The Siege (1998)

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

Fmovies: Warning: Contains minor plot spoilage

When I first watched the movie a year or so ago, the first thing that really caught my attention in the beginning of the movie was the first explosion. There was no ludicrous running from the explosion like you see in most action movies. Washington's character blinked because of the explosion flash and then was thrown on his tail by the force of the detonation. Because he was facing the explosion he received a bloody noise from the air concussion (before even hitting the ground), and he couldn't hear after the explosion. They also showed him in shock right after the explosion. The impact of the explosion on inanimate objects was also more accurate. You could clearly see the inverse falling off effect of distance from the explosion.

Glass shattering was shown in slow motion at the same slow mention speed as the fireball moving in the background. These are details of things that happen in real life that I haven't seen in any other movie, action or otherwise. And that was a very small thing about the movie that impressed me.

I think the story line is extremely plausible and appropriately complex (which I thought before 9/11). The analysis of the culture of the terrorists was very accurate compared to most movies dealing with the topic. The terrorists weren't demonized and their motives were examined and explained in a well balanced way.

I think Bruce Willis does the movie a disservice, although it is his history of action and mediocre characters that hurts the movie, not his actual acting in the movie. The complexity of his character is interesting. The movie leaves it up to interpretation whether General Devereaux is really reluctant to impose martial law on New York, or whether he just tells the congressional committee what they want to hear in order to get himself in. Devereaux is definitely the "bad guy" in the movie, but not because he is portrayed as the nexus of evil, but because his world-view allows him to rationalize actions that are un-American.

One of the biggest criticisms that I have seen of the movie is that the end of the movie is not believable because of the martial law that is imposed on New York City. But if two or three more significant attacks happen to New York City, I won't be surprised at all if martial law is declared there.

I always thought the movie was excellent, but with the events in recent days, the impact of the movie has definitely ratcheted up a few notches.

I seem to remember that this film was looked down upon by the Arab Americans. I don't understand that considering the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and some of the perpetrators who were eventually apprehended. My husband and I found The Siege frighteningly entertaining. Once more Denzel Washington gave a tour-de-force performance. The rest of the cast was excellent. The script was prophetic. The writer understood what might happen if the war on terror resided in New York City. Where is Lawrence Wright now?

The Siege fmovies. 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.

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.

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.