MovieChat Forums > The Siege (1998) Discussion > The end ruined this movie.

The end ruined this movie.

posted 18 years ago by triindiglo
71 replies | jump to latest

I thought this was a pretty good movie up to the end.

The FBI apparently just walked into the army's headquarters and said they were arresting the General. How would twenty guys with pistols and no heavy armor or anything overpower what was probably 100+ soldiers outside? Also, there is no way that they would have the authority to arrest a soldier when martial law is in effect. That ability could completely cripple the point of the martial law.

Also, how was the general even evil? I know he tortured the TERRORIST, and I know he shot the TERRORIST, but so what? He had a good chance of getting info that could save hundreds of lives. Also, it was not his choice to put the martial law into effect, and disobeying the chain of command causes WAY more problems than obeying it. (What do you think would happen in Iraq if we told all the soldiers 'Hey do whatever you feel like doing!')

I just thought the end was way to fake, and if they were to blame anybody they should have blamed the president, because he is the one who put the martial law in effect.

One more thing - I don't see how it was evil to put those people in the holding areas because that was there best way of being able to find the terrorists faster.
There were three options: 1- do what they did, 2-let the FBI, who already failed three times, see if they could get it right this time, or 3- lock the city down for a hundred times longer and sort through everyone to find the terrorists. (or just let them blow everyone up)

[–] kaptmorgin 16 years ago

I agree, the end ruined it. It turned into typical Hollywood liberal agenda. My opinion on Devereaux is this. He was against the occupation. It wasnt an act. The thing is that once he is in, he takes his job seriously, maybe too serious. But is a servant to his country, so it did not matter what his original opinion was. Once he was told to do it, he was getting his job done, no matter what it took. There was nothing wrong with what he was doing, unless you are part of the 20% of our population, who is Leftist, who have no common sense. Sorry, but your original belief of fairness and rights are good, but you take it too far, and at some point, you have to make adjustments.

[–] pegreenb 16 years ago

I felt exactly the same way. This movie is amazing coming out in 1998, constantly showing the twin towers, it was just ahead of it time. Everything works for me, all the way to when they show the protestors on the Brookyln Bridge, and then... It seems like that ending was thrown in there by the studio. I felt that they could have gone to black after the bridge, and explained what happened. What we got, was another Denzel Washington "speach" that was just non-sense. The General was following orders, and had jurisdiction, like the FBI or anyone could walk in and arrest him. Even if he had gone into the cages [the general] and shot 100 people, the FBI would not releive him of his power, it would be handled by the Chain of Command. That ending turned, a good "believable" thriller into another moveie to throw in the Hollywood Garbage Heap. Next time you watch it, just turn of the TV when they get to the bidge, you will appreciate the film more...

[–] glen-puxty 16 years ago

I saw this movie two weeks before 11th of Sep, so you can imagine how eerie it was to think that the movie's terrorist attacks were low-grade compared to what happened soon afterwards. What annoyed me about this movie was the end. Granted, the General was wrong - the American government deems torture illegal, therefore the torture and, later on, execution of the suspect were criminal acts. I don't doubt this. I also do believe that the Fed agent was in the right for going through with arrest charges against him, as that his legal responsibility. What I do disagree with is the way it is handled. To see a high ranking officer being arrested by a civvy at the end of such a demanding mission would create a large amount of animosity amongst the troops, probably causing morale issues throughout the ranks, as was evident with the Mexican stand-off shown. Martial law was still technically in place, therefore the Fed was stamping on ground outside of his authority (martial law meaning civillian authorities no longer have a say, regardless what powers they normally have in more peaceful times). It was a messy ending and appeared to be a way to keep the Left-wing hippies happy. I felt the movie was well balanced in arguments for most of the way, just the apprehension should have been done in a far more reasonable fashion.

[–] superman1 16 years ago

Also about the ending, I thought Bruce COULDN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

[–] rendhellcrisonok 15 years ago

You guys have got to be kidding me. Have you learned nothing from the past nine years after September 11?

TORTURE IS ILLEGAL.

The only reason we could use Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, et. al. is because the Justice Department under President Bush took a look at current statues and deemed the preceding interrogation methods to be within the boundaries of the law. It is NOT because some general went off half-cock on a revenge trip, as depicted in the movie, and issued his own laws.

Again, torture is illegal.

Furthermore, even within a scenario governed by martial law (such as the Iraq/Afghanistan wars before the formation of their respective governments), the Army Field Manual clearly bars all but NINETEEN techniques, none of which include cutting. In a foreign theater, General Devereaux would still be held in clear violation of standing US law and thus beholden to the appropriate penalties.

Whether you consider torture moral or not in the case of a "ticking time bomb" scenario portrayed in the movie, the simple fact is that the law clearly bars torture.

Upholding that law is the foundation of patriotism. I hope those of you who did not bother to seek information on the relationship between freedoms, and counterterrorist measures, and the restrictions placed on both in the years following 9/11/01 will do so at some point in the future.

[–] ViolentSilence 15 years ago

I'm amused, but not entirely surprised by the vitriol that this film has picked up...

Firstly - yes the confrontation between Hub and Deveraux at the end of the film was very Hollywood. Is it a legal/factual truth? Almost certainly not - but the movie is about the conflict between two very different ideals of protecting the nation. The General is a fanatic and will use any method possible to protect the US citizens. Hub is also a fanatic, but for him he is fanatical about the constitution, that by ignoring it you destroy America, not protect it. That's the reason they let this speech happen. It might have been better locating it somewhere else (for example in a court room in front of a judge with Hub pushing for the arrest warrant), but would the audience have settled for Deveraux's position being represented by a character introduced at the end of the film? It's not a deal breaker for me, just a Hollywood shortcut

Secondly - if Tariq Hosseini is the terrorist, why does he meekly go with Hubbard whilst one of his employees pulls a grenade. Are they standard in US car repair places? Do people not think that Hosseini's name was given up to protect the real terrorist (who panicked and pulled the pin)? Assuming the movie happened, we'd never know whether Hosseini was innocent or not because he was tortured and executed (presumably so the body could be dumped and no evidence left of the torture). If I'm right, is the enhanced interrogation of Hosseini still moral? Does the moral opinion of the matter change on whether he is guilty or innocent?

Thirdly - torture is used successfully by Hub. Holding a lit cigarette in the face of someone who had previously been burned with one is a form of mental torture. It probably passes the 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' standard (which is legalese BS to enable torture...), but how moral is it? Was the intention to see how easily the subject would start talking rather than to get solid intelligence (assuming that a real terrorist would show more resistance)?

What's most amusing about the reactions is how people don't like having their ideals challenged. This is what good art should do - move you or challenge you, to make you think about your intellectual positions. We need more films like this, not things that are purely SFX firework shows.

[–] actionmanrandell 14 years ago

you fail to realize one thing. when martial law is in effect not even the constitution exists at that time infact in the time of martial law it is the military that controls things particularly the highest ranking officer ie a general so what ever the laws right now say. in a time of martial law. laws do not exist

[–] RynoII 15 years ago

Why wouldn't Bruce Willis's men surrender to the FBI, if they were arrested. If you were in the army and the FBI wanted to arrest your commander, would you actually engage the FBI to defend your commander or would you let them arrest him?

[–] tbeller80 15 years ago

The soldiers would be murdering federal agents. They were there to conduct a legal arrest. I love my battalion commander dearly, but I wouldn't kill other Americans to prevent his arrest.

[–] DP_IL 14 years ago

"Also, how was the general even evil? I know he tortured the TERRORIST, and I know he shot the TERRORIST, but so what?"

Other than the fact that it was AGAINST THE LAW?! Did you pay even the slightest bit of attention to Denzel Washington's brilliant speech in the torture scene?

[–] tbeller80 14 years ago

And as stated in several threads on this board the only thing linking Tariq Husseini to the bus bombers was the WORD of the guy who ended up actually being a suicide bomber at the end of the movie.

There wasn't a shred of evidence given in the movie to justify what happened to the guy.

[–] angelinodesmet 14 years ago

Completely agree. The general served his country for the greater good. Hub was a pu**y who thinks he's in rainbow island and terrorists have rights. Bollocks.
Good movie, *beep* ending.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

Okay so you think it's okay to torture a person you don't know is guilty cause he may no when the next bomb is going to go off. Maybe so. But once that person has not given up any confessions of guilt or knowledge, is it okay to just to murder him? He murdered a presumed innocent man with no proof. That's why he was arrested. Would it be okay to murder all the suspects at Guantanimo even the ones with no proof of ties to terrorism?

[–] Eduardo15 13 years ago

Two words, that explain why the ending was maddening and totally unbelievable: Martial Law.

But hey, that "poor" terrorist had his rights not to be tortured, while thousands of Americans die... sure thing left wingers. I hate the ending.

The lion and the calf shall lie down together but the calf won't get much sleep.

[–] Jimwhitley6 13 years ago

YOU DO NOT KNOW HE'S A TERRORIST! That's the whole point - until you try the bastard, you don't know whether or not he is a terrorist. What, you think the founders wrote that bit into the constitution about a right to a speedy trial and not facing unusual punishments just for white folks? You *beep* would be way more at home in Iran than the country this used to be.

[–] bobby_allen 13 years ago

Agreed. The producer could have made their point differently. It was a bit far fetched at the end. Viewers are more sophisticated nowadays and such ending was an insult tot he intelligence. In reality, the FBI agents who rushed the command post would probably have been taken prisoners of war.

[–] katsarewild1991 12 years ago

OH MY GOD!!! DID YOUR KEYBOARD EXPLODE AFTER YOU TYPED THAT?!!?!?!?

The whole point of the suspense was that Tariq, in fact, DID NOT KIDNAP the Sheik as alleged, it was instead the General who had that set up, thus making Tariq and the Arabians look like the culprits. So, innocent Arabians being accused and killed take the heat for what the General and his men did.

Did you walk out when that entire scenario was being discussed?