I consider myself pretty cynical when it comes to Seagal movies. Everything he made before **ON DEADLY GROUND** is a collection of action films, and even that movie was at least entertainingly bad. Sadly, most of his work since has been completely uninspired and repetitively dull after his career declined into straight-to-DVD releases. A few have tried to be more ambitious, like **MERCENARY FOR JUSTICE**, where they spent a bit more money on things like tank battles, but even that extra cash couldn't save an otherwise terrible and predictable low-budget movie with a generic plot and awful acting. These films have become laughable, with covers featuring heavily photoshopped images of Seagal holding a gun, hiding nothing but boredom, tedium, and incompetence—something that would embarrass even Ted V. Mikels. I’ve reached my limit after watching so many of these disappointments. And I can't be the only one feeling this way. Who still watches these? Who, after all these years, falls for this cynical marketing tactic? Apparently enough to keep him working. However, when I first read the plot summary for this movie, I have to admit I was at least somewhat intrigued. Coming after **THE EXPENDABLES**, it seemed like there was an attempt to revive Seagal’s career with some testosterone and a touch of nostalgia for his **UNDER SIEGE** days. This time, terrorists (led by Michael Pare) take over a prison and release the inmates. Seagal has to fight both the prisoners AND the terrorists in order to restore order. Sounds promising, right? How could they possibly mess this up? The problem is, this movie was made in Canada, which seems to be a factory for lifeless straight-to-video action films, and it feels exactly like that—a product with so many corners cut that it barely qualifies as a movie. They managed to get by with only four actors playing prisoners, even adding an offhand line about the prison being shut down. That's disappointing! Where was Seagal fighting through a crowded mess hall? The script must have been the cheapest part of the production, but they didn’t even put effort into that either. What interesting ideas did they have with this concept? Why are we watching a group of young unknowns do all the hard work while Seagal wanders around and barely affects the story? It feels like **HALF PAST DEAD** was closer to what I hoped for than this movie, and that’s not a compliment. Seagal wears so much ridiculous body armor he looks like a slow-moving tortoise, and none of his fights have any realism or suspense. I will give credit where it's due—they didn't dub Seagal’s voice (allowing him to mumble in some strange, almost Cajun accent), and he isn’t obviously doubled for most of the film. Michael Pare and Steve Austin apparently took the whole thing in stride and put effort into their performances. We do get a decent gunfight between Seagal and Pare near the end, along with some passable hand-to-hand combat from some of the supporting characters. But it's too little, too late, and not what people were hoping to see. Still, I have to say it’s better than 90% of his work since **MACHETE**. I just wish this movie wasn't so crushingly boring. If you are still curious, be warned about the constant, canned musical score that doesn't let up for a single minute, sucking any potential excitement out of the film.

Source on TMDB