This often-underrated movie (the fact that Steven Segal starred in a more illustrious, but worse film of the same name does not help) was probably the first to address domestic terrorism and its resonance in the light of recent events make it a film that should be brought back and re-issued. Peter Strauss is excellent as the FBI Chief who thinks the terrorist acts are by an individual as opposed to a state, Hal Holbrook finds himself as the President considering his retaliatory response against chief suspects Iran. Top marks however go to Fritz Weaver, Mason Adams and EG Marshall the praetorian guard who form the inner circle of advisors who come into direct conflict with Strauss' more cautious approach. An above average TV movie whose storyline is somewhat similar to the more recent but more simply titled Siege starring Denzel Washington
11 Reviews
Terrorists want to give the US a lesson
wayner8 December 1999
This movie was very cool. It was a let's shock everybody by actually showing terrorism happen that we can't stop. The only other movie to come close to showing what domestic terrorism would do to the use is The Siege. In fact there are some very surprising similarities. I would love to see this again. I can't wait to find the video I made oh so long again.
Under Siege was actually a mini-series shown over two nights.
zumbinis26 December 2019
I remember watching the television broadcast of Under Siege. It was actually a mini-series shown over two consecutive nights. I was riveted by the story, and especially by the staccato opening theme and the opening credits, a stylized American bald eagle at first showing only its head with beak open wide, but then gradually pulling out to reveal that the eagle is tied down. The music is repeated throughout the program, with variations. I actually did find Under Siege on VHS oh, but I cannot remember if it was NTSC region one.
This was a well directed film with great actors!
lapjames26 February 2001
I thought Under Siege was a great movie. In fact, I would like to know if there are any plans for future airing. The actors did an excellent job of portraying their characters. The presence of terrorism in our own back yard brought home the reality of our state of unreadiness for such an attack.
I would love to see and possibly purchase this film for my library. In fact, I was an extra ( FBI agent) in this movie on location in Little Rock, Arkansas. I watched much of the filming of this movie and the work of the director who did remarkable work.
Peter Strauss and Stan Shaw are two of my favorite actors. I thought they were great in their roles.
Larry
I would love to see and possibly purchase this film for my library. In fact, I was an extra ( FBI agent) in this movie on location in Little Rock, Arkansas. I watched much of the filming of this movie and the work of the director who did remarkable work.
Peter Strauss and Stan Shaw are two of my favorite actors. I thought they were great in their roles.
Larry
This harbinger film is too close to 9-11 to be shown again or put on DVD
SimonJack15 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
"Under Siege" is a TV movie about multiple terrorist attacks in the U.S. It aired on NBC in February 1986. Critics with the mainstream media of the day focused on the main government characters, as they mirrored or were similar to real people of the time. Writers often make their fictitious characters similar to real people. But some critics were more concerned about the comparison of these characters than with the underlying plot of the film - terrorism. The New York Times was one source that focused on how the individual characters acted in response to the terrorism in the film. So, Hal Holbrook's President Maxwell Monroe was matched to Ronald Reagan who was president at the time. E.G. Marshall's Harold Stone was matched to Secretary of State George P. Schulz. And, so on.
That's all okay for any film, of course. But in this case, the character comparisons and similarities are lost on future audiences. Especially when they view such a film after similar events have really occurred. So, it must be with audiences well into the 21st century. Most millennials and post-millennial people won't even know who George Schulz was. But they, and all of us born before them in the 20th century will remember vividly the terrorist attacks of 9-11.
Hollywood made many movies with terrorism themes after this one. Usually, they are centered around one hero (i.e., Harrison Ford in "Air Force One" of 1997, Bruce Willis in the "Die Hard" films of 1he late 1980s and early 1990s, Steven Seagal films and others). But no other films have been made about an organized plot of multiple acts of terrorism. Nor has this film been rebroadcast on TV or even made into a DVD. I watched it recently from an old TV recording.
One can understand the fright that many might feel today in watching this film. Every year, terrorists strike somewhere around the globe. Some of the scenes in the film are haunting. It is a portrayal of some human beings who have no sensitivity about harming others. They have a fanaticism and are willing to kill themselves in their violence. So, there are many reasons why this movie has not been shown again.
Now, for a couple of critiques of the film. Some reviewers have commented on the shock of seeing a passenger plane explode in mid-air after taking off. While it is a striking scene, it's the most unreal scene in the film. No amount of explosive could have been carried onto that plane to cause it to totally disintegrate and disappear as the film shows. The explosive that the terrorist carried on board in his case would have blown a hole in the plane and caused it to crash. If it had crashed on land it would have done more damage and killed more people.
A real comparison with the plane destruction in this film was the 1988 explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. A plastics terrorist bomb aboard that flight blew a 20-inch hole in the plane. But, because it was at an altitude of 31,000 feet, the pressure differences cause the plane to break into four large sections. Besides the 259 people on board, the wreckage that fell to earth killed 11 more people on the ground.
Lastly, one wonders about the training and ability of the lead character. Peter Strauss plays the head of the FBI, John Garry. After chasing a terrorist through a crowded amusement park and finally cornering him on a train track where no other people were around, Garry just stands with his gun pointed at the terrorist. He watches for some time as a train is approaching at a slow speed. And he just watches as the terrorist pulls the pin on a grenade he's holding. It explodes as the train hits him, but does no damage to the train.
Why the highly trained FBI director didn't try to shoot him in the leg, or otherwise is beyond me. The terrorist then most likely would have dropped the grenade before pulling the pin, and he would have fallen to the ground. He may have rolled down the side of the track. Or, Garry might have had time to run and pull him off the tracks. He would have had his prisoner then, without any harm to innocent bystanders.
This movie was fiction in 1986. But, in 2001 organized multiple acts of terrorism became a fact when the radical Islamist group Al Qaeda hijacked four passenger planes in the U.S. on Sept. 11.
That's all okay for any film, of course. But in this case, the character comparisons and similarities are lost on future audiences. Especially when they view such a film after similar events have really occurred. So, it must be with audiences well into the 21st century. Most millennials and post-millennial people won't even know who George Schulz was. But they, and all of us born before them in the 20th century will remember vividly the terrorist attacks of 9-11.
Hollywood made many movies with terrorism themes after this one. Usually, they are centered around one hero (i.e., Harrison Ford in "Air Force One" of 1997, Bruce Willis in the "Die Hard" films of 1he late 1980s and early 1990s, Steven Seagal films and others). But no other films have been made about an organized plot of multiple acts of terrorism. Nor has this film been rebroadcast on TV or even made into a DVD. I watched it recently from an old TV recording.
One can understand the fright that many might feel today in watching this film. Every year, terrorists strike somewhere around the globe. Some of the scenes in the film are haunting. It is a portrayal of some human beings who have no sensitivity about harming others. They have a fanaticism and are willing to kill themselves in their violence. So, there are many reasons why this movie has not been shown again.
Now, for a couple of critiques of the film. Some reviewers have commented on the shock of seeing a passenger plane explode in mid-air after taking off. While it is a striking scene, it's the most unreal scene in the film. No amount of explosive could have been carried onto that plane to cause it to totally disintegrate and disappear as the film shows. The explosive that the terrorist carried on board in his case would have blown a hole in the plane and caused it to crash. If it had crashed on land it would have done more damage and killed more people.
A real comparison with the plane destruction in this film was the 1988 explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. A plastics terrorist bomb aboard that flight blew a 20-inch hole in the plane. But, because it was at an altitude of 31,000 feet, the pressure differences cause the plane to break into four large sections. Besides the 259 people on board, the wreckage that fell to earth killed 11 more people on the ground.
Lastly, one wonders about the training and ability of the lead character. Peter Strauss plays the head of the FBI, John Garry. After chasing a terrorist through a crowded amusement park and finally cornering him on a train track where no other people were around, Garry just stands with his gun pointed at the terrorist. He watches for some time as a train is approaching at a slow speed. And he just watches as the terrorist pulls the pin on a grenade he's holding. It explodes as the train hits him, but does no damage to the train.
Why the highly trained FBI director didn't try to shoot him in the leg, or otherwise is beyond me. The terrorist then most likely would have dropped the grenade before pulling the pin, and he would have fallen to the ground. He may have rolled down the side of the track. Or, Garry might have had time to run and pull him off the tracks. He would have had his prisoner then, without any harm to innocent bystanders.
This movie was fiction in 1986. But, in 2001 organized multiple acts of terrorism became a fact when the radical Islamist group Al Qaeda hijacked four passenger planes in the U.S. on Sept. 11.
Contains perhaps the scariest scene ever on network TV.
michael_murphy7615 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER ALERT: In this movie, which aired on NBC twenty years ago, you see a plane taking off from Logan Airport in Boston. The plane then explodes. As a 16 year old kid who had never flown before, the simulated explosion of a jet was terrifying. I have no idea how the makers of this movie simulated it. To this day, I think of that scene whenever I'm on an airplane.
Sadly, since 9/11, this movie will probably never be shown again on American television. I have not seen it on TV since about 1988. It's too bad, because it was well done and is eerily preminiscent of the time and place we live in today.
Sadly, since 9/11, this movie will probably never be shown again on American television. I have not seen it on TV since about 1988. It's too bad, because it was well done and is eerily preminiscent of the time and place we live in today.
Powerfully Prophetic
dianerpessler-4616416 July 2015
Director Roger Young's Under Siege was shocking in 1986 and now, unfortunately, was profoundly prophetic. One of the writers for this film was Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and someone well versed in the current political situation. This movie was breathtaking and almost impossible to believe in the incidents depicted at the time. However, not only after 9/11, but in light of terrifying extremist inspired domestic attacks at Fort Hood, Chattanooga, etc., this television production turns out to have only predicted the possibilities. Now, sadly, they seem to be inevitable. In retrospect, I recall being deeply disturbed by some scenes, such as the attack on the U.S. Capitol and the depiction of terrorists casually walking through a shopping mall and tossing hand grenades into each store from a gym bag over their shoulders. It was horrifying and totally unbelievable. Now, it seems all too real and only the truth. Highly recommended for the superb acting, outstanding production, incredible suspense, and its breathtaking prophetic statement. It is overwhelming all this appears to be now happening in the U.S. in our own time.
How it should have been done, maybe.
billpeter18 September 2008
This is not a GREAT film, but in the aftermath of 911 and the War on Terror, now that we know the consequences of following the hawks and their lies regarding threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction, this film demonstrates what could have happened by getting all the proper evidence first. From reading some other comments, I understand that it has not been shown on American TV for some time (I saw it on Malaysian TV). Perhaps it has been banned as subversive by the White House.
It is a typical "TV movie" with a few of the "usual TV movie suspects", but has a valid point, which is put over quite well. In addition, the terrorists are not overly "foaming at the mouth" fanatics, for which we should be grateful, compared to, say, the terrorists in "True Lies".
It is a typical "TV movie" with a few of the "usual TV movie suspects", but has a valid point, which is put over quite well. In addition, the terrorists are not overly "foaming at the mouth" fanatics, for which we should be grateful, compared to, say, the terrorists in "True Lies".
So realistic scenario. Exciting!
govaart5 April 2019
I saw this movie in the early 90's for the first time. It was long before 911 and before the substitute movie with Steven Seagall "Under Siege". This movie, with Peter Strauss as FBI director, is in fact a political statement to the American people. It shows the Americans to be alert of hate and discrimination and to look into the mirror. It shows how the justice system is in great danger and it also shows how a national crisis will be adressed by different parties like CIA, FBI and Homeland Security.
When you see this movie you will learn how the American political system works. But to find this movie on the market will be very difficult because it looks like it is banned from the US forever and replaced by heroic titles with similar names and different actors.
And that freightens me the most. I just saw this movie again and i had to write this review asking myself: how would Trump react on this kind of terror scenario?
There should be a modern remake of this movie, regarding 911. Including all the lies from Colin Powell etc.
This is one of the best movies i have ever seen including the repetitive but thrilling soundtrack from Brad Fiedel which is also banned i think because it has never been released.
Too bad this movie is technical outdated (no mobile phones, flat screens, fast computers, etc.) but it is still a must to see.
Really not that good
shoobe01-126 March 2008
Okay, I haven't seen this in years, but I distinctly remember it, in detail, from when it originally aired on TV.
The premise of terrorists wandering about bombing and rocketing things is perfectly scary, sure. And I guess if you are so inclined, you'd find it prescient of 9/11. In reality, it seemed to be an extreme version of what had happened in the past decade in Europe.
Anyway, I recall it being sorta not that good. I watched for the premise, explosions, and waiting for some law enforcement or military unit to do something useful about it. Instead soldiers hoot and holler about a girl and get blown up for their effort, and so on.
Typical TV-movie fare, really.
The premise of terrorists wandering about bombing and rocketing things is perfectly scary, sure. And I guess if you are so inclined, you'd find it prescient of 9/11. In reality, it seemed to be an extreme version of what had happened in the past decade in Europe.
Anyway, I recall it being sorta not that good. I watched for the premise, explosions, and waiting for some law enforcement or military unit to do something useful about it. Instead soldiers hoot and holler about a girl and get blown up for their effort, and so on.
Typical TV-movie fare, really.
The best movie I have ever seen - where is it now?
edwardness8 June 2005
One of the best movies I have ever seen! A great plot and fabulous acting. After 911, I tried for years to find a copy of it, but it seemed to vanish off the face of the earth. It seemed a very unusual coincidence that another movie of the same name (a very poor replacement starring Steven Seagal) came out to replace the missing movie, in case others tried to locate it. The only actor's name I could remember was Hal Holbrook (the president), and I looked up his profile on the internet. It listed all the movies he's ever acted in, but it didn't show "Under Siege". It was then that I became convinced it had been ordered pulled from the market by the U.S. government (probably CIA) because it was so realistic, and so clearly showed just how vulnerable the country is to terrorist attack. I'm sure it was seen as a blueprint for potential terrorists. I would place bets that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida have seen the movie prior to 911.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
