Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

sddavis63 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)

inspectors71 What in the wide world of sports is wrong with Hollywood? Can they not wreck a great concept, a thoughtful theme, a movie for grownups?Ah, I know the answer already.I'm really enjoying Edward Zwick's The Siege, a pre-9/11 examination of what Bruce Willis' character calls "the corrosive nature of martial law." Terrorist acts are beginning to rip at the fabric of American life, and the temptation to lock down the Muslim population in Brooklyn simply becomes unbearable. Denzel Washington plays, well, Denzel Washington, Annette Bening looks great in one casually stylish outfit after another, Tony Shaloub makes a flesh-and-blood sidekick, and Bruce Willis is the US Army general officer, with the President's ear, who warns and warns against using a "broad sword, not a scalpel" in rooting out terror cells in New York. All the characters, goodies or baddies, whether clichéd or not, are interesting, but it's Willis who adds the spice to the stew by being cold, dangerous, and right in imploring an executive council to not use martial law as a way of restoring order.And, of course, Hollywood has to lift up the movie's tail and screw the pooch.So that we can have a deep discussion about civil liberties and whether or not, as Lincoln put it, "the Constitution should not be considered a 'suicide pact'," we have three quarters of an above- average action movie. Then, instead of portraying Willis' character as a man who follows orders he finds legal but repugnant, General Devereaux becomes General Jack D. Ripper, torturing and shooting and self-righteously enjoying every minute of it!Kee-ripe's sake, why ruin the most important person in the movie? Why make it a clichéd the-army-is-eevil skreed? Of course, if you don't care, and you just want to see a pretty good movie (with a piddle-poor resolution), have at it! For me, I want to start waterboarding some screenwriters.

RealLiveClaude I understood at first this movie bombed, it was an improbability that the United States would be attacked with all its security measures to protect the population...In this post 9/11 era, now it sounds eerie and terrifying...The FBI and the Army clashed on how to stop multiple attacks done by some terrorist cells, Muslim-related, all due to some secret black-ops by the CIA, and backed blindly by an Army General...Good acting by Denzel Washington, Tony Schaloub mostly. Annette Bening does a good job as the confused CIA agent and we would never knew Bruce Willis, in his turn as tough-as-nails General Devereaux, would be as well turn up to be a bad guy in a democracy turned into martial law and send thousands of innocent Arab citizens just to find some dangerous terrorists...Good movie to make you think... And was shot less than 4 years before the Twin Towers fell down... Of course, they're there on this movie...

joeavalon "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin, 1755 (paraphrase)I remember when I first saw the trailer for this movie in the theater. I was immediately really excited, as I had a sense of what the movie was going for - a warning of what could happen in our free country under the right conditions. I applauded this because it is a lesson that was extremely important but not well understood in 1998.When I finally saw the movie I was not disappointed. The issue of Muslim extremism was handled very well. While some Arab-Americans may have felt offended by this I think the viewers understood that this was a tiny percentage of the Muslim community, and it was better for them to recognize this in order to distance themselves from the extremist.However, the real issue and prophetic warning of this movie was not about Muslim extremism at all, but about how our citizens were capable of going collectively insane over a tragedy and throwing away our freedoms in the name of safety, and the tragic consequences of such a short-sited decision. Bruce Willis was exceptional in this as he truly warned everyone of the consequences and was reluctant to accept."The Siege" became all the more important and frighteningly prophetic after the events of 9/11. The U.S. did go collectively insane, and our fears were exploited to serve neoconservative special interest that we never would have agreed to otherwise. I hope interest in this movie is renewed for this all important warning for the future."Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana, 1905 (paraphrase)