ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 3 November 2007)

The first "Under Siege" movie is a pretty much overrated one. I mean, it's not that's a bad genre movie but it's a very well known one all over the world and quite frankly I don't see how it deserved this status, since it's a very average action flick in every regard. This movie is basically more of the same. "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory" is just a big clone of "Die Hard" as the first "Under Siege" movie was. The story is also pretty much the same as in the first movie. It's as if they picked up the script from the first movie and simply just changed the settings and characters names.

Still I liked this movie just a tad bit more than the first movie. It's hard to say why, since this movie is probably a worse directed one than the first movie was. Yet I feel that this movie is more entertaining to watch and has more re-watchable values in it.

I remember that back in 1995, at the time of the release of this movie, this movie was really a big thing. It had a big budget and the action was amazing for its time. Now days the movie is already starting to look outdated. The action directing is clumsy at times and the early special-effects and obvious miniature effects are awful to watch.

Yet the movie is a very enjoyable one, especially for the fans of the action genre. Because of the simple premise and story of the movie it's such a pleasant one to watch. Also if you've already seen the first movie you already exactly know what to expect when watching this movie. The violence in this movie is pretty straight-forward. It's the sort of movie that isn't afraid to kill innocent people without mercy. The action scenes are also quite good, despite the not so great directing of it all.

Yet the movie still makes some horrible mistakes. Such as giving Steven Seagal way too many lines. But I guess that is what happens when your lead actor is also one of the producers of the movie. Secondly the putted too many unnecessary characters into the movie. Bobby Zachs (Morris Chestnut) and Sarah Ryback Katherine Heigl) should had been left out of the movie. They add nothing to little to the movie and often are only distracting and borderline annoying. Also the villains are not too well balanced out. At times you're wondering throughout the movie who actually is the main villain. There are three candidates, that at several moments throughout the movie are being presented as the biggest villain. First in the movie there is Peter Greene, than Eric Bogosian shows up and in the end there is Everett McGill.

Oh well, at least it were still the villains that made this movie a pleasant one to watch. Eric Bogosian really seemed to have a good time playing the bad guy and he plays a fine and humor filled role, without loosing too much of his credibility as a villain.

If you liked the first "Under Siege" movie then there is no reason why you shouldn't like this one as well.

6/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top