Steven Seagal reprises his rule as the Navy cook/martial arts champion serving knuckle sandwiches to hijackers who take over a train. Seagal's in top John Wayne form, speaking slowly and softly and not saying too much. And as in the first film, he's at times funny, with one wisecrack you won't forget. ...

Eric Bogosian adds flavor as a slimey villain, another reason UNDER SIEGE 2 rises above the average sequel. Bogosian matches the high-energy performance he gave several years ago in the movie TALK RADIO.

Is it a Hollywood law to cast women as only sex objects or victims? Katherine Heigl fills the role of the latter in UNDER SIEGE 2. Despite her good looks, she plays Steven Seagal's niece - not his love interest. I suppose that's something you would not predict. But sure enough, the villains capture Ms. Heigl and it's up to Uncle Steve to save her pretty little head.

See UNDER SIEGE 2: DARK TERRITORY. It's a cut above both action flicks and sequels.


I've seen it, now give it a rest!   June 1, 2004
 8 out of 11 found this review helpful

I've always put off watching Steven Seagal movies, due to the fact that they've never really appealed to me. But after a lot of persuasion (arm being twisted up behind your back, you know, the usual), and being told to wait outside until the menus etc had passed, the start credits of the movie was met with a big "oh no!"

It doesn't really make that much sense to watch a sequel, when you haven't seen the original, so lets not go there.

The first thing I thought about this movie was that it had similarities to True Lies. In True Lies, it was Arnie-baby trying to rescue his daughter (Eliza Dushku) from the hands of an evil tyrant. In Under Seige 2, it's Steven Seagal trying to rescue his niece (Katharine Heigl). But apparently, it's just a coincidence that these two films are similar.

Eric Bogosian didn't really come across as your typical bad guy, which I thought was quite good. He looks like a wimp, one of those guys who sits staring at his computer, day in, day out. And the mop-top of curly hair just added to the whole effect.

Steven Seagal doesn't seem your typical action hero either. He doesn't seem to have the muscles that Arnie flexes constantly, nor does he have the drop dead gorgeous looks. (I'm not saying that Arnie's drop dead gorgeous, I'm just - oh never mind) Thankfully he's got that damn ponytail cut off, that really irritated me in some of his other movies. And he's so deadpan! Imagine someone Botoxed up to the eyeballs, and you'll have Steven Seagal. He shows no emotion either in any of his scenes, and manages to break guys necks left, right and centre quite convincingly. In that way, he's good as the good guy. He gets rid of the bad guys, each time in a different way - although he does break three guys necks. He does set a couple of people on fire.

What I also noticed is that at the end, like True Lies, when the girl originally hated her dad/uncle, she's now all over him like a rash.

It's a shame that Peter Greene - aptly named "Mercenary #1" - has to die in this movie (one of the three who gets their neck broken). He always seems to play the bad guy, and whereas he is quite nice looking, it must be his looks that make him bad guy material.

Overall, it was an OK film, if not a little long between action scenes. Thankfully, none of it follows on from the first, so it's not like you're watching a sequel that you have to have seen the first, to understand the second. But unlike some people, I won't be going all out, and buying the Steven Seagal doll (sorry, it's NOT an action figure). When a film get released, it can sometimes have "action figures" to accompany the movie. So why was there never one to accompany The Matrix? I want to play with Keanu :) Shame it's all plastic, au naturel is so much better.


Mind-numbingly derivative action drama. Yuk!   August 4, 1999
 6 out of 10 found this review helpful

What makes this movie different from all the other over-the-top action films of this genre that has preceded this? Absolutely nothing at all. All visual hyperbole and ridiculous cliched macho heroics from the strictly one-dimensional acting 'talents' of Segal. Appeals only to the brain-dead. Wake up people: you're being rinsed and bleached by those greedy Hollywood titans -- and, to think that a New Zealander was complicit in the making of this piece of asinine drivel.


Better Than Bond   February 11, 2003
 5 out of 5 found this review helpful

This may be the best James Bond movie ever made - and it isn't a James Bond movie. It's also one of those welcome rarities: a sequel better than its original.

Ex-Navy Seal Casey Ryback (Steven Seagall) - as in the first Under Siege - happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time...in this case, aboard a train hijacked in mid-journey by terrorists. His estranged niece (Katherine Heigl) is aboard, trying to manage a little quality time with Uncle Casey. Unfortunately for them, military defense contractor Eric Bogosian - supposedly dead in a car accident, but actually alive and well and in full cahoots with the white supremacist terrorists - is using the train as a mobile platform to elude government detection, while computer-hacking into his own creation: an orbiting Star Wars particle-beam satellite. Bogosian's aim is simple - global blackmail. He and his renegade paramilitary pals want money - a lot of money - or cities around the world are going to start burning. With his country (and the world) at stake - not to mention a trainload of hostages, including his own adorable niece - what's a good, ol' fashioned, red-blooded, patriotic American ex-Navy Seal to do? Why, go to war, of course - regain control of the train, put Bogosian's satellite link out of commission, and kick a little terrorist tail.

Yes, Seagall is a terribly wooden actor, but that strangely seems to work in his favor. The character of Casey Ryback is likeable precisely because he's wooden - somehow, it simply adds to his charm. Katherine Heigl can't help but be adorable, and is appealing in everything she does. Bogosian is as slimy, cold-blooded, and despicable a cad as ever slinked his way smarmily through a red-hot action-melodrama suspenser. The rest of the cast are simply terrific, and the production and action sequences are stellar. The suspense remains steady throughout, which is no small feat for a formula melodrama. There simply isn't a dull moment. This is a beautifully unified and realized production, from Frame One to Frame Last. It's compulsively watchable, and re-watchable.

If the plot sounds vaguely familiar, you're remembering the 1971 James Bond entry Diamonds Are Forever, which ranks on about the same par as this movie. Sadly, the James Bond franchise has rarely come up to the same level, since - but this film has, and surpassed it.