I don't know if this movie was created for the cinema or TV. I'm not wondering why it didn't find the way to our theaters. What I missed there was a fine cinema picture like in the usual movies and a good audio. Then the setting place in this diplomatic house seemed too poor and cartoonish. The ideas therefore were original but the terrorists were too harmless. There were not any special effects. I think there could have been done more if the budget was higher. There were anyway many twists and plots that kept your attention until the end. If they show it on cable watch it if you have nothing to do but I don't know if the rental is worth. It is perhaps too underrated with actual vote of 3.5 on IMDb. My wife and me give 5/10.
34 Reviews
I have seen worse movies
thenewamericanarmy20 August 2014
A very lame plot based on political thinking of the late 90s, that paints serbs as the bad guys...why they picked romainia for the "location of the embassy nuke" is beyond me since there was at one point an American embassy in yugoslaia and should have had a nuke as well...no matter. every aspect of the movie made it a poorly made b movie.
i have to mention, when reading some reviews, i was more appalled by some of those than i was by this movie. a great example is the review "Beware 'low cost production' countries" written by "davidshort10"...i his review he says "..(by the way, Romania was not part of the Warsaw Pact..", but of course anyone who knows anything about the warsaw pact knows that romania was a proud member of that pact. another statement (made in 2006), "..and oh by the way Croatia is not a UN member country)", although crotia has been a member of the UN since 1992.
you can watch the movie for free online, so you have nothing to lose but time.
i have to mention, when reading some reviews, i was more appalled by some of those than i was by this movie. a great example is the review "Beware 'low cost production' countries" written by "davidshort10"...i his review he says "..(by the way, Romania was not part of the Warsaw Pact..", but of course anyone who knows anything about the warsaw pact knows that romania was a proud member of that pact. another statement (made in 2006), "..and oh by the way Croatia is not a UN member country)", although crotia has been a member of the UN since 1992.
you can watch the movie for free online, so you have nothing to lose but time.
Diplomatic Siege- Needs More than Diplomacy **1/2
edwagreen2 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The film goes awry towards the middle of it.
It starts off quite well when the U.S. embassy in Bucharest, Romania is taken hostage by Serbian terrorists.
We have the usual threats and intimidation. We have the usual demands but things go way out of control when the person the terrorists are negotiating for is killed by a Croatian and the Americans must come up with a substitute to fool the Serbs.
Darryl Hannah's role is quite perplexing. When she turns out to be a villain, she is still adored by film's end. Her role in this was somewhat of an enigma, even though it is explained by the film's end.
Naturally, the theme of money being the root of all evil is examined here as well.
A very muddled ending does not help the film at all.
The special effects are quite good, and there is plenty of screaming by the hostages.
Tom Berrenger comes across like a military know-it-all.
It starts off quite well when the U.S. embassy in Bucharest, Romania is taken hostage by Serbian terrorists.
We have the usual threats and intimidation. We have the usual demands but things go way out of control when the person the terrorists are negotiating for is killed by a Croatian and the Americans must come up with a substitute to fool the Serbs.
Darryl Hannah's role is quite perplexing. When she turns out to be a villain, she is still adored by film's end. Her role in this was somewhat of an enigma, even though it is explained by the film's end.
Naturally, the theme of money being the root of all evil is examined here as well.
A very muddled ending does not help the film at all.
The special effects are quite good, and there is plenty of screaming by the hostages.
Tom Berrenger comes across like a military know-it-all.
A waste of talent... and my time.
Jolo-217 October 2000
I'm usually a sucker for mindless action flicks, but this was an incredible waste of time, both for the actors involved and anybody who tried to watch. The military special effects are laughably fake, with colored smoke substituting for real explosions. I like Weller, Hannah, and Berenger, but even they cannot rise above this horrendous made-for-TV script. In fact, this was easily their worst film -- for all of them. When the actors do stop to give their lines, the result is often unintentionally humorous. There are far too many unnecessary plot elements, making the movie feel like 6 different scripts were thrown into a blender. The scenes stolen from other movies ranging from Mission Impossible to Toy Soldiers are immediately recognizable and come across as gratuitous and weak. It's just a shame. There was so much potential, instead it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Dreadful
FlickJunkie-29 December 2000
This so-called international thriller was so dreadful that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The team of four writers who wrote this trash should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity. The eight producers who brought it to the market should be tried for conspiracy to cause brain death. It was that bad.
This film was horrible in all regards. The production standards were below TV quality. The photography was poor, the sound was muddy and the music was pure garbage. The premise was interesting; that the U.S. planted atomic bombs in all its embassies in the Soviet Union and Eastern block countries during the cold war to give them first strike capability. Now that the cold war was over the U.S. was disarming all the bombs, but the last one was in an embassy taken over by a group of terrorists. Our heroes (Daryl Hannah and Peter Weller) had to disable it before the terrorists got control of it.
The presentation of the story was abysmal. The dialogue was so bad that I was literally guffawing between eye rolls. Some scenes were so implausible that I had to wonder what the writers were smoking. For instance, our heroes are clanking through the ventilation system, trying desperately to find a way to get downstairs to the bomb to disable it. Terrorists are all around killing one hostage an hour. So, this would be a perfect time to start necking in the air duct, right? The writers thought so.
Daryl Hannah and Tom Berenger did their best to bring credibility to their ridiculous characters with some success. Peter Weller was awful. His character had a batch of very stupid lines, which he was able to elevate to absurdity.
I rated this film a 2/10. Do not see this film under any circumstances. Action junkies might be tempted because of the enormous body count. Resist.
This film was horrible in all regards. The production standards were below TV quality. The photography was poor, the sound was muddy and the music was pure garbage. The premise was interesting; that the U.S. planted atomic bombs in all its embassies in the Soviet Union and Eastern block countries during the cold war to give them first strike capability. Now that the cold war was over the U.S. was disarming all the bombs, but the last one was in an embassy taken over by a group of terrorists. Our heroes (Daryl Hannah and Peter Weller) had to disable it before the terrorists got control of it.
The presentation of the story was abysmal. The dialogue was so bad that I was literally guffawing between eye rolls. Some scenes were so implausible that I had to wonder what the writers were smoking. For instance, our heroes are clanking through the ventilation system, trying desperately to find a way to get downstairs to the bomb to disable it. Terrorists are all around killing one hostage an hour. So, this would be a perfect time to start necking in the air duct, right? The writers thought so.
Daryl Hannah and Tom Berenger did their best to bring credibility to their ridiculous characters with some success. Peter Weller was awful. His character had a batch of very stupid lines, which he was able to elevate to absurdity.
I rated this film a 2/10. Do not see this film under any circumstances. Action junkies might be tempted because of the enormous body count. Resist.
Beware 'low cost production' countries
davidshort1020 July 2006
I only watched this movie for two reasons: 1) it was on sat TV v late at night and I was wide awake working on some emails and 2) I was actually working in Bucharest when this was filmed - it was filmed just near my office in fact. I remember taking a pic of my editor walking thru a bunch of security-uniformed extras as we strolled up the hill for lunch....
It really was awful. How could you not make a good action pic when you have: a) a great location. Bucharest post-Cold War (by the way, Romania was not part of the Warsaw Pact - remember the Queen gave Ceaucescu a knighthood - so why plant an atomic bomb there?). There were virtually no scenes of Ceaucescu's mad megalomaniacal city. They may as well not have been on location. Plus they could have shot some scenes up in Transylvania. What a waste. b) Daryl Hannah, still looking gorgeous, but no sexy scenes at all, just farcical groping and snogging, and c) Tom Berenger, a great guy to have in an action movie, and d) Romanian women, the second-best looking women in Europe(after Slovenia).
This could have been a wonderful, dark, atmospheric, sexy spy movie, not just a straight to video idiot's action film.
I suspect they only made this movie because it was so cheap then to shoot movies in Romania. So it was budget-led. Once you start scrimping, you scrimp on everything and you end up with an humungous flop. The director and writers should shoot himself if they haven't already. The errors and lack of attention to detail or credibility are endless. Does the Romanian air force really paint 'Romanian Air Force' on its planes when Romania has a perfectly good language of its own? Do UN peacekeeping troops really guard prisoners at the ICC in The Haque? I think not - there's no peace to keep. And if the UN really did waste PK troops on this duty, would they garrison it with Croatian forces, to guard an alleged Serbian war criminal? (And you wouldn't have a single Croat there in a mixed force because country troops work together, and oh by the way Croatia is not a UN member country).
It really was awful. How could you not make a good action pic when you have: a) a great location. Bucharest post-Cold War (by the way, Romania was not part of the Warsaw Pact - remember the Queen gave Ceaucescu a knighthood - so why plant an atomic bomb there?). There were virtually no scenes of Ceaucescu's mad megalomaniacal city. They may as well not have been on location. Plus they could have shot some scenes up in Transylvania. What a waste. b) Daryl Hannah, still looking gorgeous, but no sexy scenes at all, just farcical groping and snogging, and c) Tom Berenger, a great guy to have in an action movie, and d) Romanian women, the second-best looking women in Europe(after Slovenia).
This could have been a wonderful, dark, atmospheric, sexy spy movie, not just a straight to video idiot's action film.
I suspect they only made this movie because it was so cheap then to shoot movies in Romania. So it was budget-led. Once you start scrimping, you scrimp on everything and you end up with an humungous flop. The director and writers should shoot himself if they haven't already. The errors and lack of attention to detail or credibility are endless. Does the Romanian air force really paint 'Romanian Air Force' on its planes when Romania has a perfectly good language of its own? Do UN peacekeeping troops really guard prisoners at the ICC in The Haque? I think not - there's no peace to keep. And if the UN really did waste PK troops on this duty, would they garrison it with Croatian forces, to guard an alleged Serbian war criminal? (And you wouldn't have a single Croat there in a mixed force because country troops work together, and oh by the way Croatia is not a UN member country).
Bad and inaccurate
filiwycat6 October 2012
Bad acting, bad special effects, a typical B movie with a typical American propensity towards faking the facts. Serbian terrorists? "Serbian Liberation Front"? Come on! The movie was released in 1999, the year when NATO started the war against Yugoslavia over Kosovo. Before that, there were fights between regular Yugoslav army and police against the so-called "Kosovo Liberation Army", a terrorist group killing Serbs, attacking military and police outposts and precincts, which is still to be found on the list of terrorist groups in the world. It is not difficult to conclude that the movie screenplay swapped Serbs for Albanians, and Kosovo Liberation Army with Serbian Liberation Front. A typical attempt to influence the public opinion, where the bad guys are Serbs instead of Albanians, with the intention of covering the fact that the American were actually allies of a terrorist group (which we have seen many time since 1999)...
Failed effort of falling stars
somnolog27 August 2002
This is a low-budget film based on poor directing, dumb script and unbelievable story line (after 9/11, but even before that, it is more clear who would blow up a US embassy). Acting is another story - no wonder that the cast has to resort to such projects. If I would have to see this film one more time, I would have to ask for a total anaesthesia.
Suprisingly good B-Movie actioner!
liammurphy18 March 2004
Before I saw this movie last night I have to admit I had never heard of it before, so I thought it would be like one of those awful Nu Image action productions. I was pleasently suprised at how good it acually is - Yes I know it streches credibility at times as do most films of this type and the story is really padded out to make it's 90 minutes, but even so it's not that BAD. The movie has 'Stars' Such as Peter Weller who has made a living out of B-Movies after Robocop 1 & 2. Daryl Hannah (Splash) who never became the star she should have been also stars, and Tom Berenger who's always in these kind of movies also appears.
The acting is much better than the movie probably deserves
It's not the best movie ever made neither is it the worst just sit back leave your brain at the door and enjoy
My Vote 7/10
The acting is much better than the movie probably deserves
It's not the best movie ever made neither is it the worst just sit back leave your brain at the door and enjoy
My Vote 7/10
Cheap political thriller shot in Romania
Leofwine_draca5 July 2015
DIPLOMATIC SIEGE is a low rent thriller that rounds up a half-decent cast and throws them into a clichéd and predictable storyline involving some evil Serbian terrorists who take over the US embassy in Romania and proceed to issue various demands else the hostages will be executed. Of course, it's up the usual renegade heroes who are trapped on the inside to find a way to defeat their enemy...
Despite this being a B-movie in every respect, it's actually quite enjoyable with strong, clear choreography and crisp direction from Gustavo Graef Marino. Okay, the script was never going to win any awards for originality, but there's a brisk pace that doesn't let up and some fun moments for the known actors. There are some well-mounted shoot-outs with machine guns and the like but our heroes spend the movie evading the enemy rather than engaging, so DIE HARD it ain't.
Headlining the cast is Peter Weller (ROBOCOP), putting in a typically assured performance, and cast opposite him is Daryl Hannah, shortly before Tarantino cast her in KILL BILL. The third known face is Tom Berenger, sleepwalking through a stereotypically tough military role, although cult fans may spot an aged Brion James lower down as a stuffy US general. DIPLOMATIC SIEGE is only average at best but as B-movies go it isn't too bad at all.
Despite this being a B-movie in every respect, it's actually quite enjoyable with strong, clear choreography and crisp direction from Gustavo Graef Marino. Okay, the script was never going to win any awards for originality, but there's a brisk pace that doesn't let up and some fun moments for the known actors. There are some well-mounted shoot-outs with machine guns and the like but our heroes spend the movie evading the enemy rather than engaging, so DIE HARD it ain't.
Headlining the cast is Peter Weller (ROBOCOP), putting in a typically assured performance, and cast opposite him is Daryl Hannah, shortly before Tarantino cast her in KILL BILL. The third known face is Tom Berenger, sleepwalking through a stereotypically tough military role, although cult fans may spot an aged Brion James lower down as a stuffy US general. DIPLOMATIC SIEGE is only average at best but as B-movies go it isn't too bad at all.
Revival of a popular American movie genre: Propaganda
sambuca22 November 1999
...so, after bombing, destroying and killing thousands of innocent people in Serbia, it seems that Americans decided to continue their anti-Serbian propaganda with films like this one. I won't discuss any further, but I'm afraid that in the next few years there will be a new barrage of 'patriot' films similar to those after the war in Vietnam (only that this time they will concern the people of Serbia), beginning with this one.
Avoid it at all costs.
Avoid it at all costs.
Ups and Downs
Singary19 December 1999
Tom Berenger, Peter Weller and Daryl Hannah deserve much better than this very weak script. Kudos goes to all of them for being the talented professionals that they are in doing the best they could with this script. This story had lots of potential, and with a cast less talented, it would have been a difficult story to sit through. Tom Berenger, especially, brought to his role the backbone that held this entire thing together. His character, literally, was the only one who seemed to not view the whole idea of terrorists holding human hostages, and the possibility of an atomic bomb falling into their hands, as a big joke. For whatever reasons, the rest of the characters found plenty to joke about at all the wrong times, in my opinion, and it made it difficult to get into the drama of the whole story because of it. On the plus side, the location shots really enhanced the feeling of the story, and the action scenes were very exciting. This is one of those films you don't hate, but you wish you could have liked it better.
A catastrophic flop.
=G=21 May 2001
"Diplomatic Siege" tells of those involved in the siege of the American embassy in Bucharest for the purpose of compelling the UN to release a Serbian officer being held for war crimes. The film is an ambitious project which self-destructs in the process of trying to do too much. An utter failure not recommended for anyone.
Drawn out, routine, waste of good actors
theeht27 September 2000
A routine, overlong action picture that starts off promising, with some good relationship development between Weller, Hannah, and his son, before veering off to some dull, explicity violent terrorist stuff. Berenger, as usual, provides some interest, but for the most part a waste of him, Weller, and Hannah.
Lazy script partly compensated by plenty of action.
id2474 September 1999
Saw this on tv last night, and it just about held my interest. Berenger and Weller are wasted though and seemed to be going through the motions, but Daryl Hannah's role was the most intriguing and she had some decent dialogue.
As siege films go it's not one of the best, too many questions and not enough answers as usual (why do so many so-called professional scriptwriters have a problem resolving questions that an amateur like me could of spotted?), but if you come across it on a dull night, there's plenty of action that should keep you awake.
6/10
As siege films go it's not one of the best, too many questions and not enough answers as usual (why do so many so-called professional scriptwriters have a problem resolving questions that an amateur like me could of spotted?), but if you come across it on a dull night, there's plenty of action that should keep you awake.
6/10
OK visuals - Rotten Script
jacksflicks24 February 2001
Nice production values and potentially interesting premise are wasted on a totally inane script, written by hacks with obviously no interest - or talent - for research. For example, we're supposed to find plausible that the U.S. planted nuclear devices in the Eastern European capitals, as a deterrent to a *Soviet* attack. Or that a 4-star general takes orders from the National Security Advisor who, sorry to inform you guys, is not in the chain of command. Or that an over-made-up Vogue model bimbo is only one of two people who can defuse one of those nuclear devices.
And no, it's not even unintentionally funny.
And no, it's not even unintentionally funny.
Bad bad bad bad.
javierwinstondiaz4 October 2001
Oh man! This is bad! The acting is awful, the directing appalling and the script even worse!
Everything that happens in this film is so incredibly implausible, ONE (there are several I could provide) example of this is when the two heroes come across a room guarded with laser death rays that can supposedly cut through stone and also flesh. So how do they get past you ask? Why Stupid Darryl Stupid Hannah simply deflects the beams using a mirror! What's that you say? But wouldn't the laser beams melt the mirror? Um....um....hey look behind you! *runs away*
2/10
Everything that happens in this film is so incredibly implausible, ONE (there are several I could provide) example of this is when the two heroes come across a room guarded with laser death rays that can supposedly cut through stone and also flesh. So how do they get past you ask? Why Stupid Darryl Stupid Hannah simply deflects the beams using a mirror! What's that you say? But wouldn't the laser beams melt the mirror? Um....um....hey look behind you! *runs away*
2/10
it's not a bad movie at all as you all say
swordfish-18 April 2002
Well it may have very foolish and borried moments but it's not so bad after all. The theme of the movie is pretty interesting and it has some good scenes. But the script is terrible. There are also a lot of fiction moments that make you get crazy. What were the director and producers thinking about that scene with lasers or the one they almost made love.
I would give a 5 from 10 to this movie.
I would give a 5 from 10 to this movie.
Waste of money.
Intrepid-822 March 2000
Last weekend, I rented Enemy of my Enemy. It had a big image of Tom Berenger on the cover. Tom Berenger should be ashamed to do a picture like this. This movie is a relic from the 80's, when there were thousands of 'cold war' movies. The script is so thin it's remarkable. Poor acting, lousy script. One of the worst movies I've ever paid money to see.
Dear god, I thought I was about to die.
el-loco24 October 2001
This movie really hurt me. As in, it felt like my head was about to implode. I'm considering a class action suit against the director for the mental anguish and pain anyone who has seen this movie had to experience.
Save yourself, don't see this movie. Maybe, if drunk, it would be a bit fun because it's so bad, but I really doubt it.
Bad everything, bad story, bad acting, badly cast, bad music and bad ending. What more can you get? Bad credits music. Yes, they have terrible music there too.
Oh and the women aren't even pretty.
So do yourself a favor and rent Trolls2 instead, as it'll be a lot better. Or battlefield earth.
1/10 (cant vote lower, sorry).
Save yourself, don't see this movie. Maybe, if drunk, it would be a bit fun because it's so bad, but I really doubt it.
Bad everything, bad story, bad acting, badly cast, bad music and bad ending. What more can you get? Bad credits music. Yes, they have terrible music there too.
Oh and the women aren't even pretty.
So do yourself a favor and rent Trolls2 instead, as it'll be a lot better. Or battlefield earth.
1/10 (cant vote lower, sorry).
Slick, but dull
emmet-210 April 2000
This political thriller has a pretty good, up-to-date story (Serbian terrorists seeking revenge after one of their leaders is kidnapped by US soldiers to stand trial in Hague); but the execution is strangely lifeless and dull. Tom Berenger had top billing on my video cassette cover, but he didn't appear until about half of the movie had passed, and even then he got less screen time than Weller's son, played by teenage heartthrob Jeremy Lelliott. There is one rather catchy plot twist near the end (I didn't see it coming, maybe someone more observant would have) involving Weller and Hannah; but it didn't save this movie from being quite mediocre. By all means, the action stunts, the explosions and the machine-gun-firing is impressive, but the story and (most of) the acting is not. So unless you're a die hard fan of either of the actors involved, you probably won't be satisfied after watching this movie. Rating on a dice, I'll probably give it a 3 (out of 6).
This is just another typical american movie - don't watch it!
ibabovic18 June 2000
The movie is totally pathetic. The plot is just ridiculous, with very poor selection of "funny" scenes, including some totally displaced "sexy scenes". America is not the greatest place to live, and americans are not the smartest nation on this globe, and this movie is just another proof. I regret having spent $5.69 Canadian to watch another stupid movie about american "heroes". I am completely astonished at how stupid movies have become from our southern neighbours. I really feel compelled to start watching any movie but american.
Bombs that look like firecrackers
mikemdp5 October 2012
Nothing kills a good action movie like bombs that look like firecrackers. And in "Diplomatic Siege," all the bombs are firecrackers. Some dude shoots a bazooka – poof, it's a firecracker. Another dude throws a grenade – poof, another firecracker.
And they're not even good firecrackers. They're like those ones that have a great name on the wrapper, like "Hiroshima Deluxe," but just make a flash and a big puff of smoke and you're all, "Man, I spent $16.99 for that?"
Daryl Hannah is in this. She's somewhere between "Roxanne" hot and "Kill Bill" used up and poisoned by cigs. In this movie, she plays the role of "Daryl Hannah Playing the Role of Somebody Who Isn't Daryl Hannah." She fails.
Peter Weller is in this, looking and acting exactly the same as he has in every movie he's ever made, from "Buckaroo Banzai" to "Robocop" to has he done anything else?
"The secret to good acting is to purse your lips all the time and act like you don't care," is something Peter Weller never said, but probably thinks all the time.
Tom Berenger is apparently in this, but I lost patience before he showed up. Doesn't matter. If he didn't show up as the guy from "Sniper," it wouldn't be worth the wait anyway.
Brion James plays some kind of general or colonel or something, but who cares, because he plays it like a Replicant. I suspect he always was one anyway. Rest his soul. I always felt bad he died after making two decent movies and 100 that weren't any damn good.
Aaaaaanyway, I don't know what this movie is about. A group of bad guys takes over an embassy. Or something.
You know what? Just skip it and read a book.
And they're not even good firecrackers. They're like those ones that have a great name on the wrapper, like "Hiroshima Deluxe," but just make a flash and a big puff of smoke and you're all, "Man, I spent $16.99 for that?"
Daryl Hannah is in this. She's somewhere between "Roxanne" hot and "Kill Bill" used up and poisoned by cigs. In this movie, she plays the role of "Daryl Hannah Playing the Role of Somebody Who Isn't Daryl Hannah." She fails.
Peter Weller is in this, looking and acting exactly the same as he has in every movie he's ever made, from "Buckaroo Banzai" to "Robocop" to has he done anything else?
"The secret to good acting is to purse your lips all the time and act like you don't care," is something Peter Weller never said, but probably thinks all the time.
Tom Berenger is apparently in this, but I lost patience before he showed up. Doesn't matter. If he didn't show up as the guy from "Sniper," it wouldn't be worth the wait anyway.
Brion James plays some kind of general or colonel or something, but who cares, because he plays it like a Replicant. I suspect he always was one anyway. Rest his soul. I always felt bad he died after making two decent movies and 100 that weren't any damn good.
Aaaaaanyway, I don't know what this movie is about. A group of bad guys takes over an embassy. Or something.
You know what? Just skip it and read a book.
ok Fictional movie
markiz7817 December 1999
This movie is a great Fictional creation (just like, let's say stories made up like in Star Wars or Star Trek) although it lacks in the whole story, characters are clumsy and so on - the movie is OK (3/10). The main subject makes you think about this whole suspended imagination and alteration of reality, for example if the Chinese won't dance the way we intend them to dance, we'll paint them a few movies that will change people's reality regarding the Chinese; great no more wars!... too bad it's just fiction in the end.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
