Sami Movie Reviews

Claude Sautet is one of the lesser known French directors in the United States, but he made a number of wonderful dramas about romantic relationships that are hard to find on DVD (two of his last films found an audience in the U.S.--Un Coeur en Hiver and Nelly and Monsieur Arnaud). Cesar and Rosalie is one of his best with memorable performances by Yves Montand, Sami Frey, and the extraordinary Romy Schneider. The love triangle in this film is unpredicatable and touching. Another Sautet film that should be released is Vincent Francois Paul and the Others, which is a melancholy ode to love and friendship.

That's indicative, I guess, of the overwhelming popularity of Claude Sautet's *Cesar and Rosalie*. No matter -- it's still one of the most plausible "love-triangle" movies ever made. There are many reasons for this, starting with Sautet's refusal to be just another New Wave-wannabe. A good plan, considering that by 1972 the movement had run its natural course, anyway. There are no jump-cuts here; no socio-political commentary; no stylistic flourishes. Although *Cesar and Rosalie* ranks as an "auteur" film, technically speaking (i.e., by its virtue of being written and directed by one man), the director makes a big point of not investing it with "personality" or trademark tics which we can point to. With this film, Sautet announced his ongoing obsession with the unsatisfied bourgeoisie, an obsession that typically manifested itself in the form of a May-December romance. This movie is no different: here we have Yves Montand as a middle-aged wealthy dealer in car parts, and the lovely Romy Schneider as his live-in partner. Schneider's Rosalie is a free spirit in the Sixties vein, but she's no ingenue: she's been around the block a time or two. Around 30, she has a young daughter from a previous marriage, and is confident enough to be of some considerable help to Montand's Cesar with his auto business. She's wise enough to not put up with Cesar's fussy nonsense. Enter David (well-played by Sami Frey), an old flame -- though NOT the father of her kid -- who is determined to win her back. With this fairly predictable set-up, Sautet proceeds to frustrate our expectations and surprise us at almost every turn, making for an engrossing viewing experience. All three of the principles are excellent. Schneider was always at her best in Sautet's films. . . . Yves Montand delivers what may be the performance of his life in the role of manic, joyful, and dangerously belligerent Cesar. . . . Sami Frey as the Other Man is of course the opposite of Cesar: thoughtful, younger, rather ineffectual, and just plain quiet. The movie doesn't take sides, either. Each man's faults and virtues -- to say nothing of Rosalie's faults and virtues -- are meticulously laid-out in an egalitarian display.

This is truly the best Israeli film there ever was (and probably ever will be...). It follows a gang of Arab terrorists in Lebanon, 1982, who capture an Israeli slodier. It doesn't take long for the Arab group and the Jewish Soldier to find that they're really not that different from one another: They're all people, they're all getting pretty sick of the war, they're all abslutely sure they're right, and they all like the same socker team. It is a beautiful film! Moshe Ivgi is very good as Cohen, the Israeli soldier, but the one who really steals the show is the brilliant Muhamad Bakri as Ziad, the leader of the captures. the dinamic between the two of them is amazing! Once you've watched the film , you will surly look at things differently!

Jean-Luc Godard is perhaps best known as the most influential of the French New Wave filmmakers. Themes of social realism were wedded to a naturalistic, seemingly spontaneous, hand-held cinematography with jump cuts and an intimate documentary style.

1964's BAND OF OUTSIDERS has been described by Godard as "Alice in Wonderland meets Franz Kafka." This sentimental, noirish story is about a gullible woman who takes up with couple of would-be bad guys in an ill-fated effort to rob her own home of her aunt's fortune. (The primary relationship in the story may have been the inspiration behind the recent, overlooked and very funny, Bandits.)

Band of Outsiders is weirdly joyous and always surprising with a sense of romantic doom that recalls his most famous gangster romance, Breathless (A Bout de Souffle, 1959).

This is a CLASSIC that should be owned by EVERY person who owns a DVD player. But that is not going to happen any time soon. Godard$B!G(Bs greatest movie comes back to life better than ever through the Criterion Collection, with possibly their best package.
Lots of extras are incredibly insightful, including the booklet (a feature that many studios do not think of as a $B!F(Bsupplement$B!G(B). Godard and everyone else that worked on this movie should be proud the way this has been preserved for future generations. This IS Nouvelle Vague, a movie that reinvented the medium, but lost in the shuffle over the years.
And with an incredibly low list price for a Criterion release, this DVD should not stay on store shelves. If you buy or rent it, you will love it. Guaranteed

If there are any films that offer a wonderful sense of love for the cinema, they are the films of Jean-Luc Godard. But, as he explains in a brief interview from 1964 that is included with this fine DVD, he was also against film; that is, against the conventions and rules that predominated French cinema. So he introduced unconventional methods of telling stories and making movies and decided to include elements that films typically left out. "Band of Outsiders" is a playful, unconventional, mesmerizing tale of small-time gangsters and young love set in 1960s Paris. Its source material runs the gamut from the pulp crime novel on which it is based to the American B-movies and film noir that inspired its look. It's Godard's best love letter to Paris since "Breathless," and also one of the last of his true New Wave films.

The story might be simple enough: Arthur and Franz enlist the help of the young, beautiful Odile to stage a robbery. But if the story is simple, everything else around it is not. Here we find allusions and homages to Arthur Rimbaud (the poet whom one of the characters is named after), Franz Kafka, film composer Michel Legrand, "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg," T.S. Eliot, Shakespeare, American cartoons, Jack London, Charlie Chaplin, Andre Breton, Andre Malraux, and numerous others. That's Godard doing his thing, and even if we miss those allusions, there's so much more to be cherished: the famous minute of silence, the running visit through the Louvre, the dance scene, the glorious closeups of Anna Karina, riding on the underground metro, the trio driving through the streets of Paris.

"Band of Outsiders" is playful, wondrous, hilarious, breezy, but at the same time melancholic, dark in its undertones. Raoul Coutard's photography gives it a stark look, but its playfulness is its most alluring aspect, along with Godard's wonderfully appealing, inventive visual language. It might not be the finest example of the French New Wave, nor is it as perfect as a work of art as "Breathless" and "My Life to Live," but in its flaunting of cinematic invention, its richness, and its embodiment of pure cinema, it's in a class by itself and certainly a film that should be seen, if not owned, by lovers of cinema. Its most memorable moments will remain in your mind forever.

Many Godard fans, myself included, have been waiting eagerly for this Criterion edition of "Band of Outsiders." It's a remarkable digital transfer; the images and contrasts are crisp; the mono soundtrack is as clear as possible. The additional features are worth the price of the DVD alone, including a visual glossary that explains many of the film's allusions and a brief interview in which Godard explains the philosophy behind the New Wave. Criterion has really outdone itself with this disc, and that's saying something.

I recommend that, even if you do not know French, you should watch this film at least once with the subtitles off since they sometimes obscure the closeups that make this film so memorable. When the camera is on Anna Karina's face, believe me when I say you don't want anything to stand in its way.

It's odd, I know, to call a film charming when its focus is about a woman's two hours of waiting before finding out if she has cancer. But "Cleo" isn't a sad story about cancer, really. It's a charming story about how to live your life somewhere between the superficial and profound when something alarming happens.

Cleo's a pop singer. She sings light ditties that get French radio play. She spends her time shopping for hats, hanging out in cafes, carrying on meaningless-if-romantic affairs with songwriters. She's beautiful. She's fashionable. On the surface, she looks like she's having a good time. And she usually is.

This movie's about what she did in the two hours before receiving her prognosis from her doctor. Should she just go on and live life as if nothing's come along to trouble her? If she chooses to, how does she go about confronting her own mortality?

Corinne Marchand, as Cleo, chooses both paths for her. As she wanders the streets of Paris, she plays Cleo as though she's unable to decide whether to be happy-go-lucky. Thus, the lush, beautiful film by Agnes Varda is both light and resonant, fun and meaningful.

It's like an "Amelie" that will make you cry as well as laugh.

Done in a style predating the French New Wave, it manages to be about how to go shopping when you may be about to die.

And the Criterion release is just great.

totally engrosses the viewer to live the 2 hours that Cleo lives. Varda sets divided then sets up the chapters of the film into atmospheres that reveal so mouch more about our lead chararacter. I have had the distinct pleasure of seeing this film on the big screen and was awestruck afterward. The film continues to amaze me in the effect it can have in drawing you into Cleo's world. You are drawn in and watch as she makes her own personal revolution. Beautiul cinematography, wonderfully spare musical score, and great composition of scenes.

In my view, Agnes Varda, with the possible exception of Alain Resnais, is the most underrated French New Wave director. While not as visible a presence as either Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol or Rivette, her style was no less innovative and influential. Whereas Jules and Jim, 400 Blows, and Breathless all rank in the top 1000 on ... sales list, CLEO FROM 5 to 7 ranks #4029. Even Godard's VIVRE SA VIE ranks #3410. If you appreciate the films of Godard and Truffaut, there is no excuse for not adding Varda's masterpiece to your collection. CLEO is an absorbing character study told in real time, accompanied by a superb Michel Legrande score. Thus, I must respectfully disagree with the reviewer who, in good faith, described this film as neither "difficult" nor "intellectual." Perhaps, it is not as self-reflexive as other New Wave films, but its visual poetry is equally challenging. Likewise, I think CLEO is very different in tone from Demy's LOLA or LES BONNES FEMMES, which for me is what distguishes Varda's film from the countless other pictures made in the 60's that follow beautiful French actresses around Paris. It is serious, yet light (not in the sense of superficial), and the delicate balance the film mantains between these two tones is reflective of Varda's main virtue as a filmmaker, and what distinguishes this film from LOLA, et cetera. Varda's style is playful, without being overly inronic as I often find Godard, and warm, without falling into melodrama. Please do not mininterpret these remarks: I love all the films listed above. And yet I think CLEO FROM 5 to 7 possesses numerous virtues that make it not just another film of the French New Wave. Also, it is refreshing to hear a female voice in cinema. As as always, the Critrion transfer is superb.

What do you know, another treasurechest of a movie. Its funny how I found it, staying in a winter chateau. Black Widow was buried on a shelf of books and other movies for the traveler. So I popped it in at 2 a.m. and was taken into this world, like having fallen into a magic drain pipe. Not many people have heard of Debra Winger's co-star, but Theresa Russell proves, like in The Razor's Edge, with the appearance of the right script, her character will stand on the edge looking down, then she's your woman. Winger had the movie ripped from her mouth in a scene at a Hawaian party. She told Russell she was on to her husband-killing game and presented her with a gift-jewel widow. R's retort: "She kills, but can she love." Cornered she grabs Winger and kisses her on the lips- a little improve?..oh yea, definitely. The plot is fairly simple: Russell crawls under the richmans door and into his fortune with her eyes closed, counts the money and executes whistle-clean homicide. Winger then leaves her FBI office to a field chase; she is sexy as hell after breaking her menagerie, you know, her new haircut. Pure escapism. The gambler wants action, not money. D.W. and I know this.

I caught this movie on HBO in 1988-15 years later, I can still sit through it from beginning to end with out being the least bored. It is one of my favorite great movies that few people seem to know about.
Debra Winger is perfect as feisty Government agent, Alex, who notices a pattern and sets out to find the Black Widow-Theresa Russell, who reminds me a lot of Kathleen Turner in "Body Heat".
I would like to see more of her movies, as her portrayal of the woman Alex hunts down, is complex and compelling.
There are enough twists and turns to always keep your attention, and as other reviewers note, the scenery is spectacular.
The peripheral actors are well cast, and you find yourself caring about every one in the movie...and wondering what makes the Black Widow tick.

You can just about forget everyone else in this film other than Debra Winger and Theresa Russell. This sexy film is basically a two person film noir shot in bright colors, some of it in Hawaii. It is filled with excitement and seduction. Both the leads are wonderful to watch, their chemistry magnificent in this Bob Rafelson (Man Trouble, Five Easy Pieces) film.

Debra Winger is 'Alex' Barnes, bogged down in a government desk job dealing with statistics. But when she sees a pattern of deaths that lead to the icy beauty Theresa Russell she becomes obsessed with catching a killer. Theresa Russell, who has used more names than Jason Bourne, is just as smart as she is sexy, and almost the entire film is one long seduction scene as Russell spins her web around Alex.

It seems a lot of rich men have suddenly died on Russell and Alex knows why. She is what is called a "Black Widow", a woman who mates and then kills. No one has found any evidence to prove it however, and Alex's attempts to catch her at it becomes murky as a seduction begins to take place.

The locations and the stars are beautiful and as Winger and Russell circle each other in this game with deadly stakes you can't take your eyes off them. Winger's Alex is smart and determined but vulnerable and Russell gives a flawless and sexy performance as a smart and icy beauty with a heart full of venom.

The electricity between the two characters jumps off the screen. The pool scene where they first meet gives us an indication of what is to come as Alex attempts to get close to Russell, with some unexpected twists. The formost of these is a scene when Alex gives Russell a Black Widow pendant, a spider who mates and kills it's lover. Russells response, which includes her grabbing Alex and kissing her, plays with the fragile but determined Alex as she begins to doubt herself.

You don't want to miss this one. It's gorgeous to look at and has two riveting performances from Winger and Russell. You can't find a better one than this....

Considering the subject it tackles, I always felt that Carl Sagan's 'Contact' was a little bit of a let-down. It would be unreasonable to look for something of the order of Childhood's End let alone of Stapledon, but Contact trivialises itself in too many ways. When the author presents us with the undeniable evidence (fictional of course) that a major civilisation is consciously trying to reach us, to base a lot of the story round the issue of trying to obtain funding is sheer bathos. Also, to a European reader the whole issue of science-vs-faith is a complete non-issue seemingly introduced to play to a certain kind of American gallery, and even from that standpoint it is hard not to find ridiculously implausible the status the book gives to vested religious interests, to say nothing of an auto-da-fe being made the qualifying criterion for participation in the project.

The film could have alleviated some of this, but the production elects not to and instead throws in a variety of gratuitous downers of its own. It should be said at this stage that the film abruptly hoists itself on to a higher level towards the end, from the point where the alien machine first appears. Until then the camera-work is dull and average, the situations are void beyond belief of imagination, (the romantic theme in particular seeming a blatant crowd-pleaser), the dialogue is as flat and artificial as could be, and the only remaining hope was that the acting might raise the level a bit. No such luck. McConaughey is downright awful, but Foster and the rest of them are very little better, and it took a machine to rescue the production. The thought crossed my mind that if I had been the alien intelligence I would have hit the off-switch and looked for a more promising culture on Betelgeuse, Algol, Polaris or in another galaxy altogether.

I'm a bit of a sucker for light-shows, and my level of interest and involvement rose sharply when the alien machine started up. The actual alien contact is notoriously vague and inconclusive. There is nothing basically wrong with the idea as far as I am concerned, but it should have been developed in some way. Instead we are brought back to earth with a bump and the focus shifts back to the less-than-gripping topic of congressional hearings, this one featuring some perfectly farcical conduct by the committee chairman.

The story has the basic makings of real greatness, the film has some undoubtedly gripping sequences - so could I honestly manage to award it a third star? Not really. Not with any integrity or fairness to other productions.

i think the movie and book are both excellent.

for those who have seen the movie/read the book, i highly recommend you read brian greene's, "the elegant universe." i say this because greene's first few chapters about einstein's general relativity will easily explain the "contact" ending very well; i'm talking about how jodi foster's character's time perspective was different than the viewers on earth, but BOTH are valid.

When I tell people this is my favorite film they look at me absolutely perplexed. I find the major complaint is that the alien turned out to be Jodie Foster's Father. I'm pretty sure I don't need to start detailing how it was actually an alien disguised holographically as her Father. It was quite obvious I'm sure to anyone who saw the film.

To those people I ask, what would you rather the alien had been? I mass of prosthetics and make-up? It would have been ridiculous.

Everything about this film is veers close to perfection: Acting, production, set design, sound, special effects - all truly exquisite down to the very last detail. The amount of screen burn ins is astonishing, but they're all done with great percision. The machine itself, when it's finally built is really fantastical.

The comic tone of the film disappointed me. I adore Sophie Marceau, but her talent was unnecessary for this piece. And the needless breast-bearing was insulting. Comedy should be used to tell the story in period films - not be the story. I should have suspected something foul from a film francais with an English title.

The spirit of Dumas is alive and well as D'Artagnan and his three legendary companions regroup and once again go forth in defense of the Crown in "Revenge of the Musketeers," directed by Bertrand Tavernier. This time around, however, it's D'Artagnan's daughter, Eloise (Sophie Marceau), who sounds the alarm after witnessing a cold-blooded murder at the convent she has called home these many years, having been raised there while her father was off on one adventure after another in service to the King. And it's the King for whom Eloise is concerned; in the wake of the murder, she has uncovered a conspiracy to assassinate the about-to-be-crowned Louis XIV during his coronation. Her evidence is a cryptic message discovered among the personal effects of the recently deceased resident of the convent. So throwing caution to the wind, Eloise takes to horseback, alone, to seek out her father and inform him of this threat to France and the King. What she doesn't know is that D'Artagnan (Philippe Noiret) has recently withdrawn from the service of the King, and not by his own choosing. It seems that the King-to-be is something of an upstart, the fact of which D'Artagnan conveyed to him personally-- in no uncertain terms-- after which the now former Musketeer retired to private life to give lessons in the art of swordsmanship. All of which is about to change with the arrival of the daughter he hasn't seen for many years, and who to his knowledge is still safely ensconced in the convent.

To successfully present yet another episode of "The Three Musketeers," it must have that certain sense of bold carelessness born of confidence and larger-than-life adventure, and Tavernier's film has it. Though it takes a couple of scenes to find it's legs after an intense opening that makes you sit up and take notice, when it finally kicks in (which it does fairly quickly) it becomes a rousing adventure steeped in the tradition of it's predecessors. And, as in the best of the "Musketeer" movies, it's laced with subtle humor and intrigue. Tavernier sets a pace that is at times inconsistent, but he provides enough action and fun that it can be easily overlooked; it may threaten to stall occasionally, but never actually does.

Philippe Noiret cuts a striking figure as the aging D'Artagnan, who though slowed somewhat by the years, is still one of the best swords around. He successfully embodies that spirit and sense of "legend" that makes his D'Artagnan believable, and delivers it all with the confidence befitting his character.

The highlight of the film, however, is the lovely Marceau, who as Eloise proves that she can cross swords with the best of them. Her technique with a blade may be a bit awkward at times, but it gives credibility to the character; a young woman raised in a convent-- even the daughter of a famed Musketeer-- wouldn't necessarily be a master swordsman. And Marceau gives a lively performance as Eloise, diving into the action with a reckless abandon that makes her endearing, as well as fun to watch. She has a radiant screen presence that draws the eye to her, even in a crowded scene. But what really puts this character across-- and again, the entire film, for that matter-- is that unabashed spirit of adventure, which Marceau manifests in Eloise.

The supporting cast includes Claude Rich (Crassac), Sami Frey (Aramis), Jean-Luc Bideau (Athos), Raoul Billerey (Porthos), Charlotte Kady (Eglantine de Rochefort), Nils Tavernier (Quentin), Luigi Proietti (Mazarin) and Jean-Paul Roussillon (Planchet). Proving that even Musketeers beyond their prime can be engaging, especially when combined with a spirited beauty like Marceau, "Revenge of the Musketeers" is a welcome cinematic chapter in the saga Dumas began so many years ago. In the end, it's a satisfying experience that will transport you to another place and another time, when chivalry was alive and well, and right always triumphed over wrong.

With all due respect to The Three & Four Musketeers of Richard Lester, Revenge of the Musketeers surpasses these and all other Dumas musketeer films ever. This takes into account a lot of movies, from Fairbanks to Walter Abel, the Ritz Brothers, Louis Hayward, Gene Kelly, Hal Roach Jr., Gordon Scott, Louis Jourdan, Cornel Wilde, and lately Leonardo with Gabriel Byrne et al. Never mind Sophie Marceau fencing with the guys with nary a lesson. Sophie's fine. My money's on Sophie over feisty Kim Cattrall of Lester's Return of the Musketeers. It's reverence that really makes Revenge a winner; reverence for Dumas Pere. D'Artagnan first sees his daughter (Sophie) and mistakes her for long-dead Constance. He alludes to the 'Porthos thrust' and the 'Aramis thrust.' Planchet remains addled, and now aged. Porthos can be lured out of retirement with mounds of food. Brooding Aramis as always follows intrigue. Athos says much with few rasping words. They reunite and allude longingly to the old days, and we feel their aches and pains, and smile at inside references to old foes among the Cardinal's guards. Never mind the slow spots and confusing plot machinations. This is Dumas-inspired after all. Just savor the French sensibilities and the gentle mockery of Mazarin, and D'Artagnan spurring his comrades on by saying, 'We can't let Cyrano have all the fun!' Oh yeah, Sophie gets naked, which can't hurt. And the swordplay is excellent, a la William Hobbs. We may never see the likes of this one again. Magnifique one and all!

What I had read about the movie made me want to watch it. But, it took three nights to finish it. This one man's journey didn't seem to go anywhere. Somehow, I was waiting for resolution, but didn't get that sense. I didn't find that many redeeming qualities in the Felix. He didn't seem to feel any guilt for car theft, treating a lovelorn teen badly, and generally just being more cynical than I got the sense that he needed to be. As he travels, he encounters 4 different people who supposedly have an influence on him and his journey. But I didn't see him take any of that with him as he went. I guess that I ended up confused about what all the fuss was about. Merely passing through lives doesn't do much for me. Becoming a different person after having encountered others does. Felix didn't really change or grow from his experiences, and I am left with a flat feeling, having not gained anything from the movie either.

The movie does have potential. Felix is gay and is an Arab in France. He does not know his father, but develops odd and interesting relationships with random strangers that are kind enough to let him in. This is a coming of age movie in wehre Felix sees that family does not mean blood, that friends and lovers are can be like family; that his father is not that important.

The theme is interesting, but the characters are not very well developed and teh beginning is very dry. One does not get to know Felix very well and see why he must meet his father, he seems comfortable with his lifestyle with his lover and the end is a bit flat also.

Not very entertaining, but good intentions. It is also a pretty short movie.

I bought this dvd as a pig in a poke. I loved it. The main character is not only very handsome but has some depth. The movie relates his experiences in life in general and they all add up to making Felix a human being who is in touch with people and not just a homosexual limited to 'gay' circles.I highly recommend the movie

Hollywood has always liked playing with the heads of their audience and feeding off their fears. This film is no different. It works into people's fear of terrorism and - of course - the government, and especially the military. Not only does it present a cliche military commander, but a typical anti-military portrayal of servicemen in general. Its also extremely predictable, and I felt more bored than excited watching it. There were also a few moments where I rolled my eyes and thought to myself, "Yeah...right."

What also hurts it is all the unnecessary fluff added in, especially the romance between Denzel and Annete. When they oogle eye each other at the dance, you can't help but think, "Oh man, here we go!" The film has too much drama for some thing that could have been handled in a well, thought-out, satirical manner.

Wait for it to come on late at night on TNT before you watch it. You'll have the option of changing the channel, which is an option you will WANT to have.

So I saw this movie when it was in theaters way back yonder, and thought it was a pretty interesting flick. Some aforementioned comments speak of how absurd it is, the military chasing down arabs and/or preaching about racism, but if anyone really checked their history book, it wouldn't have been the first time the US military imprisoned people because of their ethnicity; just look at the Japanese Internment camps. Granted, we all learned our lesson since, but the point of the movie was a big "what if" in modern terms.

Now fast forward years later in a post 9/11 world. This isn't such a bizarre movie after all. Matter of fact, during the aftermath of it all, this movie did in fact pop into my head. Terrorism in New York (in different fashions, but similar meaning) by Islamic extremists and the reaction of such events as seen from a couple different aspects. It wasn't too far off. There are some very cinematic elements thrown in, but the really subtle stuff that didn't pertain to the story is really what bled through. If anything, just watch this movie to compare our view of terrorism then (which we obviously underestimated) and now. Sure it's not an Oscar caliber flick or anything, but it's a good one to watch on occasion.

In 1998 I could easily have glossed over this movie as yet another Hollywoodesque mega-treatment of a hackneyed racial slur. But now, after the you-know-what in 2001, the theme, the perspectives, the sheer predicament of things, and most importantly, the message of the movie are stunning in their frightening reality. Much of the city under "siege" could have been a doozy idea in 1998, but in 2003 it doesn't seem to be that distant a possibility. Could this have given Al Quaeda the ideas it needed for 911?

I am not sure why some reviewers rant about this being an anti-Islamic or anti-Arab propoganda. The movie shows a clear distinction between the good guys (Denzel's colleague in FBI is an Arab too) and the fanatics who plan to blow up buildings with no remorse all in the name of "allah". This film isn't about anti-ethnic sentiment, it's more about paranoia and hasty decision making brought about by reactionary leadership (such as the extant one, of course).

The story clicks on all of the present hot buttons such as terrorism in NYC, America's militant retaliation, and the futility of such belligerence in ridding the world of terrorism. It is unnerving to to think of how much our world has changed since this movie first came out so many years previously and that a film that was made to be entertaining and an escape from our real everyday life now is now a reminder of some very recent and real tragic events (7-11, US snipper shootings). It is no longer entertaining to watch because of it's subject matter (terrorism/random acts of killings), location (New York City), presentation (highly realistic news coverage soundbites), fly overs of NYC skyline with Twin Towers, visuals NYC finest rushing in to help the victims and the shot of the whole in the blown out building (troublingly similar to Ground Zero site as it looks now) etc, but still paints an alarmingly accurate of our world as it stands today.

The title of the movie could be a little better. "Siege" is such a hackneyed word in Hollywood. Perhaps it was the glam-bam marketing that did the movie in, but it is an absolutely riveting, thought provoking thriller that will stun you with its realism, and with its gutwrenching perspectives on the futility of war and terrorism, regardless of their form or endorsement. If such intellectual pontification is not your bag, this is still a non-stop edge-of-the-seat action. Highly recommended.

Hollywood has always liked playing with the heads of their audience and feeding off their fears. This film is no different. It works into people's fear of terrorism and - of course - the government, and especially the military. Not only does it present a cliche military commander, but a typical anti-military portrayal of servicemen in general. Its also extremely predictable, and I felt more bored than excited watching it. There were also a few moments where I rolled my eyes and thought to myself, "Yeah...right."

What also hurts it is all the unnecessary fluff added in, especially the romance between Denzel and Annete. When they oogle eye each other at the dance, you can't help but think, "Oh man, here we go!" The film has too much drama for some thing that could have been handled in a well, thought-out, satirical manner.

Wait for it to come on late at night on TNT before you watch it. You'll have the option of changing the channel, which is an option you will WANT to have.

So I saw this movie when it was in theaters way back yonder, and thought it was a pretty interesting flick. Some aforementioned comments speak of how absurd it is, the military chasing down arabs and/or preaching about racism, but if anyone really checked their history book, it wouldn't have been the first time the US military imprisoned people because of their ethnicity; just look at the Japanese Internment camps. Granted, we all learned our lesson since, but the point of the movie was a big "what if" in modern terms.

Now fast forward years later in a post 9/11 world. This isn't such a bizarre movie after all. Matter of fact, during the aftermath of it all, this movie did in fact pop into my head. Terrorism in New York (in different fashions, but similar meaning) by Islamic extremists and the reaction of such events as seen from a couple different aspects. It wasn't too far off. There are some very cinematic elements thrown in, but the really subtle stuff that didn't pertain to the story is really what bled through. If anything, just watch this movie to compare our view of terrorism then (which we obviously underestimated) and now. Sure it's not an Oscar caliber flick or anything, but it's a good one to watch on occasion.

In 1998 I could easily have glossed over this movie as yet another Hollywoodesque mega-treatment of a hackneyed racial slur. But now, after the you-know-what in 2001, the theme, the perspectives, the sheer predicament of things, and most importantly, the message of the movie are stunning in their frightening reality. Much of the city under "siege" could have been a doozy idea in 1998, but in 2003 it doesn't seem to be that distant a possibility. Could this have given Al Quaeda the ideas it needed for 911?

I am not sure why some reviewers rant about this being an anti-Islamic or anti-Arab propoganda. The movie shows a clear distinction between the good guys (Denzel's colleague in FBI is an Arab too) and the fanatics who plan to blow up buildings with no remorse all in the name of "allah". This film isn't about anti-ethnic sentiment, it's more about paranoia and hasty decision making brought about by reactionary leadership (such as the extant one, of course).

The story clicks on all of the present hot buttons such as terrorism in NYC, America's militant retaliation, and the futility of such belligerence in ridding the world of terrorism. It is unnerving to to think of how much our world has changed since this movie first came out so many years previously and that a film that was made to be entertaining and an escape from our real everyday life now is now a reminder of some very recent and real tragic events (7-11, US snipper shootings). It is no longer entertaining to watch because of it's subject matter (terrorism/random acts of killings), location (New York City), presentation (highly realistic news coverage soundbites), fly overs of NYC skyline with Twin Towers, visuals NYC finest rushing in to help the victims and the shot of the whole in the blown out building (troublingly similar to Ground Zero site as it looks now) etc, but still paints an alarmingly accurate of our world as it stands today.

The title of the movie could be a little better. "Siege" is such a hackneyed word in Hollywood. Perhaps it was the glam-bam marketing that did the movie in, but it is an absolutely riveting, thought provoking thriller that will stun you with its realism, and with its gutwrenching perspectives on the futility of war and terrorism, regardless of their form or endorsement. If such intellectual pontification is not your bag, this is still a non-stop edge-of-the-seat action. Highly recommended.