"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.