I mean, compared to Seagal's earlier movies like Above The Law and Out For Justice. It's just so bland compared to those. This movie just seems like a cookie cutter Hollywood blockbuster where anyone could've been the leading role.
It just lacks that spark that makes the other Steven Seagal movies..well, Seagal-y. I think the relative lack of hand to hand combat is a big part of this.
It was before people knew what a douche he was. On top of that, it was at the early stages of the "Die Hard on a _______," when these movies were a lot of fun to watch. Cool weaponry, interesting setting, and an earning of the R rating (the nudity and gore only helped make the movie more fun). Add it all up, and you've got a pretty decent film. It was also at his peak, as a movie star. After this, it was all downhill for the guy.
So, I said Under Siege was his last film before his career began the decline. You disagreed, saying it began after ED.
I reiterated that ED was a failure (and he was barely in it anyway). To top that off, ODG came out before ED--which he starred in and directed, and produced--and that failed horribly.
reply share
So, I said Under Siege was his last film before his career began the decline. You disagreed, saying it began after ED.
I reiterated that ED was a failure (and he was barely in it anyway). To top that off, ODG came out before ED--which he starred in and directed, and produced--and that failed horribly.
I don't judge films, directors, or actors, etc based on box office profits. Avatar was a huge box office success, I think its a terrible film.
I also read somewhere that they wrote Seagal out because he was causing problems on the set. He was still top billed, and in Germany, had his face on the poster. He also gave a decent performance.
reply share
I don't judge films, directors, or actors, etc based on box office profits.
I normally don't either, but this is Seagal we're talking about; he's not exactly on par with Denzel Washington and Liam Neeson. He's judged mainly on how exciting his films are, and how well they do (which is why his first few movies, especially at that time, passed those tests).
I never thought ED was a good film. I tried to like it, but I just thought it was silly and, really, quite boring.
Avatar was a huge box office success, I think its a terrible film.
Couldn't agree with you more.
I also read somewhere that they wrote Seagal out because he was causing problems on the set.
No, he was always meant to die off. His career was floundering, so Warner Brothers thought it would add some energy to his persona if the unbeatable Seagal was killed off in a film, capitalizing its shock value. He caused problems on the set (he always does/did), but that had nothing to do with the decision to kill off his character.
He was still top billed, and in Germany, had his face on the poster.
That's because it's Germany. I'm talking about his primary audience: American audiences. They'd already started losing interest in him by this point. Even before this point, which goes back to what I said before. You can't use Europe as a barometer, because they're often happy for American tablescraps. His awful, awful film, The Patriot, for example, was released in theaters there, while it was straight to video in the US, because American producers knew they couldn't make Americans pay 10 bucks to watch that crap. It was a TV-movie, at best, yet a theatrical release in Europe, just to give you an idea.
He also gave a decent performance.
He gave the same performance he gives in every film, just 200lbs lighter.
reply share
I normally don't either, but this is Seagal we're talking about; he's not exactly on par with Denzel Washington and Liam Neeson. He's judged mainly on how exciting his films are, and how well they do (which is why his first few movies, especially at that time, passed those tests).
I never thought ED was a good film. I tried to like it, but I just thought it was silly and, really, quite boring.
So you have double standards...
That's because it's Germany. I'm talking about his primary audience: American audiences. They'd already started losing interest in him by this point. Even before this point, which goes back to what I said before. You can't use Europe as a barometer, because they're often happy for American tablescraps. His awful, awful film, The Patriot, for example, was released in theaters there, while it was straight to video in the US, because American producers knew they couldn't make Americans pay 10 bucks to watch that crap. It was a TV-movie, at best, yet a theatrical release in Europe, just to give you an idea.
He was top billed in the US because Germany, what?
The fact remains, he starred in a film at least as good as this one years later. After that all his roles sucked. That was when his career went into the sh!tter. Not after this film, years later. If you consider any of his other films decent, and worthy of defining an incline in his career, I guess we will never see equal ground. reply share
Director: Stuart Baird Writers: Jim Thomas, John Thomas Stars: Kurt Russell, Halle Berry, Steven Seagal
Thank you for proving my point. When a 1996 Halle Berry gets higher billing than you--placing you in third billing--and you're only in the film for 20 of its 134 minutes, you're not "starring."
reply share
Above the Law and Hard to Kill are my Seagal faves, along with Under Siege. I think that Under Siege is his best because it has a balanced story (if implausible, still lots of fun) and with Gary Busey, Tommy Lee Jones, and other great actors, it is his best.
His output started going downhill when his titles could no longer be preceeded by 'Steven Seagal is...'
I mean, 'Steven Seagal is... Out for Justice' sounds cool. 'Steven Seagal is... Executive Decision' sounds decidedly less so.
I agree with you 100%. His first few films had that odd charm of a regular guy who overnight became a movie star without ever having to do anything to earn it. And the accompanying ego/emotional problems that go with such a sudden change of life. I definitely prefer that earlier work. I especially have a strange soft spot for Hard to Kill. Don't ask me why.
Under Siege was his zenith BECAUSE it was Hollywood cookie cutter stuff. BECAUSE it could have starred anyone. It wasn't tailor made for Seagal, yet there he was starring in it. It COULD have starred Bruce Willis, or Mel Gibson, or Arnold, or Sly, or Van Damme, but it didn't - it starred Steven Seagal. And it did well. Following Under Siege his decline was pretty rapid.
I agree Under Siege was the top of his career. You can argue over which of his early movies was better, but this was when he was at his peak in popularity. Under siege was one of the few movies he was in with a strong supporting cast, as well. It's odd how some actors can be the It thing for a couple of years and then slowly fade away, I remember when I would actually go see a movie bc Michale Keaton was in it, in the late 80's. Then he hit a stretch where his movies just flopped or sucked.. I guess after Under Siege, people began to just tire of the formula for Seagall's movies, and look fort something different. So under siege will always be that last movie of his during his run that was popular and was a Segall movie, therefore it will always be a special movie to them. Plus I thought it was just an entertaining movie,