Under Siege 2: Dark Territory

Steven Seagal reprises his role as a one time SEAL team captain, a counter-terrorist expert who had to rely only on his personal skills in order to survive, and protect the hostages... He happens to be on the Grand Continental passenger train traveling from Denver to L.A... Seagal joins the only family he has, a 'cute kid' named Sarah (Katherine Heigl) after her parents died in a plane crash...

Seagal has an electrifying screen presence... Seeing him in action is similar to appreciating modern art...

The train is hijacked by a team of 'ugly men' with guns... Their chief, Travis Dane (Eric Bogosian), is a high-tech mastermind, who fakes his own death in order to gain control of a top-secret nuclear satellite... For this crazy technical genius, technology can be used for beauty or debasement, and 'until you plug it in, you just can't tell.'

Dane's henchman Penn (Everett McGill) is a soldier of fortune freak, whose relationship with his boss resurfaced during Desert Storm...

Morris Chestnut's focus is on humor and breath-taking sequences...

Geoff Murphy's film is incredibly entertaining, combining action, martial arts, and dark sense of humor...

Yes, the earthquake beam from space (heck, the whole story line and all of the villains too) are totally unbelievable. Frankly, if you can find a "believable" action movie, I have a beach house in Arizona you might want to buy. Yes, the production values were not the finest.

But -- if you like watching the hero exterminate the bad guys, few do it with the style of Seagal. Like Jet Li (yeah, I am old enough to remember Bruce Lee the original, and Chuck Norris), he is one of the few action heroes who is a real martial arts guy, and he moves so fast and fluidly it is hard for the eye to follow, but fascinating to watch. This is brainless entertainment, full of hilariously cheesy B-movie one-liners you can laugh at ("Assumption is the mother of all f-ups!"), often bad acting, a story line you could describe in one sentence, and zero character development.

There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes. Believability is for films that take themselves seriously. Seagal is more like stand-up comic straight man meets Aikido ace. At least he handles a handgun like someone who has actually fired one.

The first 'Under Siege' film was a classic. No, not in the 'Godfather' or 'Empire Strikes Back' kind of way, but in terms of simple nineties action films to eat popcorn to, it was a classic. And an unexpected one at that. Therefore, a sequel was trotted out in the hope that the second film would catch the audience's attention, too. It didn't. Not that it's that bad.

Steven Segal plays... well, much the same character he plays in all his films – the no-nonsense, bad-guy-slaughtering, tough-man who gets caught up in all sorts of dangerous situations. This time he just so happens to be on a passenger train heading through America when a load of terrorists hijack it, threatening New York with total destruction thanks to an on-board control to a top secret satellite-weapon.

The first film was set on a large military destroyer boat. Therefore, when Segal did his thing killing bad-guys, he had a bigger playing field (kind of literally!) to run around in. A boat is a damn sight better setting for an action film where the hero is constantly hiding and on the run from a small army of hired mercenaries. A train is not. He never really seems to hit his stride until the film is practically over.

Yes, he does his general hiding and stalking of baddies, but the whole affair leaves you wondering how he hasn't been caught by now. The second half does pick up the pace a bit – if you don't mind overlooking the various over-the-topness of it all and general plot holes that come with one man taking down an entire elite army battalion.

Plus there are less secondary characters for Segal to interact with. His niece is a captive, so she has little to do but kneel down and play the part of 'damsel in distress.' Segal's (train porter) sidekick is annoying and the baddies are kind of over-the-top in a pantomime kind of way.

Overall, 'Under Siege 2' isn't bad. It just isn't as good as the original and therefore not even nearly as good as all the other mad nineties action blockbusters. If you like action films and you come home late at night and see this is on TV, you may watch it all the way through. It's the kind of film that you can watch while doing other things.

Casey Ryback (Steven Seagal) having left the Navy to open a restaurant must now escort his niece (Katherine Heigl) home via train after her father's recent death. While on the train, a group of terrorists lead by crazed engineer Dane and bloodthirsty mercenary Penn (Eric Bogosian and Everett McGill respectively) hijack the train to use it as a base of operations to hijack a black ops satellite weapon capable of causing earthquakes with the intent being to destroy Washington D.C. once again only Ryback can save the day.

After the massive critical and commercial success of the first Under Siege, Warner Bros. was so eager to do a sequel that they allowed Seagal to direct and star in his vanity project On Deadly Ground....after, whatever that was came Under Siege 2: Dark Territory which throws out all pretense of taking place on planet Earth and goes into insanity normally reserved for 90s comics and video games that I can't help but love.

Like the last Under Siege, the true stars of the movie are the villains and location. Eric Bogosian and Everett McGill while somewhat similar in terms of motivation and character to Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey from the first movie (down to Bogosian having a bone to pick with the CIA after having been burned) they bring a different approach to similar characters to make them feel unique to the situation. Bogosian in particular is great as an unhinged tech genius playing the role in a manner similar to Elliott Gould or Dustin Hoffman circa 1970 that makes him feel more authentic than I think the movie was trying to do. Their plan is completely detached from reality unlike the first one which at least pretended to take place in some realistic fashion, and now the villains are involved in Lex Luthor level shenanigans involving what amounts to an "Earthquake Machine" but never directly called that and tap danced around with a lot of technical jargon. The insanity of the plot as well as Bogosian's and McGill's ability to maintain seriousness adds to the film's charm and makes it somewhat endearing.

The Train despite seemingly more limited in terms of possibilities to a battleship is used to great effect in Under Siege 2. The train is used for some great shootout sequences, closed quarters combat, and even chases across the train's rooftops (an unwritten rule for any thriller featuring a train as a centerpiece). Everything that can be done with a train, IS done with a train, right up to an absolutely insane climax that involves another train that must be seen to be believed. The supporting cast is a little more dialed back this time around as Seagal is given more screen time than in the first one, which leads to some minor detriment to some of the characters. Katherine Heigl is good playing Ryback's niece, but despite her being established as a fighter like her uncle it never comes into play in any meaningful fashion. Morris Chestnut however in an early performance is quite good playing a porter who reluctantly teams up with Ryback to help stop the terrorists from executing their plans. Chestnut shows a lot of charisma in his role and adds some nice touches of humor and humanity to what could have easily been a throwaway role.

While Under Siege 2 lacks novelty, tension, and punch of the first movie, it more than makes up for it with sheer amounts of excess and silliness that keeps you engaged throughout. From its villains over the top plan that feels like it belongs in a 90s arcade game to the sheer dedication to treating this situation seriously, it's an entertaining rush from start to finish that every action fan owes themselves to experience.

DIE HARD aboard a train, there will be more, a couple I guess, in the future; Aboard a train, I mean. Because you had DIE HARD rip offs on all kind of transportation or facilities, except a pet cemetery or a taxi cab...That said, I prefered this one to the first Andrew Davis' opus, I don't know why...This Geoff Murphy's movie is not better, but maybe the bodycount was a bit easier. Bodycount of the villians wasted one by one, that's the main interest for this kind of film. And of course in the end, you have to obtain the exact count. If not, let's admit it is a bit boring. I have seen action flicks where the more the bad guys are killed, the more you have bad guys!!!! Yes, a good action film, worth seeing, despite it is of course lousy, forgettable.