Under Siege: Is This Peak Seagal, or What?

Okay, so I just finished watching Under Siege again (don't judge, it was on cable at 3 AM, and what else was I gonna do?). And I gotta ask, is this Seagal at his absolute finest? I mean, the ponytail alone deserves an Oscar, or at least a Razzie for being so wonderfully awful. But seriously, the dude's a Navy SEAL, a chef (??), and apparently a master of dismantling entire teams of terrorists single-handedly. Talk about overqualified! What REALLY gets me is how these super-smart terrorists, led by Tommy Lee Jones (who chews scenery like it's a gourmet meal, bless him), didn't even THINK about the ship's cook being a lethal weapon! Like, they planned for everything – nukes, double-crosses, Gary Busey being Gary Busey – but a disgruntled chef was their downfall? That's some next-level plot convenience right there. And Erica Eleniak popping out of that cake? 90s action movies, man, they don't make 'em like that anymore (for good reason, probably). But here's my question: Is it just pure nostalgia goggles making me love this movie so much, or is there some genuine, campy brilliance to it? The fight scenes are ridiculous, the dialogue is cringeworthy gold, and Seagal's Aikido is, let's be honest, more balletic than brutal. But it's all so...entertaining! Anyone else feel the same way, or am I just losing it from too many late-night movie marathons? Also, side note: did anyone else think it was weird that the bad guys were so worried about the nukes failing? It just seemed like a silly thing to care about when you've already taken over a battleship, right? I dunno, maybe I need more coffee. Anyway, discuss!