_"This guy's a pain in the ass!"_

Well, my first Steven Seagal film is in the can. Years ago, I watched compilations of fight sequence moments of his a few times on Youtube, and I remember liking them a lot; his fight sequences are enjoyable. More importantly, I remember noticing his sui generis delivery of dialogue: often enhanced by bad-but-good lines, and his unbothered smug demeanor/attitude, which I bet is present with every character, depriving them of individualistic identities. I'm not saying that's a bad thing: it's an observation. It's his trademark, and it has its subtle charm.

I believe Steven Seagal is like Nicolas Cage: if you don't let him loose, you're sacrificing valuable enjoyment. That's why I think I'd enjoy other films of his more, including the other higher-rated ones like this one. But specifically, I'm referring to some of the low-budget vehemently-hated ones. Give me the all-around film-long bad dialogue delivered "badly" (amazingly) by Steven Seagal, the films that hardly anyone watched because they're practically unwatchable due to how subjectively but mostly objectively horrible they are. I want to lose every brain cell from the ridiculous amount of cuts and heart attack-inducing editing during fight sequences because Steven Seagal isn't doing most of the fight sequences. I may find most of them less enjoyable than this one, but I'll take that risk.

Regarding this film, I felt like it's not one of his better ones; well, it probably is compared to the low-budget ones. I guess I mean I'll find others of his more enjoyable. That's ironic, as this seems to be considered one of his best ones by the majority. Don't get me wrong: I didn't hate it. It was enjoyable, although not as much as I'd have liked. But I thought it could've been way better. It took almost 20 minutes to kick off, there wasn't enough of Steven Seagal, and there wasn't enough excitement through action. It felt untethered from that needed push.

Still, the action/fight sequences with Steven Seagal were good, but that should've been more prominent. The score by Gary Chang was good. And all of the performances were good. Tommy Lee Jones gave the best one, especially at the end when Strannix was losing it. I'd put Steven Seagal next due to the enjoyment he adds, even though he wasn't on screen enough. After that, Gary Busey and Erika Eleniak, who I'd say were both tied in a good way.

Another appreciable aspect I liked was how Erika Eleniak's character was a _supporting_ character instead of the stereotypical female character who's pretty much only there as eye candy. I suppose, in the beginning, that was the case; her character was shallow. But, to my surprise, the writing of her character improved, and she got some development. I wasn't expecting that based on how her character was "progressing." That was a pleasant surprise. It deserves some recognition.

Overall, this film serves Steven Seagal impaling a guy, ripping out a guy's throat, pushing his thumb into a guy's eye, and penetrating a guy's skull with a knife. That's quite the meal. It also has a young(er) Raymond Cruz/Tuco Salamanca. If that doesn't interest you, nothing will. At the very least, it's one of Steven Seagal's highest-rated films, maybe the highest; it's not one of his low-budget abominable ones.

As far as my opinion is concerned, I thought it could've been better, but it's still pretty enjoyable. I think it's a film with a similar feeling as _The Princess Bride_, _Spy_, and _Mr. & Mrs. Smith_, off the top of my head. That feeling of a "classic," even if you don't "love" the film in question. And that goes a long way.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have 50 gallons of bouillabaisse I need to prepare by tomorrow.