SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Did you people see the same film I saw?

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

I have to say that, to me, there's an almost prophetic feel to this movie, looked at 20 years after it was made. The story is fairly simple. As it opens, the US military captures the leader of a terrorist group in the Middle East. In response, cells of the terrorist group begin a series of random attacks on New York City to try to win his release. We then follow the FBI, the CIA and the military (portrayed basically by Denzel Washington and Tony Shalhoub, Annette Bening and Bruce Willis respectively) as they try to identify the various cells and regain control of the situation. That's the story. It's straightforward in some ways (and, at times, I also found it a bit confusing.) The performances by those four were pretty good - although I thought Willis wasn't really given enough to do. As far as story goes, it's a decent movie, but no more than that. But after it ended and I thought about it, I started to make some connections with the world of today.First, and important, is that this movie was made three years before the 911 attacks on the World Trade Centre. The movie seems to be based on the premise that it would take a series of terrorist attacks to throw New York City into chaos. As we now know, all it took was one (admittedly massive) attack on September 11, 2001. But, that aside, that's where I started to see this as almost prophetic.Second, the movie portrays a complete lack of communication and a very competitive relationship between the various organs of the US government: the aforementioned FBI, CIA and military. They don't co-operate, and they often seem actually to be in a sort of competition with each other, keeping secrets from each other so that, often, the right hand didn't seem to know what the left hand was doing. Again, from 911, we know that this portrayal turned out not to be that far off the mark.Third, in the movie the ultimate response of the US government is to declare martial law and to send troops on to the streets of New York City. The rights of citizens were ignored. People became suspects because of their race or religion. Hateful comments started to fill the airwaves. Well, in the aftermath of 911 it's true that no one declared martial law. However, the US government has certainly curtailed rights through what was innocuously named the "Patriot Act," police forces seemed to become more militarized, and hatred toward various identifiable groups (especially Muslims) has taken hold of a lot of people. So, again, the movie was a bit too extreme in its portrayal of martial law, but not really that far off the mark.So, while I may not have thought that "The Siege" was any better than decent, I did find it something that caused me to do some reflection on the current state of the world. That raised it in my estimation. (8/10)

This film tells of a wave of terrorist attacks in New York provoked by Muslim terrorists. It debuted in 1998, but it could almost have been done yesterday, as current and pertinent as it is. The script mixes politics, military secrecy and terrorism, themes sinisterly close to our reality. I liked the way the film criticizes US because much of what is said in the film seems to resonate with what we have seen lately in the last twenty years. Terrorism is no longer a thing of some countries or regions: as in the movie, it can happen in our city and we have to live with it. As noted in the film, CIA made blunders in Middle East, which the world is now paying the bill. And the behavior of American military in the film doesn't lead us remember Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo? Everything in this film is sinisterly current. Another thing I liked: here almost there are no heroes. We all have our ghosts, gray areas, and sins to atone. The notion of "good guy" and "bad guy" is no longer valid in this film. Problems? The lack of reason for the terrorist attacks. There are fanatics blowing up bombs, but why? This could have been well explored, as it certainly would have been had the film been more recent.Actors do an OK job for most of the time, though none of them have actually been excellent. Denzel Washington has the most central character and is closest to the image of the good guy, but is a character too simple and flat. Annette Bening has the most psychologically intense and complex character, deserving applause for the way she did it, but ends up losing her brilliance by the way the film ends. Bruce Willis is the villain, in an open criticism of the American military's authoritarianism, but is a character so little explored and poorly developed that it looks like a caricature.The film was thought of as a thriller, and we actually feel the tension growing, but the ending is disappointing and predictable. There remain good political criticisms, although relatively lightly, and the sinister parallels of topicality I have mentioned.

The Siege (1998): Dir: Edward Zwick / Cast: Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Bruce Willis, Tony Shalhoub, Aasif Mandvi: Action film not so much about the tragedy at hand but about the siege of the victims. After a series of terrorist bombings in New York, an F.B.I. Agent, played by Denzel Washington investigates. He arrests a mysterious agent played by Annette Bening who may or may not be helping the guilty. Soon a General moves his troops in and orders that all Arab Americans be fenced in and individually tortured for information. This angers Washington's partner played by Tony Shalhoub whose own son is mistreated. Interesting setup deteriorates into a series of recycled scenes that seem to have materialized from other films. Directed by Edward Zwick who previously worked with Washington in Courage Under Fire, where he delivers another great performance. Zwick is effective at presenting action but his cast are mostly at odds with the material. Washington holds his own but Bening steals the film in her rebellion. The big disappointment is Bruce Willis as the General who is hardly convincing. He barks orders and looks intimidating while reminding viewers that he was even worse in Armageddon the same year. Shalhoub fares well as Washington's partner. The big payoff will seize mainly action lovers. Score: 5 ½ / 10

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.