308 reviews
I remember hearing about this film before its release. It had caught a great deal of flack for its use of Arabs and Muslims in particular as violent extremists. Even at that time I knew that the protests against this film were nothing more than politically correct nonsense, as even then the only trans-oceanic terrorists that existed were of the fake-Muslim variety that today we hear about every hour.
When I saw the film, I was impressed by the fair nature of the film, in that it portrayed the truth: these extremists exist in the overwhelming minority of Muslims, and that it is unwise and unfair to paint them all with the same brush. With a very good script, excellent performances and exciting action pieces, I was impressed.
Jump ahead a few years, and we see what we have learned. This film was not just an intelligent story. It was a warning sign. It examined things that people did not want to talk about. It examined things that people thought it more politically correct to ignore. It portrayed events realistically and in fact far less devastating than what was possible. If there is one thing that can be learned by examining a film such as this in retrospective of recent events, it is that our species chooses to ignore that which it does not want to accept.
Those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps there are other subjects we should stop being so PC about and actually talk about instead of worrying about "how it will look."
When I saw the film, I was impressed by the fair nature of the film, in that it portrayed the truth: these extremists exist in the overwhelming minority of Muslims, and that it is unwise and unfair to paint them all with the same brush. With a very good script, excellent performances and exciting action pieces, I was impressed.
Jump ahead a few years, and we see what we have learned. This film was not just an intelligent story. It was a warning sign. It examined things that people did not want to talk about. It examined things that people thought it more politically correct to ignore. It portrayed events realistically and in fact far less devastating than what was possible. If there is one thing that can be learned by examining a film such as this in retrospective of recent events, it is that our species chooses to ignore that which it does not want to accept.
Those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps there are other subjects we should stop being so PC about and actually talk about instead of worrying about "how it will look."
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.
Watching the 1998 THE SIEGE in 2007 and then rolling through all the reviews of this film from the time of release to the present is a lesson in the power of the cinema. The obvious initial response was less about the film as a film than about the manner in which the FBI, CIA, Military, Terrorists, and public responded to the unimaginable: shouts of protests about 'glorification of occult terrorists', the Hollywood idea of the impossible happening, and the criticism of the fine cast of actors who steeped into roles 'beyond swallowing' are all here in these reviews.
Now, six years after 9/11 reviewers are taking a different view, though most still find the film pompous and obnoxious. Offensive versus defensive. And after viewing the movie as a movie it is gratifying to know that people feel strongly and are vocal about the depiction of the 'war against terrorism' we continue to lose. Movies that make people think and talk are valuable, and in that light the film is more successful than initially considered.
Yes, there are gaping holes in the script and the plot and the concept, but as a little thriller it maintains our attention throughout and offers some fine moments from actors such as Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Tony Shalhoub, Bruce Willis, Sami Bouajila, Ahmed Ben Larby, Aasif Mandvi among others. And then there are the panoramas of New York City under siege with the Twin Towers standing mightily in the cityscape... It begs the question: if scriptwriter Lawrence Wright and director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai, Courage Under Fire, Glory, Leaving Normal, Legends of the Fall, etc) were thinking along these lines and finding flaws in our intelligence forces, why weren't the leaders in Washington, DC in tune with 'absurd possibilities'? It makes one think - and that is the best thing about this film. Grady Harp
Now, six years after 9/11 reviewers are taking a different view, though most still find the film pompous and obnoxious. Offensive versus defensive. And after viewing the movie as a movie it is gratifying to know that people feel strongly and are vocal about the depiction of the 'war against terrorism' we continue to lose. Movies that make people think and talk are valuable, and in that light the film is more successful than initially considered.
Yes, there are gaping holes in the script and the plot and the concept, but as a little thriller it maintains our attention throughout and offers some fine moments from actors such as Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Tony Shalhoub, Bruce Willis, Sami Bouajila, Ahmed Ben Larby, Aasif Mandvi among others. And then there are the panoramas of New York City under siege with the Twin Towers standing mightily in the cityscape... It begs the question: if scriptwriter Lawrence Wright and director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai, Courage Under Fire, Glory, Leaving Normal, Legends of the Fall, etc) were thinking along these lines and finding flaws in our intelligence forces, why weren't the leaders in Washington, DC in tune with 'absurd possibilities'? It makes one think - and that is the best thing about this film. Grady Harp
This film, made in 1998, is so close to the reality of Sept. 11, 2001 that it sends chills down your spine. Although events played out differently, so many elements in the film are near-mirror reflections of the reality. The attacks are carried out by Islamic extremists, whose core network were trained by the CIA, their attacks were dramatic and centered on New York City, there was little cooperation between, the FBI, CIA and military, and Arabs and Arab-Americans were rounded up in large numbers, or were subjected to harassment and violence. The images of bodies and debris are no less shocking than the sight of people jumping to their death from the World Trade Center. Torture was employed by US soldiers, in pursuit of terrorists. With all of that said, even had the attacks of Sept. 11th not occurred, this would still be a tremendous film.
Director Ed Zwick and actor Denzell Washington team up once again for a great one-two punch. Denzell brings great humanity to his role as an FBI agent, charged with counter-terrorism operations and investigations. He is aided by Tony Shalhoub, who delivers another great performance and some of the best lines. Annette Benning displays her talent as a CIA operative at the heart of the whole crisis. Roger Deacons adds his wonderful cinematography, and Bruce Willis turns in a fine performance as an over-zealous army general.
The film delivers a cautionary tale about extreme reactions to terror and the loss of freedoms that can result from acting in anger, rather than with reason and law. The rounding up of citizens, as depicted in the film, and the declarations of martial law, are not that far away from the provisions of the Patriot Act, which violates First Amendment rights, the right to privacy, and the right to due process. The film suggests that by giving up these rights, or stripping them away, we become the very thing that our enemies claim we are. It suggests that that may be the terrorists true aim.
This is not a crystal ball prediction of 9/11; but it is a fine thriller. The filmmakers did their homework and got quite a bit right. They also extrapolated things to an extreme, but not an implausible one. However, they delivered an excellent film, and one that should be seen and studied.
Director Ed Zwick and actor Denzell Washington team up once again for a great one-two punch. Denzell brings great humanity to his role as an FBI agent, charged with counter-terrorism operations and investigations. He is aided by Tony Shalhoub, who delivers another great performance and some of the best lines. Annette Benning displays her talent as a CIA operative at the heart of the whole crisis. Roger Deacons adds his wonderful cinematography, and Bruce Willis turns in a fine performance as an over-zealous army general.
The film delivers a cautionary tale about extreme reactions to terror and the loss of freedoms that can result from acting in anger, rather than with reason and law. The rounding up of citizens, as depicted in the film, and the declarations of martial law, are not that far away from the provisions of the Patriot Act, which violates First Amendment rights, the right to privacy, and the right to due process. The film suggests that by giving up these rights, or stripping them away, we become the very thing that our enemies claim we are. It suggests that that may be the terrorists true aim.
This is not a crystal ball prediction of 9/11; but it is a fine thriller. The filmmakers did their homework and got quite a bit right. They also extrapolated things to an extreme, but not an implausible one. However, they delivered an excellent film, and one that should be seen and studied.
- grendelkhan
- Aug 20, 2004
- Permalink
The Siege (1998) This is a pre 9/11 terrorist movie. The secret U.S. abduction of a suspected terrorist, leads to a wave of terrorist attacks in New York City. An all star cast including Denzel Washington, Bruce Willis, and Annette Bening are the government players involved in handling the situation. This is a social commentary on terrorism and how Americans handled it prior to 9/11. This is before there was a Homeland Security and inter-agency transparency. This contributes an added tension of power struggle between the FBI, CIA and Military. The handling of the situation is bleak, but if you can get past your own personal and political beliefs, it tells a good narrative. This didn't do great in theatres, but did do solid in rentals. Particularly after 9/11. If you like political crime thrillers, you should enjoy this film.
- johnny-burgundy
- Oct 19, 2017
- Permalink
When I saw "The Siege" in the theater in 1998, I thought it was a flawed, but entertaining what-if thriller. It had a very good performance by the always dependable Denzel Washington, an underrated performance by Bruce Willis, and a somewhat disappointing performance (perhaps because the role was underwritten) by a slightly miscast Annette Bening. Who would've known that something tragic like the attacks in New York City, the Pentagon and the plane crash in western Pennsylvania.
Some reviewers dismissing the film thought the film's good ideas became muddled and confused in the end. Seeing what's happening in the world right now, I don't think the confusion was way off. I felt before the tragedy and afterward that it was pretty accurate.
The one performance that really impressed me was Tony Shalhoub as Frank Haddad, the Arab-American police detective who's partnered with Washington's character. I hope screenwriter Lawrence Wright (with Menno Meyjes) and co-writer/director Edward Zwick, didn't create Haddad as an afterthought. There was some major controversy on how Arabs were portrayed in the film. (Note the U.S. running time compared to some other countries.) What stood out for me when I first saw the movie and still lingers is Shalhoub's character. His character seemed human. We see him at work and at home with his wife and children. We see him and his family practicing the Muslim faith. There's a pivotal moment when Haddad is trying to find his son in an internment camp. He's angry and confused and frustrated. I really felt sympathy and empathy toward his character. With all of the explosions, I still feel that Shalhoub, despite being what is, essentially, a supporting character, was the truly human aspect "The Siege".
Some reviewers dismissing the film thought the film's good ideas became muddled and confused in the end. Seeing what's happening in the world right now, I don't think the confusion was way off. I felt before the tragedy and afterward that it was pretty accurate.
The one performance that really impressed me was Tony Shalhoub as Frank Haddad, the Arab-American police detective who's partnered with Washington's character. I hope screenwriter Lawrence Wright (with Menno Meyjes) and co-writer/director Edward Zwick, didn't create Haddad as an afterthought. There was some major controversy on how Arabs were portrayed in the film. (Note the U.S. running time compared to some other countries.) What stood out for me when I first saw the movie and still lingers is Shalhoub's character. His character seemed human. We see him at work and at home with his wife and children. We see him and his family practicing the Muslim faith. There's a pivotal moment when Haddad is trying to find his son in an internment camp. He's angry and confused and frustrated. I really felt sympathy and empathy toward his character. With all of the explosions, I still feel that Shalhoub, despite being what is, essentially, a supporting character, was the truly human aspect "The Siege".
Edward Zwick's The Siege is a well made suspense film about the de-construction of NYC. Not literally, but by arab terorists that set bombs off all over the City and Denzel Washington (great as always) plays a FBI agent who is trying to catch the units that are doing this. Annette Benning is also good as a foreigner who has a link to the arabs. But soon, this leads up to martial law in NYC, and army man Bruce Willis (also very good as a stone figured tyrant) begins to get arabs into concentration camps. This is pretty controversial in and of itself becauase this seems to be where NYC is headed. Director/writer Zwick knows that, and makes that knowledge into one hell of a good thriller.
- Quinoa1984
- Apr 30, 2000
- Permalink
It might not qualify as a masterpiece, but this film is so criminally underrated I just had to write this short review. The Siege is a dark, sadly prophetic, gripping thriller with an amazing cast. For reasons I will never understand this film was accused of having a racist message (probably by people who hadn't even seen it) although its intention very clearly is to convey anything but. But check it out for yourself; Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis are so good in this that their performances alone already make the film worthwhile. 8 stars out of 10.
In case you're interested in more underrated gems, here's some of my favorites:
imdb.com/list/ls070242495
In case you're interested in more underrated gems, here's some of my favorites:
imdb.com/list/ls070242495
- gogoschka-1
- Feb 10, 2018
- Permalink
- Virginia_Farmboy
- Aug 31, 2004
- Permalink
Edward Zwick directed this film that stars Denzel Washington as FBI counter Terrorism Taskforce leader Anthony Hubbard, who enlists the help of a CIA agent(played by Annette Bening) to battle an escalating series of terrorist attacks in New York city after the U.S. abducted a radical Islamic religious leader. When one attack in particular hits close to home for all, Martial Law is declared by Major General William Devereux(played by Bruce Willis) which greatly alarms Hubbard, as his fellow agent, an Arab American(played by Tony Shalhoub) is rounded up with other suspects in an internment camp, while the CIA agent knows more than she's willing to tell about the terrorist cells responsible... Well-intentioned but overly preachy film forgoes dramatic storytelling in favor of speechifying, and result isn't particularly believable either, despite inevitable comparisons to the real-life horror of 9/11...
- AaronCapenBanner
- Dec 3, 2013
- Permalink
At first glance, The Siege looks to be a jingoistic, typically heroic American patriot film. But upon further review, and if you honestly give this movie a chance and listen to what it has to say, you'll see that it wants us to listen, it wants us to learn and it wants us to just look at the possibilities of " what if? ".
This is one of the best movies that I have seen in recent years and what kind of stumps me is the negative criticism surrounding the film, not just the complaint of racism ( I'll get into that later ) but about the film in general. And I have come to a conclusion that not everybody will agree with and certainly many will dislike.
The positive reviews that have been in the IMDb have been, at least a great many of them, from people that are nationalities other than American. And perhaps the reason for that is that we can sit back and look at the U.S. from afar and it may be easier for us ( as non Americans ) to understand more clearly what this movie is trying to say. And it may be easier for us ( whatever nationality we happen to be ) to understand what is wrong with America and why a film like this is just trying to give one possible reason for the decay of American society. That is not to say that our own countries don't have problems, because they do, but we can just see what is wrong with America a little easier, we are not blinded by our own patriotism. It may be easier still for perhaps Europeans to appreciate the movie even more than others because maybe their own countries have been under siege at one point or another. And maybe the relevance is that much more prevalent when you have been that close to something.
And what this movie has to say perhaps should not be taken lightly.
Steve Martin's character in " The Grand Canyon " uttered the line " watch the movies, they have all of life's answers. " Perhaps that has never been more true than what this film's message is. And I believe that message is that sooner or later if there is always going to be that one watch dog, that one Big Brother that is known as the United States, then something like this may happen. What if....
I truly believe this movie has been unfairly criticized about it's apparent racist tones. Every time there is a bombing by terrorists that are Arab in heritage, there is always a scene that follows where the Arab leagues lend their support and let the FBI know that they want these criminals brought to justice just as much as anyone does. " They love this country just as much as we do. " Denzel says in one of his speeches to the people in charge. Is it really racism when a movie tries to explore what could happen when one body of government takes matters in their own hands and breaks international law? To me every effort was made to show Arabs as normal, family loving, law abiding, peaceful citizens that they are. A bunch of Arab terrorists does not mean that all Arabs are fanatics that are bent on destroying America. That perception is like believing that all we as Canadians do is play hockey, drink beer and play in the snow.
The movie itself is so well acted and it is so well written that I really can't understand why Washington did not get a nod for best actor. He is mesmerizing. And I think his final confrontation with the general is tense, and brilliant.
Washington plays Hub, a very patriotic, by the book FBI agent that is personally affected by all the chaos that has ensued in his city, and he plays him brilliantly. Bening and Shaloub are also wonderful in their roles and the music in the film is haunting. Willis is a little weak in the film but that is minor in comparison to the rest of the movie.
If you haven't seen this film because of what you have heard, give it a chance, it is well worth it. And try to watch it and listen to what it has to say. You may be surprised. I'm not sure if something like this could ever happen to the US, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
This is one of the best movies that I have seen in recent years and what kind of stumps me is the negative criticism surrounding the film, not just the complaint of racism ( I'll get into that later ) but about the film in general. And I have come to a conclusion that not everybody will agree with and certainly many will dislike.
The positive reviews that have been in the IMDb have been, at least a great many of them, from people that are nationalities other than American. And perhaps the reason for that is that we can sit back and look at the U.S. from afar and it may be easier for us ( as non Americans ) to understand more clearly what this movie is trying to say. And it may be easier for us ( whatever nationality we happen to be ) to understand what is wrong with America and why a film like this is just trying to give one possible reason for the decay of American society. That is not to say that our own countries don't have problems, because they do, but we can just see what is wrong with America a little easier, we are not blinded by our own patriotism. It may be easier still for perhaps Europeans to appreciate the movie even more than others because maybe their own countries have been under siege at one point or another. And maybe the relevance is that much more prevalent when you have been that close to something.
And what this movie has to say perhaps should not be taken lightly.
Steve Martin's character in " The Grand Canyon " uttered the line " watch the movies, they have all of life's answers. " Perhaps that has never been more true than what this film's message is. And I believe that message is that sooner or later if there is always going to be that one watch dog, that one Big Brother that is known as the United States, then something like this may happen. What if....
I truly believe this movie has been unfairly criticized about it's apparent racist tones. Every time there is a bombing by terrorists that are Arab in heritage, there is always a scene that follows where the Arab leagues lend their support and let the FBI know that they want these criminals brought to justice just as much as anyone does. " They love this country just as much as we do. " Denzel says in one of his speeches to the people in charge. Is it really racism when a movie tries to explore what could happen when one body of government takes matters in their own hands and breaks international law? To me every effort was made to show Arabs as normal, family loving, law abiding, peaceful citizens that they are. A bunch of Arab terrorists does not mean that all Arabs are fanatics that are bent on destroying America. That perception is like believing that all we as Canadians do is play hockey, drink beer and play in the snow.
The movie itself is so well acted and it is so well written that I really can't understand why Washington did not get a nod for best actor. He is mesmerizing. And I think his final confrontation with the general is tense, and brilliant.
Washington plays Hub, a very patriotic, by the book FBI agent that is personally affected by all the chaos that has ensued in his city, and he plays him brilliantly. Bening and Shaloub are also wonderful in their roles and the music in the film is haunting. Willis is a little weak in the film but that is minor in comparison to the rest of the movie.
If you haven't seen this film because of what you have heard, give it a chance, it is well worth it. And try to watch it and listen to what it has to say. You may be surprised. I'm not sure if something like this could ever happen to the US, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
First of all, all the complaints directed to this movie vis a vis "anti-Arab prejudice" and "anti-Bill of Rights" are misguided. This movie was annoying in its repeated efforts to show us the evils of such prejudice, that 99% of Arabs or Muslims are fine people, and that Military takeovers and suspended Civil Rights are EVIL. OK, I GOT it already. The plot itself deteriorated as soon as the first "terrorist cell" was wiped - when all hell broke loose, and the Benning character became even more confusing. There were logical lapses too in events: how could two dozen machine-gun armed FBI agents just suddenly waltz through the doorway of the Army division HQ unbothered and untouched? Some of the actions of the division CO, Willis, were not something a two-star general (or even a major) would do. "The Siege" started very well, and unravelled in many ways: plot, character, and the writer's desperation to not be seen as "anti-Arab". It (unjustifiably) didn't work.
This was a very strange film. Strange, because it had so many of its facts right for 9/11. Right city, right jihadists, right plot.
And the military's answer to the terrorist threats? Go in, plunder, pillage, torture, abuse and kill the bad guys. Moral? If we stoop to their level, we are no better than the enemy. The real irony is, Denzel's character had the CHARACTER to do the right thing.
Oddly, and presciently, Bruce Willis' general was about to do all the wrong stuff, and with a little help from Denzel, decided not to resort to all the things we really have resorted to. This movie is notable for several reasons, but the uppermost is showing us the future we shouldn't take, but took anyway.
The irony is not lost. What is confounding here is how much of this originally semi-corny movie got right. Washington, Benning, Shaloub, and Willis, all deliver in a big fashion, with some pertinent warnings. The road not taken was the moral. How scary that in the long run, when presented by a much larger threat, we one-upped this movie's punch line in reality. How much stranger can you get than that?
This was a fairly realistic portrait of the underworld, the intrigue, the terrorism, and gave us a scary view of our future. Hopefully, next time a movie like this one comes along, we might be better served by taking it more seriously.
And the military's answer to the terrorist threats? Go in, plunder, pillage, torture, abuse and kill the bad guys. Moral? If we stoop to their level, we are no better than the enemy. The real irony is, Denzel's character had the CHARACTER to do the right thing.
Oddly, and presciently, Bruce Willis' general was about to do all the wrong stuff, and with a little help from Denzel, decided not to resort to all the things we really have resorted to. This movie is notable for several reasons, but the uppermost is showing us the future we shouldn't take, but took anyway.
The irony is not lost. What is confounding here is how much of this originally semi-corny movie got right. Washington, Benning, Shaloub, and Willis, all deliver in a big fashion, with some pertinent warnings. The road not taken was the moral. How scary that in the long run, when presented by a much larger threat, we one-upped this movie's punch line in reality. How much stranger can you get than that?
This was a fairly realistic portrait of the underworld, the intrigue, the terrorism, and gave us a scary view of our future. Hopefully, next time a movie like this one comes along, we might be better served by taking it more seriously.
Released in 1998, "The Siege" chronicles events as New York City becomes the target of escalating terrorist attacks after the abduction of an Islamic leader by the US military. The head of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Task Force (Denzel Washington) teams up with a CIA operative (Annette Benning) to hunt down the terrorist cells responsible for the attacks. Ultimately, the US government declares martial law and sends in the troops, led by General Devereaux (Bruce Willis). Tony Shalhoub plays the FBI agent's Arab-American partner while Sami Bouajila plays a seemingly suspicious Arab-American.
While clueless PC morons have criticized this movie as "racist propaganda" it dared to show the awful truth in the late 90s and was nigh prophetic in light of 9/11 occurring less than three years later. There are numerous noble Arab-Americans, and the movie emphasizes this, but – let's be honest – there are also Islamic whack-jobs in our midst who enjoy blowing themselves up with as many innocents as possible so they can go home to Allah and 72 virgins (or whatever).
I like the fact that General Devereaux (Willis) isn't a black or white character and viewers can have completely different views about whether or not he's actually a villain. The movie shows that he's a professional soldier who warns the governmental leaders exactly what would happen under martial Law, a suspension of all civilian rights guaranteed under the constitution, clearly cautioning them that they might not like the form of medicine martial law dishes out. But it's a desperate situation and they give him the go-ahead, so he offers up exactly what he said he would give. He has his methods to protect his country and performs them with conviction. The terrorists were killing masses of innocents and he's commissioned to stop it, which is what he does, PC or not. Does this make him evil? These are questions the movie provokes and you'll have to answer them for yourself.
This is a quality movie that frankly addresses relevant topics and tries to be fair and balanced, but it sorta shoots itself in the foot at the end. Read the spoiler commentary below for details.
The film runs 116 minutes and was shot in New York City with a couple scenes in California.
GRADE: B-
***SPOILER ALERT*** DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM
One of the main points of the movie is that it's wrong to mistreat Muslim-Americans by profiling them, rounding them up and subjecting them to investigation outside normal procedures because it's equivalent to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. There are two problems with this: (1.) It isn't the same issue. Interning the Japanese was wrong because the government was rounding them up based on their ETHNIC HERITAGE. The Feds would've interned German-Americans if they used the same logic. The issue with Muslim terrorism isn't ethnicity, but rather religion. Statistically, most terrorists against the US are Muslims of Middle Eastern descent. Therefore "profiling" them is simply acting in accord with statistics. That's just cold hard logic, not racism. By contrast, interning Japanese-Americans during WW2 wasn't logical.
(2.) More importantly, the movie undermines itself by having Samir turn out to be a radical suicide bomber. This revelation demonstrates that peaceful Muslims can't be trusted, just as the Army and their supporters believed (in the movie). There's no reason to assume that any of the rank-and-file Muslims depicted couldn't have turned out to be terrorists just like Samir. This being the case, the army was right to intern and interrogate them. As you can see, the movie takes a noble position and then inexplicably contradicts it.
While clueless PC morons have criticized this movie as "racist propaganda" it dared to show the awful truth in the late 90s and was nigh prophetic in light of 9/11 occurring less than three years later. There are numerous noble Arab-Americans, and the movie emphasizes this, but – let's be honest – there are also Islamic whack-jobs in our midst who enjoy blowing themselves up with as many innocents as possible so they can go home to Allah and 72 virgins (or whatever).
I like the fact that General Devereaux (Willis) isn't a black or white character and viewers can have completely different views about whether or not he's actually a villain. The movie shows that he's a professional soldier who warns the governmental leaders exactly what would happen under martial Law, a suspension of all civilian rights guaranteed under the constitution, clearly cautioning them that they might not like the form of medicine martial law dishes out. But it's a desperate situation and they give him the go-ahead, so he offers up exactly what he said he would give. He has his methods to protect his country and performs them with conviction. The terrorists were killing masses of innocents and he's commissioned to stop it, which is what he does, PC or not. Does this make him evil? These are questions the movie provokes and you'll have to answer them for yourself.
This is a quality movie that frankly addresses relevant topics and tries to be fair and balanced, but it sorta shoots itself in the foot at the end. Read the spoiler commentary below for details.
The film runs 116 minutes and was shot in New York City with a couple scenes in California.
GRADE: B-
***SPOILER ALERT*** DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM
One of the main points of the movie is that it's wrong to mistreat Muslim-Americans by profiling them, rounding them up and subjecting them to investigation outside normal procedures because it's equivalent to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. There are two problems with this: (1.) It isn't the same issue. Interning the Japanese was wrong because the government was rounding them up based on their ETHNIC HERITAGE. The Feds would've interned German-Americans if they used the same logic. The issue with Muslim terrorism isn't ethnicity, but rather religion. Statistically, most terrorists against the US are Muslims of Middle Eastern descent. Therefore "profiling" them is simply acting in accord with statistics. That's just cold hard logic, not racism. By contrast, interning Japanese-Americans during WW2 wasn't logical.
(2.) More importantly, the movie undermines itself by having Samir turn out to be a radical suicide bomber. This revelation demonstrates that peaceful Muslims can't be trusted, just as the Army and their supporters believed (in the movie). There's no reason to assume that any of the rank-and-file Muslims depicted couldn't have turned out to be terrorists just like Samir. This being the case, the army was right to intern and interrogate them. As you can see, the movie takes a noble position and then inexplicably contradicts it.
- craig-hopton
- Dec 1, 2015
- Permalink
- rmax304823
- Jun 16, 2006
- Permalink
Nobody who was at Ground Zero in Manhattan, or saw the horror unfolding on live television, can ever forget what happened on September 11, 2001. And in 2015, we saw sizable terror attacks of a decidedly different nature take place some ten thousand miles apart, first in three simultaneous attacks in Paris, and then on a rehabilitation center in San Bernardino, California, just sixty miles east of Los Angeles.
But a film released slightly less than three years before the horror of 9/11 may have foreseen the problems we have had to face since then in dealing with terrorism, both militarily and morally. That film was THE SIEGE, released in the fall of 1998.
Co-written and directed by Edward Zwick, whose films include the 1989 Civil War epic GLORY, the 1996 Gulf War film COURAGE UNDER FIRE, and the very chilling 1983 TV film SPECIAL BULLETIN, THE SIEGE depicts the various terrorist attacks leveled upon the Big Apple after the CIA abducts a fundamentalist religious leader (Ahmed Ben Larby). The attackers are followers of this radical Islamist sheik, and unfortunately their tactics have the hallmarks of the CIA all over them, something that becomes all too clear when FBI counter-terrorism agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) meets up with CIA agent Elsie Kraft, nee Sharon Bridger (Annette Benning), and they try, without a whole lot of success, to catch the perpetrators. But there is much worse to come; as the attacks keep happening, the United States military, under the command of the staunch general William Deveraux (Bruce Willis), takes charge and hunts down virtually anyone in NYC who just might look like a terrorist (i.e., anyone of Arab/Islamic extraction), even if that happens to include Washington's FBI partner (Tony Shaloub). Even though Willis implores the Congress at the start of the onslaught not to use the Army as a police force, when push comes to shove, that's what he does on his own and, much to Washington's own personal horror, becomes nothing if not Napoleonic in the worst sense of the word in threatening to kill and torture anyone he personally thinks is a terrorist. Thus, the siege of THE SIEGE isn't the terrorist attacks themselves, but the conflict between Willis and Washington, something made manifestly clear near the end as Willis is about to torture a suspect (Amro Salama), and Washington tells him in no uncertain terms: "If we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!" THE SIEGE was, at its time, a fairly controversial film, less for its depiction of terrorism and violence than for what many Americans of Muslim and Arabic origin saw as perpetrating a dangerous stereotype of them, a stereotype that they had every right to rail against then, and do even more so in the wake of Paris and San Bernardino. That being said, however, the film does show what history should have told us: that overseas covert or military actions carried out years or decades in the past can result in the kind of nightmarish blowback seen here on screen, or for real in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 9/11. And when martial law is declared in what we like to call our Land of the Free, as happens in this film, then terror can win out, as it almost does even after the attacks themselves stop.
Zwick gets plenty of action and tension out of the situation in THE SIEGE, less of a Schwarzenneger free-for-all or even a DIE HARD-type thing (Willis' presence aside) than something more akin to the 1977 John Frankenheimer classic BLACK Sunday; and Washington's Everyman-type FBI agent and Willis' hard-assed general are perfect antagonists. THE SIEGE might have been seen as an 'R'-rated popcorn flick in 1998, but now it is something a bit more in light of the last decade and a half of events, both national and international.
But a film released slightly less than three years before the horror of 9/11 may have foreseen the problems we have had to face since then in dealing with terrorism, both militarily and morally. That film was THE SIEGE, released in the fall of 1998.
Co-written and directed by Edward Zwick, whose films include the 1989 Civil War epic GLORY, the 1996 Gulf War film COURAGE UNDER FIRE, and the very chilling 1983 TV film SPECIAL BULLETIN, THE SIEGE depicts the various terrorist attacks leveled upon the Big Apple after the CIA abducts a fundamentalist religious leader (Ahmed Ben Larby). The attackers are followers of this radical Islamist sheik, and unfortunately their tactics have the hallmarks of the CIA all over them, something that becomes all too clear when FBI counter-terrorism agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) meets up with CIA agent Elsie Kraft, nee Sharon Bridger (Annette Benning), and they try, without a whole lot of success, to catch the perpetrators. But there is much worse to come; as the attacks keep happening, the United States military, under the command of the staunch general William Deveraux (Bruce Willis), takes charge and hunts down virtually anyone in NYC who just might look like a terrorist (i.e., anyone of Arab/Islamic extraction), even if that happens to include Washington's FBI partner (Tony Shaloub). Even though Willis implores the Congress at the start of the onslaught not to use the Army as a police force, when push comes to shove, that's what he does on his own and, much to Washington's own personal horror, becomes nothing if not Napoleonic in the worst sense of the word in threatening to kill and torture anyone he personally thinks is a terrorist. Thus, the siege of THE SIEGE isn't the terrorist attacks themselves, but the conflict between Willis and Washington, something made manifestly clear near the end as Willis is about to torture a suspect (Amro Salama), and Washington tells him in no uncertain terms: "If we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!" THE SIEGE was, at its time, a fairly controversial film, less for its depiction of terrorism and violence than for what many Americans of Muslim and Arabic origin saw as perpetrating a dangerous stereotype of them, a stereotype that they had every right to rail against then, and do even more so in the wake of Paris and San Bernardino. That being said, however, the film does show what history should have told us: that overseas covert or military actions carried out years or decades in the past can result in the kind of nightmarish blowback seen here on screen, or for real in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 9/11. And when martial law is declared in what we like to call our Land of the Free, as happens in this film, then terror can win out, as it almost does even after the attacks themselves stop.
Zwick gets plenty of action and tension out of the situation in THE SIEGE, less of a Schwarzenneger free-for-all or even a DIE HARD-type thing (Willis' presence aside) than something more akin to the 1977 John Frankenheimer classic BLACK Sunday; and Washington's Everyman-type FBI agent and Willis' hard-assed general are perfect antagonists. THE SIEGE might have been seen as an 'R'-rated popcorn flick in 1998, but now it is something a bit more in light of the last decade and a half of events, both national and international.
When you're watching a film describing an act as "the worst since Columbine" you know it's pre-9/11. And that's what makes "The Siege" even more interesting than it might have been, because in its way, it foretells, three years in advance, what this country would be facing.
In the scenario of The Siege, New York City is a target of various terrorist attacks on buses and in theaters, with bombs going off everywhere. FBI Special Agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) and his Lebanese-American partner Frank Haddad (Tony Shalhoub) are on the case, and when a suspected terrorist, Sheikh Ahmed bin Talal is captured, terrorists warn that he must be released.
A CIA officer comes on the scene, Elise Kraft (Annette Bening), with whom Hubbard comes into conflict. The terrorist incidents escalate.
The President declares martial law and an Airborne division under a man named Devereaux (Bruce Willis) seals off Brooklyn as he tries to find the remaining terrorist cells. All young males of Arab descent, which includes Haddad's son Frank Jr. are detained in Yankee Stadium. There are violent demonstrations against the army that are met with violence from the army.
Pretty terrifying, with the empty streets, racial profiling, sanctioned torture, and people staying home all too reminiscent of 9/11. The film takes the WW II scenario of rounding up the Japanese and putting them in places like Manzanar.
All this is the way we clearly could have gone. There is some mention of noncommunication between departments, which was discovered to be a big problem in 9/11.
Washington, Bening, and Shalhoub are excellent in their roles. Their frustrations are palpable as is their desperation.
A cautionary tale, but prescient at the same time.
In the scenario of The Siege, New York City is a target of various terrorist attacks on buses and in theaters, with bombs going off everywhere. FBI Special Agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) and his Lebanese-American partner Frank Haddad (Tony Shalhoub) are on the case, and when a suspected terrorist, Sheikh Ahmed bin Talal is captured, terrorists warn that he must be released.
A CIA officer comes on the scene, Elise Kraft (Annette Bening), with whom Hubbard comes into conflict. The terrorist incidents escalate.
The President declares martial law and an Airborne division under a man named Devereaux (Bruce Willis) seals off Brooklyn as he tries to find the remaining terrorist cells. All young males of Arab descent, which includes Haddad's son Frank Jr. are detained in Yankee Stadium. There are violent demonstrations against the army that are met with violence from the army.
Pretty terrifying, with the empty streets, racial profiling, sanctioned torture, and people staying home all too reminiscent of 9/11. The film takes the WW II scenario of rounding up the Japanese and putting them in places like Manzanar.
All this is the way we clearly could have gone. There is some mention of noncommunication between departments, which was discovered to be a big problem in 9/11.
Washington, Bening, and Shalhoub are excellent in their roles. Their frustrations are palpable as is their desperation.
A cautionary tale, but prescient at the same time.
This is a really good movie. When watched today by those born from the late 90s onward it might seem unremarkable, but considering when it was made it is almost prophetic of what we see today with Muslim extremists the world over. Denzel Washington is his usual brilliant self but all the other cast are also really good. Annette Bening is the best I have ever seen her and I hope this is a movie she is proud of because she carries her part really well. Apparently this movie did badly at the box office but really well on DVD. This is most likely due to political correctness that began to take hold around the time of the movies release.
Over all this is a really good thriller.
Over all this is a really good thriller.
- nicholls_les
- Jul 5, 2017
- Permalink
The Siege is not a badly-made movie, but the whole premise it's based on falls apart about two-thirds of the way through. There's a big disconnect between a rash of terrorist bombings in New York and an Army takeover of the city. I just didn't find it believable that a US president would allow the military to take over the largest US city, discarding all pretenses of constitutional rights within 24 hours, for the sole purpose of finding 20 suspected terrorists. This is something the FBI could accomplish much more effectively, and without shutting down a whole city. In fact, the Denzel Washington character correctly points out that the Army's round-em-all-up methods will only make the job of finding the terrorists that much harder. What does the Army really know about surveillance and investigating terrorists, anyway? This is what FBI agents are trained for, and the movie itself seems to be leading in that direction until the Army is abruptly thrust on the scene. Once again, Hollywood has taken a rather simplistic, and often erroneous, view of the US government for the sake of "shocking" us about its seemingly omnipotent powers. If Hollywood really wanted to raise red flags about federal intrusions on the freedoms of Americans, they should make a movie solely about the powers of the FBI itself or the IRS. Stirring a bunch of claptrap about the CIA, NSC and the Army into a movie like this just doesn't hold water.
The flawed premise of The Siege aside, it is watchable and fairly entertaining, at least for the first two acts. There is some real tension in the early bus explosion scene. Annette Bening is captivating to watch, and is fortunately spared the lame dialogue that Washington and Willis must utter later on. The Siege does raise important questions about how far we as a society should go in infringing on personal freedoms for the sake of ensuring personal safety. I would recommend it on that basis.
The flawed premise of The Siege aside, it is watchable and fairly entertaining, at least for the first two acts. There is some real tension in the early bus explosion scene. Annette Bening is captivating to watch, and is fortunately spared the lame dialogue that Washington and Willis must utter later on. The Siege does raise important questions about how far we as a society should go in infringing on personal freedoms for the sake of ensuring personal safety. I would recommend it on that basis.
The time? Apparently, the present. The place, a major metropolitan city in the Eastern section of the United States. The situation? A possible terrorist plot which threatens the city and it's populace. Up against this ominous threat, two seemingly benign official entities of the government pit themselves first against the enemy, then against one another to ferret out and defeat the looming threat. At first, things go well enough, but soon, the two arms of the government square off against each other. If one believe the movie, then one accepts the premise, that Denzel Washington as a police officer could go up against a standing army led by Anthony Hubbard (Bruce Willis) as Major General William Devereaux. Unable to stop the imminent threat by conventional means, Martial Law is declared. This leads eventually to a personal confrontation between the cop and the general, In the end, if one believes the fanciful outcome, the general with his great army and legitimate powers is trumped by the one police officer. **
- thinker1691
- Jun 5, 2006
- Permalink