Roger Ebert Was One Of A Few Critics Who Actually Liked This Steven Seagal Movie

We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.

Geoff Murphy's 1995 action spectacular "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory" was not terribly well-received by critics.

1992's "Under Siege" — perhaps best described as "'Die Hard' on a boat" — starred Steven Seagal as Lieutenant Casey Ryback, an ex-Navy SEAL who had become a ship's galley cook upon being demoted by his superiors. It seems that Casey punched his commanding officer after some bad intelligence in a Panama excursion got his team killed. As a galley cook, he took a position on the USS Missouri. As one might predict, the Missouri is infiltrated by terrorists (led by Tommy Lee Jones' William Strannix), and the unsuspecting cook has to spring into action and stop their evil schemes. "Under Siege" was a box office hit and generally well-received by critics, so it only seemed natural when a follow-up went into production.

But the sequel was comparatively lackluster, repeating a lot of the beats of the original. Replace "boat" with "train" and "Tommy Lee Jones" with "Eric Bogosian," and you pretty much have the plot of "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory." Seagal returned as Ryback, having settled down in Denver post-retirement to run a restaurant. The plot involves Ryback boarding a train with his niece (Katherine Heigl, still a decade away from playing Izzie Stevens on "Grey's Anatomy") to attend his brother's funeral in Los Angeles. Naturally, terrorists invade the train, and Ryback has to kick a bunch of asses again.

Fewer people liked "Dark Territory," and it disappointed financially. Also, the public felt a little ambivalent about Seagal at the time, seeing him as ... less than talented as an actor. Roger Ebert, however, actually liked "Dark Territory" (giving it a three-star review), and he had to confess his surprise right at the start.

Roger Ebert, it should be remembered, taught us all a very important lesson about film criticism — namely, to always keep one's mind open. A critic may have to sit and review a terrible-looking movie, but until they actually see it, they won't know if it's terrible. They may end up thinking it's good or even great. By that same token, a great-looking movie from a star filmmaker might prove to be a bust. In both cases, we, as audience members, have to watch a movie with an open mind and listen to what the film is telling us.

Ebert wasn't snooty about "Under Siege 2," admitting that it surprised him. "Imagine my astonishment at enjoying 'Under Siege 2: Dark Territory,'" he wrote. "My hopes were not high." Admittedly, Ebert wasn't so impressed with Seagal's character, noting that Casey Ryback's dialogue was sparse and that he didn't seem to be a very deep thinker. He's writing a book on a hand-held Apple Newton (remember those?). "My memoirs. Stuff like that," he explains.

Indeed, most of Ebert's review is a litany of the ridiculous and cliché things in the movie. The silly terrorist threats. The control room full of serious-looking army generals. The red countdown clock, indicating that a nuclear disaster is nigh. Every plot development invites incredulous questions. Yet, somehow, Ebert enjoyed himself, writing:

"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." 

Yeah, how does that work? Did Ryback run 200 meters in two seconds? And yet...

Roger Ebert acknowledged one of those old, immutable truths with "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory" — namely, that absurd action movies can be fun in spite of their absurdity, and sometimes even because of it. He concluded his review by writing: 

"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." 

Incidentally, Ebert did eventually publish a book called "Life Itself: A Memoir," which collected some of his more personal essays first published on RogerEbert.com. As far as I know, he didn't write it on an Apple Newton. 

Most critics disagreed with Ebert on "Under Siege 2," echoing his questions about the film's rehashed conceits but without having any fun while watching it. A good gauge for writing a review is to ask yourself if you were entertained for any reason. If it was a terrible movie, but you still had a good time, you must, to retain your critical integrity, admit as much in your review. Personally, I've been thrilled by awful actioners, laughed at tasteless comedies, and been scared by the worst, trashiest horror movies. I think we have all deeply enjoyed terrible movies. Ebert was not immune to this phenomenon, as proven by the many positive reviews he gave to truly silly pictures, be they "Under Siege 2" or the Harrison Ford action comedy "Hollywood Homicide."

Steven Seagal, meanwhile, once wanted to make "Under Siege 3." Unsurprisingly, it's yet to happen.