MovieChat Forums > Under Siege (1992) Discussion > Do people actually like this movie?

Do people actually like this movie?

posted 3 years ago by MovieChatUser497 (18943)
42 replies | jump to latest

Just finished watching it and I hated it. Seeing Gary Busey in drag is enough to scar me for life but most of Tommy Lee Jones’s dialogue is just rambling nonsense, Miss July somehow didn’t hear the gunshots and thought she was still supposed to pop out of the cake, 200 million is a drop in the bucket in terms of the federal government so how was Busey ever going to buy the presidency?, the action is boring, there was not even a hint of romantic chemistry between Miss July and Ryback yet they kissed at the end, the knife fight is underwhelming and everything about this movie is pretty stupid. I’m shocked it has such good reviews. It’s batshit insane and not in a good way

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

It’s one of the best Die Hard clones and easily Seagal’s best film. Your criticisms are either autistically nitpicky or just misplaced considering this is a pulp thriller. For a trashy action film it has an excellent cast, perfect pacing, decent script and inventive kills.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

I see, so it’s just a trashy action movie where you are just supposed to turn your brain off?

The only Die Hard rip offs that I ever thought were even the least bit watchable were Speed and Air Force One. And I guess The Negotiator is you count that one seeing how it’s Die Hard in reverse.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

No, you didn’t need to turn your brain off, there’s plenty to appreciate in the performances and direction, but it’s still trashy action porn and not high art.

Under Siege, Air Force One, Cliffhanger and Olympus Has Fallen are the only Die Hard clones worth watching (as well as the other two films in the Die Hard Trilogy, of course)

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Oh right I forgot about cliffhanger that one is good. Under Siege is not

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

All the ones I mentioned are good.

[–] FFNogoodnik (774) 3 years ago

Drooch, what do you think about "Above the Law"? I think that is Seagal's best film. Of course it was also his first so he was still new when I saw it

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

I thought it was pretty good, not quite violent enough. Under Siege is the only Seagal I keep returning to, other than that I like Out For Justice because it has the best fights and brutal violence, and occasionally fire up Under Siege 2, again great violence but lacks the superior filmmaking of its predecessor.

[–] cyguration (3944) 2 years ago

Huh? Out For Justice for the violence and fights?

I agree with most of everything you say, but Out For Justice -- while being a somewhat decent street-level cop-thriller, didn't have much in the way of fight scenes. It was definitely bloody for what violence it did have, though.

I would have thought you would have preferred Marked For Death, which I would say is probably Seagal's most violence film as far as breaking people (literally) in half. I think he does the most limb breaking in that film, and has some of the most ridiculous overkills in that film.

I don't really like Marked For Death as much as Hard To Kill and Above The Law (the latter of which I think is probably Seagal's best film in terms of being grounded and well acted). But arguably I consider it peak Seagal-violence.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

I remember MFD having the most brutal takedown of a main villain ever, which is hilariously over the top and you almost feel sorry for Screwface, but I loved it because villains always get off with a way too easy death.

Other than that and maybe a couple of arm breaks I don’t remember much violence throughout the film, whereas OFJ has good dollops of violence peppered throughout - butcher shop beatdown involving meat cleaver, epic pool hall smash using cue-ball-in-sock, Ritchie blowing the head off an innocent woman and pumping a disabled guy with lead, final punishment in which Seagal blows off a guy’s leg and pulverises Ritchie with every kitchen utensil you can imagine, culminating with a corkscrew through the brain 👏🏻

[–] cyguration (3944) 2 years ago

Hmm, I may have to rewatch both films again to compare.

Maybe the overkills in Marked for Death are making me think that the film was more violent than what it was, LOL

[–] TexasJack (12515) 3 years ago

Yes, I enjoyed it very much.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

OK, well I didn’t.

[–] PaladinNJ (20658) 3 years ago

I liked it very much.

[–] blue1981 (6962) 3 years ago

Yes I'd say its one of the best movies ever made with Steven Segal's name on it.

[–] Galilguy (2356) 3 years ago

I like this movie, can you actually put aside your horrible opinion and just let it go?

[–] Hans-Wilhelm (1324) 3 years ago

I love this movie.

[–] johnmiller (3598) 3 years ago

Erika Eleniak's boobs were great! Otherwise, it flatlined for me. Andrew Davis is just one of those directors, like Philip Noyce, whose stuff just seems passionless. It's like he's just getting the shots done, and that's it. It's like if you had an accountant making a movie. Get the job done, and there you go.

But, I thought the sequel was GREAT! Lots of goofy fun, with a great, fun villain, and some sweet hand-to-hand fight sequences.

[–] Redsfan001 (6049) 3 years ago

Since you are just watching it, I assume you were too young to remember 1992 culture well.

This close to a "B" rated budget movie, not a major Hollywood release, didn't really show much in the theaters, if it did it wasn't for long. These types of movies mostly made their money at Blockbuster or pay cable.

It's popularity on IMBD is #2 for the year 1992. This would have baffled most of my generation (X) who would have thought this a standard Fri night video rental.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 3 years ago

Its pretty good actually, 7 out of 10, and, not counting his appearances in the likes of "Machete" (2010), I actually consider this to be the best Steven Seagal film.

Its 1995 sequel "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory" was watchable and not a complete failure, but definitely inferior and only 5/10 middle of the road achievement, although still in top 10 best Seagal films which, alas, isn't saying much, and he has done some downright dreadful failures.

[–] Redsfan001 (6049) 3 years ago

I was more commenting on the popularity of this film. If you look on IMBD it is the #2 movie searched for movies released in 1992 (The Mighty Ducks was #1).

Being a young man in 1992 this fact kinda blew me away... nobody from my generation would have guessed that a close to straight to video release would rank #2 in 2021.

I agree, about a 7.

[–] cyguration (3944) 2 years ago

Being a young man in 1992 this fact kinda blew me away... nobody from my generation would have guessed that a close to straight to video release would rank #2 in 2021.

Really? This was the most advertised Seagal movie from the 1990s on primetime television, maybe next to Executive Decision, which wasn't actually a Seagal movie, but they used him for top-billing to sell the film even though he was only in the first 40 minutes or so.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

I recall it being a major cinema event with talk of ‘Die Hard on a battleship’ with big stars Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey, and lots of publicity about Eliniak getting her bags out. It made Steven Seagal a household name.

[–] cyguration (3944) 2 years ago

Yeah that's exactly how I remember it.

Seagal was being advertised everywhere on television when this movie came out, and they made it a point to advertise that it received "four stars" from critics, which was always funny to me because that part of the advertisement (where they showed the four stars on the screen) popped up in conjunction with the clip of Seagal in the Naval uniform performing the salute.