walterhoward Although this movie is flawed, I admit, I'm going to give it a 10 instead of a 9 because it's in my top 10 list of all time favorites.This is a film you either love or hate. The funny thing is, Steven Seagal is the flaw. Everything else is perfect. It seems as though he was doing the movie under duress. His acting is lazy he does it all with a quasi-gangster breathy voice for what reason I don't know. It just seems silly.Now with that out of the way, the rest of the cast and story are top notch. This is a "one man against an army" genre movie. A lot of work was put into it and effort was made to get so many details accurate. Each bad guy for instance actually gets a little character development and there are a lot of them. I think the thing to do is just watch this clip to get an idea of the ingenuity in this filmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDI83HvbtCEIf you like that, watch the movie.

OllieSuave-007 This is an action-packed and suspenseful sequel to Under Siege from start to finish, where Steven Segal returns as Navy S.E.A.L. turned cook Casey Ryback, who must stop a gang of terrorists that seized control of a train to use it as a mobile HQ to hijack a destructive U.S. satellite. Segal proves he is still a force to be reckon with with his skilled martial arts moves and knowledge of making traps to seize those terrorists. It's satisfying seeing him take them on after witnessing them mercilessly blow planes and out of the air and bombing places on Earth.Eric Bogosian and Everett Gill play some pretty formidable bad guys and it's great to see them deck it out with Segal. The subplot of the Pentagon generals scrambling in how to deal with the bad guys and the hostage situation, just like the first movie, gives the movie added suspense, wondering if they will resort to launching an all-out assault on the train, which puts the hostages in jeopardy.Overall, it's an exciting action sequel. Plenty of edge-of-your-seat thrills, especially during scenes where Segal hangs outside onto the train for dear life. Some humor as well, courtesy of Morris Chestnut. A must-see for action movie fans.Grade A

bowmanblue The first 'Under Siege' film was a classic. No, not in the 'Godfather' or 'Empire Strikes Back' kind of way, but in terms of simple nineties action films to eat popcorn to, it was a classic. And an unexpected one at that. Therefore, a sequel was trotted out in the hope that the second film would catch the audience's attention, too. It didn't. Not that it's that bad.Steven Segal plays... well, much the same character he plays in all his films – the no-nonsense, bad-guy-slaughtering, tough-man who gets caught up in all sorts of dangerous situations. This time he just so happens to be on a passenger train heading through America when a load of terrorists hijack it, threatening New York with total destruction thanks to an on-board control to a top secret satellite-weapon.The first film was set on a large military destroyer boat. Therefore, when Segal did his thing killing bad-guys, he had a bigger playing field (kind of literally!) to run around in. A boat is a damn sight better setting for an action film where the hero is constantly hiding and on the run from a small army of hired mercenaries. A train is not. He never really seems to hit his stride until the film is practically over.Yes, he does his general hiding and stalking of baddies, but the whole affair leaves you wondering how he hasn't been caught by now. The second half does pick up the pace a bit – if you don't mind overlooking the various over-the-topness of it all and general plot holes that come with one man taking down an entire elite army battalion.Plus there are less secondary characters for Segal to interact with. His niece is a captive, so she has little to do but kneel down and play the part of 'damsel in distress.' Segal's (train porter) sidekick is annoying and the baddies are kind of over-the-top in a pantomime kind of way.Overall, 'Under Siege 2' isn't bad. It just isn't as good as the original and therefore not even nearly as good as all the other mad nineties action blockbusters. If you like action films and you come home late at night and see this is on TV, you may watch it all the way through. It's the kind of film that you can watch while doing other things.

Thomas Luckens First of all, if you watch this movie and don't think about wanting to be one of these bad guys, you just aren't human. If I could call noisy little girls the "B" word (and threaten to viciously murder them), shoot people left and right, throw useless women off a train and into a jagged rock river, and blow up an entire freakin' city, I'd jump on that job in a heartbeat! Seriously, who wouldn't?! Oh, did I mention they blow up a jumbo jet, too? It was probably full of useless children and horrible mothers and fathers anyway. So no harm done there. Same with the city/plant that blew up. Another thing to consider is the families of the all the ones who died. They were either overjoyed, or sad. It's okay, they were all probably crappy husbands and wives anyway, so they won't be missed. The action is really good and well executed. And of course you can't forget about Steven Seagul, right? The acting is also good, because everybody is basically just killing, and that's easy to do anyway. So to wrap up this short review, watch this movie if you love to watch people die. Forget the plot, the deaths and killings are better than a boring, regurgitated plot. There are plenty of humorous deaths to keep you entertained. Make sure to catch the bad guy kill the conductors, as he smiles the whole way through the shooting of two innocent old men! So smile when you murder someone, because it's okay to do so!