For many Americans, we saw the Moscow Siege in the midst of heroics; the deaths of more hostages than not, a footnote. For years, Russian and American governments policy has been to NEVER negotiate with terrorists. How many deaths does it take to outweigh this philosophy? More than 300? More than a thousand? More than 3,000? The brilliance of Moscow Siege is that its narrative is drawn mainly from the survivors of the siege-the mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. Moscow Siege gives them a voice beyond national rhetoric, a voice that calls for action. An action for peace. The survivor's faces are lined and voices hollow, not just with their own pain, but also the pain of citizens who have no control over their own inhumane state. The film doesn't make a argument for terrorism, it only relates the sadness of survivors who wish it had never come to this...A real tearjerker, should you have a heart. Doesn't have to be bleeding liberal, just beating.
2 Reviews
Good documentary, inappropriate commentary
AFilotti11 March 2004
The film presents the story of a terrorist attack on a Moscow theater as well as the actions taken to release the hostages. The Russian anti-terrorist forces were able to kill all the terrorists and to release the hostages, though an important number of the hostages also died. Instead of analyzing what actions the Russians could have taken to reduce the number of casualties, part of the commentary tends to justify the cause of the terrorists. The Chechen terrorists are not more justified than the Al-Qaida terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center in New York. Commentaries supporting terrorism are just bad reporting. It is sad that an interesting documentary has such commentaries.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
