los Angeles, where he worked as an aikido instructor and bodyguard (as the press information says) for stars and heads of state. He's married to actress Kelly La Brock, the one with the great lips. A studio executive was quoted as saying Seagal has "extraordinary" screen magnetism.
With a buildup like that, doesn't Seagal's first movie almost have to be anticlimactic? And yet the curious thing is, Seagal more or less deserves the buildup. He does have a strong and particular screen presence. It is obvious he is doing a lot of his own stunts, and some of the fight sequences are impressive and apparently unfaked. He isn't just a hunk, either.
He can play tender and he can play smart, two notes often missing on the Bronson and Stallone accordions. His aquiline face and slicked-back, slightly receeding hairline accentuate the macho exterior. He moves around too much in closeups, but then he moves around a lot anyway, seeming restless on screen, sometimes swaggering instead of walking.
His first movie is "Above the Law," and it is nothing if not ambitious. It contains 50 percent more plot than it needs, but that allows it room to grow in areas not ordinarily covered in action thrillers. When was the last time you saw Norris or Schwarzenegger in a film where they ran cars through walls and killed people with their bare hands and went to mass, stood up at baptisms, meditated, hugged their wives, kidded their partners and made speechs about the need for a free and open society? If this film is an audition, it demonstrates that Seagal will try anything.
The movie co-stars Pam Grier, who plays Seagal's partner but not his squeeze (he's a happily married father). She was one of the most intriguing action stars of the 1970s before the collapse of the black film market temporarily took her down with it. Seagal and Grier play Chicago police detectives who engineer a major drug bust, only to find their arrests have been quashed by the FBI and they've been ordered to stay away from a cocaine kingpin. Why should this guy be immune?
In a less ambitious picture, we'd find out about a payoff, blackmail or extortion. "Above the Law" does not lack ambition. We get flashbacks to the hero's service in the CIA in Vietnam, where he first stumbled across evidence that a CIA official (Henry Silva, venomous and sleek) was using the agency as a cover for drug smuggling. Now there's another element: Central American political refugees have taken sanctuary in the basement of Seagal's church, and their priest has information about Silva's plan to assassinate a senator.
The movie was co-written and directed by Andrew Davis, whose "Code of Silence" remains the best movie Chuck Norris ever has made and contains the best use of Chicago locations I've seen. "Above the Law" also exploits great locations, from the unexpected (a vast old Catholic church) to the bizarre (there's a struggle to the death on the roof of the Executive House). Davis also seems concerned to create a community around the Seagal character, and so we spend time in well-written scenes with his wife (Sharon Stone), his priest (Joe Greco), his uncle (Jack Wallace) and a tough cop (Joseph Kosala, a real Chicago cop). As in his previous film, Davis gets mileage out of supporting players who do not look or sound like professional actors and so add a level of realism to the action.
Seagal doesn't look or sound like a professional actor, either, but he's effective in his film debut. His voice has a certain quality to it, like Richard Gere's, that suggests he sometimes would rather keep talking after he barks out typical action dialogue. He is physical enough to create a believable menace in the violent scenes, and yet we can believe that sensitivity coexists with brutality in his makeup. Is he indeed Hollywood's hottest new action star? Who knows. But he has the stuff.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
UNDER SIEGE
(Rating: 3 stars)
Date of publication: 10/09/1992
For cast, rating and other information, (click here)
By Roger Ebert
When I saw the coming attractions trailer for "Under Siege," I had the feeling I'd already seen the movie: Terrorists land on the USS Missouri and occupy the great battleship. The crew is caught off guard and neutralized. But the bad guys overlook one man - the cook - who turns into a one-man army and fights back. The formula is obvious: "Die Hard Goes to Sea." I walked into the screening in a cynical frame of mind, but then a funny thing happened. The movie started working for me.
One reason for that is obvious: The overwhelming and convincing presence of the battleship itself. I learn, by reading the production notes, that director Andrew Davis and his team did not shoot on the real Missouri, but instead used the decomissioned USS Alabama. In many shots the ship appears to be at sea when it's actually docked in Mobile, Ala. They could have fooled me. This movie does a terrific job of making every scene play like a real event on a ship at sea, and that's part of its charm. There's even a walk-on by George Bush, visiting the ship before its fateful final voyage.
The cast is also effective. The star is Steven Seagal, who has cut off his pony tail to play a former Navy hero serving out his last tour as a cook. The reasons for that assignment are complicated (he got in trouble, but the skipper is his friend) but Seagal makes a convincing cook; he can hit a target with a carving knife at 20 paces, and he even looks like he's put on a few pounds on the job, sipping the boulibaisse.
The villains are superb, vile and deliriously insane. They're played by Tommy Lee Jones, as a former undercover operative for the CIA, and Gary Busey, as a disillusioned officer on board the ship. Jones has developed into one of the most effective and interesting villains in the movies, maybe because he's not afraid to go over the top - as he does here, masquerading as a heavy-metal rocker and later spieling political slogans into the radio like a deranged dictator. Busey, as the turncoat officer, plays his big murder scene in drag, gnashing the scenery as if he's enjoying every bite.
The plot of the movie is, of course, absurd, involving a half-explained scheme to steal the ship's nuclear warheads, offload them to a stolen North Korean submarine, and sell them in the Middle East. Never mind. The details of the cat-and-mouse chase around the ship are exciting and well-directed. And director Davis is not above the put-on, as when he introduces Playboy's Miss July 1989 (Erika Eleniak) into the plot, and has her follow Seagal on his dangerous rounds for no better reason than because she seems utterly incongrous in every scene.
Andrew Davis is not a director whose name is known to many moviegoers, I suppose, but he has built up an impressive body of action work: His "Code of Silence" was the best Chuck Norris movie, his "The Package" was a terrific Gene Hackman thriller, and he directed Seagal's movie debut in "Above the Law" (1988). Here is uses some of his trademarks: Effective fight scenes, electronic gimmicks, quirky casting of the supporting roles, bigger-than-life heroes and villains.
Under Siege (STAR) (STAR) (STAR)
Casey Ryback Steven Seagal
Strannix Tommy Lee Jones
Commander Krill Gary Busey
Directed by Andrew Davis. Running Time: 120 minutes. Classified R (for strong violence, and for language and brief nudity).
UNDER SIEGE
(Rating: 3 stars)
Date of publication: 10/09/1992
For cast, rating and other information, (click here)
By Roger Ebert
When I saw the coming attractions trailer for "Under Siege," I had the feeling I'd already seen the movie: Terrorists land on the USS Missouri and occupy the great battleship. The crew is caught off guard and neutralized. But the bad guys overlook one man - the cook - who turns into a one-man army and fights back. The formula is obvious: "Die Hard Goes to Sea." I walked into the screening in a cynical frame of mind, but then a funny thing happened. The movie started working for me.
One reason for that is obvious: The overwhelming and convincing presence of the battleship itself. I learn, by reading the production notes, that director Andrew Davis and his team did not shoot on the real Missouri, but instead used the decomissioned USS Alabama. In many shots the ship appears to be at sea when it's actually docked in Mobile, Ala. They could have fooled me. This movie does a terrific job of making every scene play like a real event on a ship at sea, and that's part of its charm. There's even a walk-on by George Bush, visiting the ship before its fateful final voyage.
The cast is also effective. The star is Steven Seagal, who has cut off his pony tail to play a former Navy hero serving out his last tour as a cook. The reasons for that assignment are complicated (he got in trouble, but the skipper is his friend) but Seagal makes a convincing cook; he can hit a target with a carving knife at 20 paces, and he even looks like he's put on a few pounds on the job, sipping the boulibaisse.
The villains are superb, vile and deliriously insane. They're played by Tommy Lee Jones, as a former undercover operative for the CIA, and Gary Busey, as a disillusioned officer on board the ship. Jones has developed into one of the most effective and interesting villains in the movies, maybe because he's not afraid to go over the top - as he does here, masquerading as a heavy-metal rocker and later spieling political slogans into the radio like a deranged dictator. Busey, as the turncoat officer, plays his big murder scene in drag, gnashing the scenery as if he's enjoying every bite.
The plot of the movie is, of course, absurd, involving a half-explained scheme to steal the ship's nuclear warheads, offload them to a stolen North Korean submarine, and sell them in the Middle East. Never mind. The details of the cat-and-mouse chase around the ship are exciting and well-directed. And director Davis is not above the put-on, as when he introduces Playboy's Miss July 1989 (Erika Eleniak) into the plot, and has her follow Seagal on his dangerous rounds for no better reason than because she seems utterly incongrous in every scene.
Andrew Davis is not a director whose name is known to many moviegoers, I suppose, but he has built up an impressive body of action work: His "Code of Silence" was the best Chuck Norris movie, his "The Package" was a terrific Gene Hackman thriller, and he directed Seagal's movie debut in "Above the Law" (1988). Here is uses some of his trademarks: Effective fight scenes, electronic gimmicks, quirky casting of the supporting roles, bigger-than-life heroes and villains.
Under Siege (STAR) (STAR) (STAR)
Casey Ryback Steven Seagal
Strannix Tommy Lee Jones
Commander Krill Gary Busey
Directed by Andrew Davis. Running Time: 120 minutes. Classified R (for strong violence, and for language and brief nudity).
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
UNDER SIEGE 2: DARK TERRITORY
(Rating: 3 stars)
Date of publication: 07/17/1995
By Roger Ebert
There is always the possibility of being surprised at the movies.
Imagine my astonishment at enjoying "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory." My hopes were not high. Even its star, Steven Seagal, sounded downbeat when he reported, a few days before the movie opened, that he felt "down" while he was making it, because of a split with his wife. He hoped it didn't show too much on the screen.
It doesn't.
Perhaps that's because it's hard to assess the psychic condition of a person running on top of a train, throwing bombs and fighting terrorists with knives. You don't know if he's depressed, or just concentrating.
In the movie, Seagal is a man of few words, little insight, and much action. Typical dialogue, when quizzed by his niece about the contents of his hand-held Apple Newton: "It's a book - my memoirs - stuff like that . . . "
Seagal once again plays Casey Ryback, a onetime Navy SEAL, now a chef. He joins his niece on a cross-country train trip, only to discover that this is the very train chosen for hijacking by the brilliant but demented Travis Dane (Eric Bogosian), who needs it as a moving platform for the powerful computers with which he plans to snatch control of a top-secret U.S. satellite. This is some satellite. It has a camera onboard so powerful it can provide a closeup of a nude sunbather on a rooftop. And it can generate Non-Terrestrially Originated Seismic Events (that makes NOSES, I think) - it causes earthquakes from space.
Dane and his chief of staff Penn (Everett McGill) herd the passengers into the last two cars, and set up their computers. Penn is tough. When the niece tries to Mace him, he grabs the little canister and uses it like Binaca.
Meanwhile, Ryback escapes detection by hiding in the food locker. (Whaddaya know - he was in the food locker in the first film, too.)
Dane blows up a Chinese city as a demonstration. We see a standard Mission Control-type room filled with alarmed men in uniforms, reacting to this news. Meanwhile, Ryback recruits a train porter (Morris Chestnut) and wages war on the terrorists.
His weapons are various. He constructs a bomb out of coconut oil, I think, or maybe it was palm oil - high in saturates, anyway. He kicks a couple of guys off the train. He grabs a machinegun and wages a fierce battle with the men who have taken over the locomotive and are running the train. (I'm not sure, but I think he kills everybody in the cab, which would mean there is no engineer for the last half of the movie, although nobody notices.)
The evil Dane meanwhile contacts his backers in "North Korea and the Middle East" and cuts deals. For $1 billion, he will blow up a nuclear reactor hidden under the Pentagon, wiping out "most of the Eastern Seaboard." He doesn't stop to wonder what the U.S. dollar would be worth after that event. Meanwhile, a billionaire in the Middle East offers him $100 million to blow up an airplane with his wife onboard. I have news for this man: We got guys here in Chicago who will take out his wife and save him $99,999,000 and change.
The battle for control of the train continues. And of course it involves still another Doomsday Digital Display: As the destruction of the Eastern Seaboard approaches, the numbers count down from 45 minutes. Who, I always wonder, are these numbers provided for? For that matter, when Dane seizes control of the satellite, lights on it blink, but who's up there to see them?
Meanwhile, when there are 13 minutes left, the military guys finally alert the president. Three minutes later, he has been "safely evacuated," which is pretty fast for getting clear of the Eastern Seaboard.
And so I'm sitting there asking all these questions, and grinning, and chuckling, and taking notes like crazy - all of them ending in big question marks. I put three question marks after the neatest trick of all, which is when Seagal outruns a train crash.
Yes, he does. The train crashes head-on into another train, but Seagal is able to run real fast toward the back of the train, faster than the crash, grab a rope from a helicopter, and save himself.
To make this happen, either (a) the movie violates two or perhaps three of Newton's laws, or (b) Seagal can run the 200-yard-dash in well under a second.
I mention all of these tiny logical quibbles because I was amused by them. I was also amused by the film. It isn't as good as the original "Under Siege," but it moves quickly, has great stunts and special effects, and is a lot of fun. And I want one of those little Newtons. I need it for writing my memoirs and stuff.
UNDER SIEGE 2: DARK TERRITORY
(Rating: 3 stars)
Date of publication: 07/17/1995
By Roger Ebert
There is always the possibility of being surprised at the movies.
Imagine my astonishment at enjoying "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory." My hopes were not high. Even its star, Steven Seagal, sounded downbeat when he reported, a few days before the movie opened, that he felt "down" while he was making it, because of a split with his wife. He hoped it didn't show too much on the screen.
It doesn't.
Perhaps that's because it's hard to assess the psychic condition of a person running on top of a train, throwing bombs and fighting terrorists with knives. You don't know if he's depressed, or just concentrating.
In the movie, Seagal is a man of few words, little insight, and much action. Typical dialogue, when quizzed by his niece about the contents of his hand-held Apple Newton: "It's a book - my memoirs - stuff like that . . . "
Seagal once again plays Casey Ryback, a onetime Navy SEAL, now a chef. He joins his niece on a cross-country train trip, only to discover that this is the very train chosen for hijacking by the brilliant but demented Travis Dane (Eric Bogosian), who needs it as a moving platform for the powerful computers with which he plans to snatch control of a top-secret U.S. satellite. This is some satellite. It has a camera onboard so powerful it can provide a closeup of a nude sunbather on a rooftop. And it can generate Non-Terrestrially Originated Seismic Events (that makes NOSES, I think) - it causes earthquakes from space.
Dane and his chief of staff Penn (Everett McGill) herd the passengers into the last two cars, and set up their computers. Penn is tough. When the niece tries to Mace him, he grabs the little canister and uses it like Binaca.
Meanwhile, Ryback escapes detection by hiding in the food locker. (Whaddaya know - he was in the food locker in the first film, too.)
Dane blows up a Chinese city as a demonstration. We see a standard Mission Control-type room filled with alarmed men in uniforms, reacting to this news. Meanwhile, Ryback recruits a train porter (Morris Chestnut) and wages war on the terrorists.
His weapons are various. He constructs a bomb out of coconut oil, I think, or maybe it was palm oil - high in saturates, anyway. He kicks a couple of guys off the train. He grabs a machinegun and wages a fierce battle with the men who have taken over the locomotive and are running the train. (I'm not sure, but I think he kills everybody in the cab, which would mean there is no engineer for the last half of the movie, although nobody notices.)
The evil Dane meanwhile contacts his backers in "North Korea and the Middle East" and cuts deals. For $1 billion, he will blow up a nuclear reactor hidden under the Pentagon, wiping out "most of the Eastern Seaboard." He doesn't stop to wonder what the U.S. dollar would be worth after that event. Meanwhile, a billionaire in the Middle East offers him $100 million to blow up an airplane with his wife onboard. I have news for this man: We got guys here in Chicago who will take out his wife and save him $99,999,000 and change.
The battle for control of the train continues. And of course it involves still another Doomsday Digital Display: As the destruction of the Eastern Seaboard approaches, the numbers count down from 45 minutes. Who, I always wonder, are these numbers provided for? For that matter, when Dane seizes control of the satellite, lights on it blink, but who's up there to see them?
Meanwhile, when there are 13 minutes left, the military guys finally alert the president. Three minutes later, he has been "safely evacuated," which is pretty fast for getting clear of the Eastern Seaboard.
And so I'm sitting there asking all these questions, and grinning, and chuckling, and taking notes like crazy - all of them ending in big question marks. I put three question marks after the neatest trick of all, which is when Seagal outruns a train crash.
Yes, he does. The train crashes head-on into another train, but Seagal is able to run real fast toward the back of the train, faster than the crash, grab a rope from a helicopter, and save himself.
To make this happen, either (a) the movie violates two or perhaps three of Newton's laws, or (b) Seagal can run the 200-yard-dash in well under a second.
I mention all of these tiny logical quibbles because I was amused by them. I was also amused by the film. It isn't as good as the original "Under Siege," but it moves quickly, has great stunts and special effects, and is a lot of fun. And I want one of those little Newtons. I need it for writing my memoirs and stuff.
And here's where the bloom went off the rose:
HALF PAST DEAD
1/2* (PG-13)
November 15, 2002
Sascha Petrosevitch: Steven Seagal
Donny/49er One: Morris Chestnut
Nick Frazier: Ja Rule
49er Three: Matt Battaglia
Sonny Ekvall: Richard Bremmer
Screen Gems presents a film written and directed by Don Michael Paul. Running time: 99 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for pervasive action violence, language and some sexual content).
BY ROGER EBERT
"Half Past Dead" is like an alarm that goes off while nobody is in the room. It does its job and stops, and nobody cares. It goes through the motions of an action thriller, but there is a deadness at its center, a feeling that no one connected with it loved what they were doing. There are moments, to be sure, when Ja Rule and Morris Chestnut seem to hear the music, but they're dancing by themselves.
The plot is preposterous, but that's acceptable with a thriller. The action is preposterous, too: Various characters leap from high places while firing guns, and the movie doesn't think to show us how, or if, they landed. A room is filled with teargas, but what exactly happens then? The movie takes the form of a buddy movie, but is stopped in its tracks because its hero, played by Steven Seagal, doesn't have a buddy gene in his body. (I know, he takes seven bullets for his partner Nick, but I don't think he planned it: "I'll take seven bullets for Nick!")
Seagal's great contribution to the movie is to look very serious, even menacing, in closeups carefully framed to hide his double chin. I do not object to the fact that he's put on weight. Look who's talking. I object to the fact that he thinks he can conceal it from us with knee-length coats and tricky camera angles. I would rather see a movie about a pudgy karate fighter than a movie about a guy you never get a good look at.
The film has little dialogue and much action. It places its trust so firmly in action that it opens with a scene where the characters have one of those urban chase scenes where the car barely misses trailer trucks, squeals through 180-degree turns, etc., and they're not even being chased. It's kind of a warm-up, like a musician practicing the scales.
Do not read further if you think the plot may have the slightest importance to the movie. Seagal plays an undercover FBI guy who has teamed up with the crook Nick Frazier (Ja Rule), who vouched for him with the master criminal Sonny Ekvall (Richard Bremmer), who runs, if I have this correct, "the biggest crime syndicate between Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim." He doesn't say whether the syndicate extends easterly or westerly between those demarcations, which would affect the rim he has in mind. Maybe easterly, since Seagal's character is named Sascha Petrosevitch. "You're Russian, right?" he asks Seagal, who agrees. Seagal's answer to this question is the only time in the entire movie he has a Russian accent.
Nick gets thrown into New Alcatraz. Petrosevitch gets thrown in, too. Later, after his cover is blown, he explains to Nick that the FBI thought if he did time with Nick, it would help him get inside the criminal organization. The sentence is five years. What a guy.
Then, let's see, the prison contains an old man who is about to go to the chair with the secret of $200 million in gold bars. Bad guys want his secret, and cooperate with an insider (Morris Chestnut) to break into the prison, taking hostage a female U.S. Supreme Court Justice who is on a tour of Death Row (she's one of those liberals). They want to escape with the old guy and get the gold. Among their demands: a fully fueled jet plane to an "undisclosed location." My advice: At least disclose the location to the pilot.
Nick and Petrosevitch team up to risk their lives in a nonstop series of shoot-outs, explosions, martial arts fights and shoulder-launched rocket battles in order to save the Supreme Court justice. We know why Petrosevitch is doing this. But why is Nick? Apparently he is another example of that mysterious subset of the law of gravitation that attracts the black actor with second billing in an action movie to the side of the hero.
At the end of "Half Past Dead" there is a scene where Nick looks significantly at Petrosevitch and nods and smiles a little, as if to say, you some kinda white guy. Of course, Petrosevitch has just promised to spring him from New Alcatraz, which can easily inspire a nod and a little smile.
Meanwhile, I started wondering about that $200 million in gold. At the end of the movie, we see a chest being winched to the surface and some gold bars spilling out. If gold sells at, say, $321 per troy ounce, then $20 million in gold bars would represent 623,052 troy ounces, or 42,720 pounds, and would not fit in that chest. You would expect the FBI guys would know this. Maybe not these FBI guys.
Note: I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated "Half Past Dead" PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie "Bowling for Columbine" an R.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
HALF PAST DEAD
1/2* (PG-13)
November 15, 2002
Sascha Petrosevitch: Steven Seagal
Donny/49er One: Morris Chestnut
Nick Frazier: Ja Rule
49er Three: Matt Battaglia
Sonny Ekvall: Richard Bremmer
Screen Gems presents a film written and directed by Don Michael Paul. Running time: 99 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for pervasive action violence, language and some sexual content).
BY ROGER EBERT
"Half Past Dead" is like an alarm that goes off while nobody is in the room. It does its job and stops, and nobody cares. It goes through the motions of an action thriller, but there is a deadness at its center, a feeling that no one connected with it loved what they were doing. There are moments, to be sure, when Ja Rule and Morris Chestnut seem to hear the music, but they're dancing by themselves.
The plot is preposterous, but that's acceptable with a thriller. The action is preposterous, too: Various characters leap from high places while firing guns, and the movie doesn't think to show us how, or if, they landed. A room is filled with teargas, but what exactly happens then? The movie takes the form of a buddy movie, but is stopped in its tracks because its hero, played by Steven Seagal, doesn't have a buddy gene in his body. (I know, he takes seven bullets for his partner Nick, but I don't think he planned it: "I'll take seven bullets for Nick!")
Seagal's great contribution to the movie is to look very serious, even menacing, in closeups carefully framed to hide his double chin. I do not object to the fact that he's put on weight. Look who's talking. I object to the fact that he thinks he can conceal it from us with knee-length coats and tricky camera angles. I would rather see a movie about a pudgy karate fighter than a movie about a guy you never get a good look at.
The film has little dialogue and much action. It places its trust so firmly in action that it opens with a scene where the characters have one of those urban chase scenes where the car barely misses trailer trucks, squeals through 180-degree turns, etc., and they're not even being chased. It's kind of a warm-up, like a musician practicing the scales.
Do not read further if you think the plot may have the slightest importance to the movie. Seagal plays an undercover FBI guy who has teamed up with the crook Nick Frazier (Ja Rule), who vouched for him with the master criminal Sonny Ekvall (Richard Bremmer), who runs, if I have this correct, "the biggest crime syndicate between Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim." He doesn't say whether the syndicate extends easterly or westerly between those demarcations, which would affect the rim he has in mind. Maybe easterly, since Seagal's character is named Sascha Petrosevitch. "You're Russian, right?" he asks Seagal, who agrees. Seagal's answer to this question is the only time in the entire movie he has a Russian accent.
Nick gets thrown into New Alcatraz. Petrosevitch gets thrown in, too. Later, after his cover is blown, he explains to Nick that the FBI thought if he did time with Nick, it would help him get inside the criminal organization. The sentence is five years. What a guy.
Then, let's see, the prison contains an old man who is about to go to the chair with the secret of $200 million in gold bars. Bad guys want his secret, and cooperate with an insider (Morris Chestnut) to break into the prison, taking hostage a female U.S. Supreme Court Justice who is on a tour of Death Row (she's one of those liberals). They want to escape with the old guy and get the gold. Among their demands: a fully fueled jet plane to an "undisclosed location." My advice: At least disclose the location to the pilot.
Nick and Petrosevitch team up to risk their lives in a nonstop series of shoot-outs, explosions, martial arts fights and shoulder-launched rocket battles in order to save the Supreme Court justice. We know why Petrosevitch is doing this. But why is Nick? Apparently he is another example of that mysterious subset of the law of gravitation that attracts the black actor with second billing in an action movie to the side of the hero.
At the end of "Half Past Dead" there is a scene where Nick looks significantly at Petrosevitch and nods and smiles a little, as if to say, you some kinda white guy. Of course, Petrosevitch has just promised to spring him from New Alcatraz, which can easily inspire a nod and a little smile.
Meanwhile, I started wondering about that $200 million in gold. At the end of the movie, we see a chest being winched to the surface and some gold bars spilling out. If gold sells at, say, $321 per troy ounce, then $20 million in gold bars would represent 623,052 troy ounces, or 42,720 pounds, and would not fit in that chest. You would expect the FBI guys would know this. Maybe not these FBI guys.
Note: I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated "Half Past Dead" PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie "Bowling for Columbine" an R.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Contrast Ebert's review of Above the Law with the review from the Washington Post. The difference? Ebert is a FILM reviewer. That's his job; that's what he's paid to do. This guy is a STAFF writer, which means he pulled the short straw. He isn't paid to review films, he's paid to do whatever assignments the assignment editor tells him to do. He's got no expertise in the field of filmmaking other than his boss telling him to go to the movies. That's like asking a sports writer to go to a fashion show (that doesn't involve swimsuits).
'Above the Law'
By Hal Hinson
Washington Post Staff Writer
April 09, 1988
Born in Sicily, raised in Chicago and educated in the martial arts in Japan -- that's a partial curriculum vitae for Nico Toscani, the cop hero of "Above the Law."
In addition, back in 1973 he worked for the CIA collecting military intelligence along the Vietnamese-Cambodian border -- that is, until he got wind of the agency's involvement in the drug trade and bailed out. Now, 15 years later and back home in Chicago, some of his old friends from the past come to town with plans to assassinate a senator who threatens to expose the drug network they're running through Central America.
And guess who has to stop them.
"Above the Law," which offers Steven Seagal to the world as a new urban action hero, is woefully short on originality, intelligibility and anything resembling taste. But none of this comes as a surprise. What is surprising is how little invention or energy there is in the movie's action sequences.
Seagal is a sort of Italianate Eastwood, but with a sleeker, Euro-trashy design. In fact, there are suggestions of so many other action heroes in this guy that he seems to have been assembled from leftover parts. The main problem is that he brings nothing of his own to the mix. He doesn't have the dancerly grace of Bruce Lee or the robust indestructibility of someone like Jackie Chan; there is no pleasure in watching him move. And he doesn't have a trace of the deadpan comic style of either Eastwood or Schwarzenegger. He's a walking knockoff.
In the press materials, the film's director, Andrew Davis, who directed Chuck Norris in "Code of Silence," calls Seagal "a Renaissance man." So what does that make William F. Buckley? God?
This movie may have the wackiest politics of any film since Dirty Harry first leveled his magnum in the name of law and order. First, it takes the high moral ground by exposing the CIA as the force behind all that is evil on the planet, then proceeds to pump lead into practically everything that moves. Wiretaps? No problem. Police brutality? Same deal. And the only Miranda this cop has ever heard of is Carmen Miranda.
'Above the Law'
By Hal Hinson
Washington Post Staff Writer
April 09, 1988
Born in Sicily, raised in Chicago and educated in the martial arts in Japan -- that's a partial curriculum vitae for Nico Toscani, the cop hero of "Above the Law."
In addition, back in 1973 he worked for the CIA collecting military intelligence along the Vietnamese-Cambodian border -- that is, until he got wind of the agency's involvement in the drug trade and bailed out. Now, 15 years later and back home in Chicago, some of his old friends from the past come to town with plans to assassinate a senator who threatens to expose the drug network they're running through Central America.
And guess who has to stop them.
"Above the Law," which offers Steven Seagal to the world as a new urban action hero, is woefully short on originality, intelligibility and anything resembling taste. But none of this comes as a surprise. What is surprising is how little invention or energy there is in the movie's action sequences.
Seagal is a sort of Italianate Eastwood, but with a sleeker, Euro-trashy design. In fact, there are suggestions of so many other action heroes in this guy that he seems to have been assembled from leftover parts. The main problem is that he brings nothing of his own to the mix. He doesn't have the dancerly grace of Bruce Lee or the robust indestructibility of someone like Jackie Chan; there is no pleasure in watching him move. And he doesn't have a trace of the deadpan comic style of either Eastwood or Schwarzenegger. He's a walking knockoff.
In the press materials, the film's director, Andrew Davis, who directed Chuck Norris in "Code of Silence," calls Seagal "a Renaissance man." So what does that make William F. Buckley? God?
This movie may have the wackiest politics of any film since Dirty Harry first leveled his magnum in the name of law and order. First, it takes the high moral ground by exposing the CIA as the force behind all that is evil on the planet, then proceeds to pump lead into practically everything that moves. Wiretaps? No problem. Police brutality? Same deal. And the only Miranda this cop has ever heard of is Carmen Miranda.