From: nate@bu.edu (Nathan Auclair)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REVIEW: UNDER SIEGE
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:48:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.101609
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5





Jose,

	Your head is way up your ass on this one. Under Siege was a well
made action film and I cant imagine what the hell you were doing looking
at your watch the whole time. The only reason I looked at my watch was 
because I was disappointed that the movie was ending. The plot was believable
the acting was decent, and the special effects/camera work was good too.
And I am definitely not a Segal fan. This, however, was a good flick. I
have to give your review a thumbs down and you a wake up call.

Jose R. Perez (gt7257c@prism.gatech.EDU) wrote:
: 
: 				  UNDER SIEGE
: 		       A film review by Jose R. Perez
: 			Copyright 1992 Jose R. Perez
: 
:      Okay, okay.  Maybe I wasn't in the mood to watch a mindless action
: movie; I am the same person that liked LETHAL WEAPON III, even while
: admitting that it wasn't as good as the others.  Howewer, the latest
: Segal picture didn't look that bad, and since none of my friends would
: go see a Woody Allen movie even if I paid them, I went to see it
: expecting a mild DIE HARD rehash.  Boy, was I wrong!
: 
:      In the first half of the movie, we are already assaulted with
: Segal's acting, (he is not simply wooden; he is like a wall), gratuitous
: violence, an incredible plot, sexist and even more gratuitous nudity,
: and bad lines that obviously were meant as jokes.  By the end, it is
: obvious that hundreds of Navy men are no match for thirty armed Special
: Forces soldiers.  Not once in the movie did Segal appear worried or
: undecided, which did not do much for increasing the unexistent suspense.
: 
:      Of course, in movies like these, there must be a sidekick, and a
: love interest.  In these one we are given a two for one package in the
: form of a Playboy model (in the movie), which only functions as a
: supposed comic relief (by the way of extremely stupid unfunny lines),
: and to have watering eyes and look away every time something bad happens
: in the movie.  Oh, of course, she appears naked from the waist up, and,
: of course, Segal kisses her at the end after no development of their
: relationship; they did not even seem to be interested in each other.  I
: have never seen so little chemistry between two people in a movie.
: 
:      Often, the villain saves the movie; unfortunately, the villains
: here are cartoonish, stupid and unfunny, unmenacing.  How many movies
: have psycho ex-Special Forces bad guys?  Too many.  I was able to
: predict the action all throughout the movie, including the moment where
: the sidekick saves the hero from certain death, the scene where the bad
: guy can kill the hero but proceeds to explain his plan to him, the
: scene where we are shown the hero's superiors are stupid, the scene
: where the bad guy loses his gun and has to fight the hero hand to hand,
: etc...  Simply said, this is movie-making by the numbers, boring, and
: potentially offensive in going for the lowest common denominator of the
: audience.
: 
: My recommendation: If you go see it, bring a watch. You'll be looking at
: 		   it for most of the movie.
: 
: My rating: * out of ****.  Rent DIE HARD. Read a book. Stare at the sky.
: 			   Do not waste your time on this worthless piece
: 			   of celluloid.
:  
:      The real sad thing is that there are a lot of movies out that I
: would rather have seen; once again, dragged in by my friends, which by
: the way, liked the movie halfheartedly.  They probably like wrestling
: too :-).
: 
: -- 
: Jose R. Perez
: Internet: gt7257c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies