Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-21 18:47:45

Infectiously disturbing and controversial.

First let's admit it that we, Americans, are stereotypical. It's true since we come from different cultural backgrounds, we label cultures this & that, etc. Although disturbing to many mature audiences, The Siege has its good & bad credentials. At first glance, it is bad in the sense the movie portrays deviancy, terrorism and violence which was stereotyped to the Arab World. In the course of the movie, the story tries to tie the knot between religion and this misconception that nurtures the viewer's minds that people, regardless of race & ethnicity, are basically the same. Although strange and mysterious as it seems to be, the Islamic religion should be respected as shown by actress, Annette Benning who delivered herself with total reverence and respect to the culture through acquaintances from her Arab boyfriend, who turns out to be the terrorist at the end. But what astonishes me is that the movie is NOT ONE-SIDED AT ALL. Since America will not tolerate terrorism and that America will sacrifice to protect the citizens against terrorism at all costs, the focus in this movie shifts to the abuse of power of its leaders. This is where Bruce Willis, the commanding military general comes in and tortured and executed an innocent Arab. Riots flared up and he was then arrested by FBI civilians, headed by Denzel Washington. I only wish that the Denzel's partner, the Arab FBI agent played by Tony Shaloub read the general's rights and I think that evens out the controversy. One more comment. Bruce Willis to me is the only character who sparked some humor in this movie. Imagine him in full dressed fatigue uniform. Willis, with his heartthrob good looks, can play other roles but not this one. I think Donald Sutherland or Jack Nicholson can do the act better. 4 stars for The Siege

markck 2012-05-21 01:29:26

Wish it were better

I just saw the film this afternoon. I was really looking forward inwatching The Siege. Denzel Washington was real good(always). I wish theycould've introduced Bruce Willis's character a little bitmore.The movie wasn't half bad at all. The plot was good, it made you think ofwhat the necessary steps you'd have to make if you were HUBBARD(Denzel).Maybe the film was just too long, yeah that's it. The Siege might have beenbetter if it were shorter.Word of advice, those who are seeking a really splendid film, seek elsewhere. Watch Private Ryan before it's too late. E-mails are alwayswelcomed.

RMR-2 2012-05-11 02:41:51

Trips over the plot

(Spoliers ahead)This movie had alot in its favor for the first half or so. There was somesuspense and action and drama. Washington and Shalhoub perform their partswell and ground it in realism. Bening also does well at first but then fallsvictim to the movie's tangling plot. By the second hour you get the feeling that everything's still being set upand this results in confusion and not suspense. Bening's character seems tobe everywhere at once and during the course of the movie apparently was oneveryone's side. I was relieved when she was killed in the end, but ofcourse her last words melodramatically had to be "Inshallah'.The General played by Willis is pretty much the stereotype of the hard-nosedsoldier led astray by his duty to his country. Anyone could have played himand Willis is as good as anyone, so they put him in. If the Siege had tried not to put so many things into the brew - Islamicterrorists and ethic stereotyping, Bening's baffling character and Willis'General, and tweaked the ending, you may have had a really good movie here.If you want to watch it go ahead, but don't expect toomuch.

2012-05-10 12:34:09

Totally Stupid

I've got no problem with far-fetched plots, but let's not get carried away. There needs to be something believable, and in this movie, nothing was. Denzel Washington plays an Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field office of the FBI. Faced with a terrorist hoax, the FBI team goes into action, jumping right into the middle of a real terrorist cell that is beginning to blow things up. Somehow, the New York FBI and numerous other intelligence agencies had no clue a terrorist cell was operating in Brooklyn. With belated help from a rouge NSA (actually, National Security Council [???]) agent, the FBI think's it's got it's hands on the terrorists. But after repeated bombings, the President decides martial law is in order (yea, right) and sends in Bruce Willis and the Army to lock down New York and immediately start butting heads with the FBI.OK, fine. There's interagency rivalries. That's nothing new. But Washington's character, an ASAC, apparantly has the autonomy to run an entire investigation of unprecedented domestic terrorism without any input or supervision from Washington (D.C.) and the DOJ. That's just plain dumb. There was no point in this movie that was the least bit interesting. Not one. Nothing here was even remotely life-like.

2012-05-09 10:08:12

It could have been a lot worse.

This review is from: Siege [VHS] (VHS Tape) I was originally going to write one of my usual movie reviews, spotlighting the best points of this film and some of what I think are the bad points. I changed my mind for obvious reasons, but this will still be one of my all-time favorites.This movie depicts terrorist bombings by Islamic militants in New York which, though frighteningly realistic, are fictitious. Unfortunately as Washington D.C., southwestern PA, the real New York, and the entire United States discovered on September 11, reality is often much more frightening than any movie. The five stars will only serve to show how I rate the film as a piece of cinema.

lia00027 2012-05-08 17:39:18

Worth Watching

One of the good movie that I've ever seen. I watched it on televisionjust now, when the condition of most of the countries in the world aresimilar like the situation in that movie, especially in the middle eastand Indonesia (Aceh) where a lot of soldiers are put in the cities.The story was similar to the reality. Most of the Arabian were suspectas terrorists in that movie and it happen until now. DanzelWashington's performance always perfect, he is one of the talentedactor that I've ever known, and so is Annette Benning.What's so good about this movie is the ending, when they released theArabian people, that scene was touching and it put a lot of afford toshoot that scene.Really feel touched by this movie and it's really an excellent movie,means it's worth to be watched.

2012-05-06 06:10:32

Pre-9/11 liberal view of Islamist terrorism and the U.S.

I find the underlying propaganda of this film disturbing. The two key points it makes are1) The terrorist attacks on New York are really our fault. It's made abundantly clear that the only reason the terrorists are blowing up things and killing people is that WE betrayed them. WE were evil enough to capture one of their leaders in a covert operation. WE provoked them with our arrogant, self-serving, and imperialist policies. So everything they do is understandable really. What's most disturbing about this is that even when the writers show terrorists plant a bomb in an elementary school, fully prepared to vaporize a roomful of LITTLE GIRLS -- who are even shown crying, and wailing in fear -- this is not enough to make anyone (any of the good guys at least) observe that whatever the Islamists' grievances may be, NOTHING justifies such methods, and the Islamists' willingness to resort to such measures taints their cause beyond redemption. Even the most obscene, cruel, and remorseless acts of terror and (would-be) child murder are not enough to shake the belief in moral equivalency so fervently held by Hollywood liberals.At the core of this point is the belief that terrorist attacks on the U.S. are the result of U.S. actions and policies. Well, they are. But then again, the attack on Pearl Harbor was the result of U.S. policies also. That does not mean the U.S. was wrong to refuse to sell war materiel to the brutal, imperialist regime that was running Japan, thus provoking them to attack us. The Civil War was the result of U.S. policies. That does not mean the U.S. was wrong to refuse to allow the southern states to secede and set up a government that would have perpetuated race based slavery. The fallacy of this argument is the implicit and automatic assumption that because something may be the result of U.S. polices, the U.S. is wrong for having those policies. Many of our foreign policy decisions have indeed been wrong. Some have been disastrous. But we are not the "Great Satan" the Islamists portray us to be, and NOTHING justifies these hate-filled, Islamikaze fanatics in what they do.2) Inside every high ranking army brasshat lurks a jack booted fascist just waiting to get out. In this film you see an army general, played by Bruce Willis, herd people into concentration camps, authorize and supervise the torture of prisoners, conduct illegal surveillance on federal agents, and basically use the Constitution as toilet paper. Not only does Bruce Willis' character commit all the crimes I related above, but when he is confronted with the fact that he has incarcerated the son of an loyal American and FBI agent, his subordinate justifies this by saying the boy's father is a Shiite, and they will "look into" whether or not the father's 30 years of completely loyal service can override this. The U.S. army, not the terrorists, is the real enemy. The American general, not the fanatical, Islamofascist terrorist leader, is the real threat to life and liberty. As historian Steven Ambrose once observed, in 1945, the most terrifying sight on earth was a squad of soldiers -- young, aggressive, armed men inured to violence. That squad of soldiers all too often meant looting, rape, even murder. And this applied no matter whether the uniform worn by these young men was German, Russian, Japanese, or any other... unless that uniform happened to be American or British. When people saw those uniforms, they generally understood they were safe, and this applied to the people of enemy countries as well as liberated ones. Historically, the U.S. armed forces have a better record than those of almost any other country. Certainly they have a better record that the forces of any other armed forces of comparable size and power. Americans in military service have, sometimes, committed atrocities and excesses, but they are still better behaved than the armed forces of almost any other country. But that long record of restraint counts for nothing against isolated incidents like My Lai, so in the liberal view, as presented in this film, you can depend on American military excesses to be the rule, not the exception.This film, while it works fairly well as a thriller, is the porduct of a liberal Hollywood cohort whose members are, as Mona Charen once said, "...so marinated in cynicism about their own country that they find it difficult to discern evil in anyone else."

Jedi-29 2012-05-05 20:24:54

A true Sci-Fi. A good movie with meaning.

This is what I consider to be a true science fiction title. Not only is ita good movie based on current events and absolutely believable happenings,but it has a clear message that rings true.It is a scary movie in that this is a part of our country and a truepossiblity.Its only pitfall is some extra irrelevant personal developments in theplot.

TonyF 2012-05-05 04:42:50

Not what you expect, two halves and one stinks.

I really enjoyed the start of this film, I was captured by the story andslowly lead by the hand into the plot. I was just about to smile anddeclareit a winner when everything just stopped entertaining me.Good plotinteresting story and fine actors and then Bruce Willis turns up (I likehimbut boy did his entrance signify death to this film) and everything dies.Sorry to say it missed the mark in the last hour or so, great tillthen.

harriet-4 2012-05-04 16:02:31

Very good+ as a rental movie

I'm glad I didn't pay $8.50 to see this but I did enjoy the rental. TheWillis character spoiled an otherwise interesting story. Possible spoilerfollows: This movie has the best death scene I've ever seen, I was veryimpressed. I won't say who dies but when you see it, you'll know who Imean.General comment on comments: I would enjoy reading these comments muchmoreif the authors wouldn't take it all so personally. Many people act as iftheir person has been assaulted when some editors does a bad job or ascreenplay isn't up to par. Maybe it's "movie-rage."Relax out there, it's a MOVIE!

TLSmith1138 2012-05-03 00:55:08

Left Wing Dookie

One of the forerunners of the recent anti-government, anti-military fare that Hollywood is wasting fortunes on these days. While the story line turns very hard left toward the end, the acting from everybody but Bruce Willis is pretty good. Bruce Willis comes out more cardboard than I have ever seem. One gets the feeling he found himself doing something he really didn't want to do. Sony gets big noogies for lying about the movie on the back of the dvd jacket to make up in dvd sales, what it lost in ticket sales. All in all, Boo!

mmille10 2012-05-02 21:05:53

All too real

I saw this movie when it came out, and I thought it was a good, excitingfilm. I even rented it on video afterwards, which is not something I dooften. I thought it's main point, which it made well, was that "what goesaround, comes around."Several days after September 11, 2001, this movie kept coming back into mythoughts. I remembered some general parallels, like the attacks takingplace in New York City. One news show I watched even showed an excerptfromthe movie where General Deveraux basically says, "This is war," and, "Thefact that the battle is taking place on our own soil only makes it a newkind of war." This and the other things he says in this speech make afascinating parallel to President Bush's characterization of the conflictweare in today.So I rented "The Siege" again to see what my subconscious was trying totellme, and I was surprised by my own reaction to it. At certain points inthefilm, I became more emotional than I had when watching the same scenebefore9/11. Some of the scenes, images, and emotions shown by the charactersarevery evocative of what actually happened on 9/11 and the weeksafterward.There are little pieces of "audio" or dialog planted throughout the movie,seemingly thrown in as general commentary, or afterthoughts, which areverysimilar to what I've heard said and reported on news shows in this day andage, and which are talked about at great length now. I noticed all oftheselittle details, which I used to just gloss over. It's as if the creatorsofthis movie REALLY thought about the scenarios surrounding, "What wouldhappen if there was a terrorist campaign taking place in New York City?What would our reactions be? How would the country react?" I think theyread this country, or perhaps just plain humanity, prettywell.Even though the events in the movie do not exactly match the events, muchless coming nowhere near to the enormity of what happened in real life,youcan see parallels all over the place. It's truly amazing when you thinkabout how it came out 3 years ago.*** Spoiler warning. What follows will give away some of the plot***The movie presents two extremes, for which I give it the benefit of thedoubt. Had the writers compromised on this, I think it might've made themovie less interesting: Either the U.S. stays status quo with respect tothegovernment using its traditional police powers to go after theperpetrators,or it abandons police powers altogether in favor of martial law.Thankfully, the martial law scenario has not come to be in real life,thoughas Curly in "City Slickers" once said, "The day's not overyet!"The movie shows the "progress of FBI Agent Hubbard," learning byexperiencehow to face the new threat. He goes from utter shock and bewildermentfromthe first attack, to a wise warrior who finally understands what Elise,TheCIA operative, had been saying all along, "It's lose-lose either way youlook at it. You either lose little, or you lose big," and "The mostcommitted wins." By the time you reach the end of the movie, you, theviewer, will come to understand this as well.Where I thought the movie fell down in the area of "art imitating life" isin the happy ending. My first thought was, "Oh if only it could be thatsimple."After viewing it post-9/11, I felt the movie was giving the viewer acoupleof instructive messages: 1) When directly confronting a terrorist attack,wehave to risk the possibility that innocent people will be killed in ourefforts to stop the attack from succeeding (it addresses this indirectly),2) In the fight against terrorism, we must be careful that we do not loseour American soul--our principle that those among us who are notendangeringanyone else should be free to live their lives. Though I never got AgentHubbard's theory that martial law is just what the terrorists want. I sawit as a side-effect of the attacks, not an objective of theattackers.The overriding theme is betrayal of trust, and betrayal of our sense ofinsular safety.I recommend this film for film buffs. If you saw it before 9/11, watch itagain. If you haven't seen it before, get it. For those of you who areclose to the 9/11 attack--if you lost loved ones or were there when ithappened, this movie will hit close to home, and you may want to put offseeing it.

2012-05-01 18:46:57

Great poltical/action film !

The Siege is a very good movie about terroism. The writers and actors in this film did an excellent job!! What caught my eye about The Siege is that both Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis are in it. Denzel plays the (by the book) F.B.I agent While Willis plays a (whatever it takes to win) army General. This film has a good plot and is very entertaining!!

vip_ebriega 2012-05-01 09:27:29

Surprisingly relevant today!

My Take: A convincing thriller that proved far more effective in time. Edward Zwick's THE SIEGE is a 'what if' terrorism scenario, that isuntil the recent topical 9/11 events which is the closest we'll everyget to a full terrorist attack on American soil. Still, even before thesaid events ever occurred, THE SIEGE is already a realisticallyportrayed thriller, packed with excellent performances and terrificcamera work, and there's Zwick drawing out drama and thrills at everyturn. While the pace draws out some sluggish turns, this is still awinner for every thinking-man action viewer in the audience.Denzel Washington, who last worked with Zwick in COURAGE UNDER FIRE,plays Anthony Hubbard ("Hub" for short), an anti-terrorist expert whois lead to a series of bombings, including a bombing of a pedestrianbus, after a suspected terrorist is abducted by US troops, which marksattack by terrorist on American soil. Hub gets a little help frommysterious FBI agent (Annette Bening, excellent in the role) and hispartner (Tony Shalhoub). Bruce Willis in an underrated supporting roleplays the headstrong yet stubborn Maj. Gen. Deveraux, the militaryofficer assigned to take his troops in an unexperienced strike againstthe terrorist, wrecking almost as much havoc.Zwick makes very little use of explosions and stunts. The result is amore engrossing thriller that isn't about action or special effects,but about characters and plot, and although the plot is a little hardto follow, Zwick makes the film as realistic looking and convincing aspossible as it could. Performances by Washington, Bening and the restof the cast are fine, if not essentially breaking. It ain't the bestaction film in years, neither the best thriller, but it's above-averageand it works, especially during these troubled times.Rating: **** out of 5.

The Godfather 2012-05-01 14:45:16

A gripping, shocking picture ... ever since the events of the 11th of September 2001!!

Just like "Wag the dog", this film was nothing special when being releasedin 1998 and ultimately an average attempt, but just like "Wag the dog" thefilm got really interesting when the fiction became facts!Every single soul on Earth will watch this film through a differentperspective after the horrible events of the 11th of September 2001! I onlygot to see this film on television yesterday (27 april 2002) and I mustadmit that I was both shocked and awestruck by this film which gained realinterest and real importance after the 'Twin Towers-incident'. If I wouldhave seen this picture before, I wouldn't have given a damn about it, butnow I do. Because what I saw in that film (or at least 85 to 90% of what Isaw; leaving just 10 to 15% Hollywood-material to keep things commercialenough to sell it), would eventually really happen. And after a situationlike that, you see things differently.The same happened with "Wag the dog". Before the incident, it was merely anaverage picture (with some very fine acting though), but it wasn't untilafter the incident that that picture got the full attention for telling thetruth BEFORE it actually happened. The same goes for this onehere.Acting performances are great. Bruce Willis isn't bad, but he's nothingcomparing to Denzel Washington who gives one of his best performances ever. The rest of the cast (especially Tony Shalhoub) is believabletoo.Watch this film (especially when you're American) and you'll notice thatyou'll be shocked by what the film has to tell you (in case you didn't likethe film a couple of years ago).... the horror ... ... the horror ... ...

Agent10 2012-04-30 21:38:47

A solid film about paranoia and extremism

I still can't see why this film was looked down upon objectively by the Arab-Americans living in the USA. Granted, this was before all of the Sept. 11 bombings, but the way the people were depicted in the film was objective. You had the extremists, capable of destroying building with no remorse from life, and you then had the other side. The innocents, the legal Arabs who love this country as much as the next person, blindly being lumped into one group without any provocation. This film isn't about anti-Arab sentiment, its more about paranoia and hasty decision making brought about by reactionary leadership. Interesting and enthralling, this film is better than what most people give it credit for.

russmillerwy 2012-04-25 04:59:43

gripping until it loses its grip

The Siege has a problem it shares with many other big-budget Hollywoodfilms: it cannot relate to the military. The first three quarters of thisfilm are sharp, engrossing, and exciting. It's when martial law isimposedand Bruce Willis comes stomping in as a VERY cliche tin pot dictator thatthe movie disconnects from reality. It goes overboard in portrayingsoldiers as mindless, robotic zealots. If only more writers and directorshad spent a hitch in uniform, their portrayals might not so easily slideinto comic book stereotypes.

mikey-52 2012-04-24 18:44:46

Best damn movie I've seen in years

I am normally not a lover of action films (especially Brucey Willis), butthis is definitely good. Similar in intensity to The Professional(probably last good action flick I've seen).A bit of spy stuff, a bit of thriller, an obligatory sex scene. But DenzelWashington probably has done his best performance here, and I'm not sure hewas trying hard. The plot was made for him.At its core, it's kind of a good vs. bad vs. grey movie. But Denzel showsus the way, and does it with real style. If I were a thespian, he'd be myhero!

2012-04-24 10:41:58

Poor casting and poorer story

This movie was a big dissapointment. The story is implausible and the presentation is poor. Annette Bening is miscast in this movie and should not have been there in the first place. Don't watch this one.

rem1010 2012-04-23 18:47:18

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

I guess if you have enough money and little intelligence, then you can makea movie and show people how stupid you really are.Well, this movie is that movie.Do not waste your money to see or rent this crap.Totally implausible and dumb.This movie needed Godzilla to make it more plausible.The writer, director and producer obviously do not live in the United Statesand have never read or understood the Constitution. So, they make up astory, get Washington to star in it and then cram it down our throats as ifwe are really stupid.Washington! Wake up, did you need the money that bad? Loss of credibilityhere.