Nova York Sitiada

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.

The movie won't get any nomination or prize, but it's worth seeing if you want to meditate about a time when US talked about the 'Greatest Terrorist Attack in America' only in a movie.

The first time I saw this movie I really got immersed into the plot, it was a great drama displaying the deployment of Army forces to protect the US integrity versus the struggle of the reason and the law to protect it's citizens rights... evidently the Arab-Americans would be angry about the stereotypes displayed, but also the Hispanic have been portrayed at Hollywood with the same old stereotypes thousands of times (which BTW it's boring), anyway, at the end it's all for the show and to make the movie believable... however it was ALL fiction.

But in the morning of Sept 11, 2001. The first thought that came to my mind (yet in disbelief), as I saw on CNN, planes falling all over NYC and in DC, was.. 'that' movie!

Days after the WTC Attack I saw this movie again and obviously (to my regret) I found many new things to meditate about, this movie makes an interesting remark about what almost every US government have done at least one time, the so called 'shift of policy', and this is the key to the whole mess (in the movie and in real life), US government can't pretend to look after some 'groups, organizations or people' when they are useful to their interest and when they no longer need them just dispose then like trash, remember, 'what goes around, comes around...', sure, I totally condemn terrorism, but as we can learn from the movie, this kind of behavior gives birth to extreme hate and enemies, and this is (or was) NO fiction.

You can't develop relations on a double moral standard, like the character played by Bening, sooner or later the price has to be paid, so, it's better to stand beside those who help you always, not only for pure convenience, because no one wants a 'friend' like that, right? This can be the great moral of the movie.

Be honest, construct relations on loyalty, learn to be tolerant, please stop thinking that US is the world, and tear down to the stereotypes, but mainly, be humble!

Personally I think it's a great movie that sadly portrays some similar events that a few years later (2001) became real, one can't be blame if at one point it's mistakenly thinking that this movie was an inspiration to the WTC Attacks.

Mr. Denzel Washington's (FBI Agent Anthony 'Hub' Hubbard) performance is powerful (as usual), the rest of the supporting cast did a good job too, Annette Bening's (Elise Kraft/Sharon Bridger) seems a little 'old' for the role but does an excellent job though.

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 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."

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?