Hollywood Free Movie Download

After the abduction by the US military of an Islamic religious leader, New York City becomes the target of escalating terrorist attacks. Anthony Hubbard, the head of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Task Force in New York, teams up with CIA operative Elise Kraft to hunt down the terrorist cells responsible for the attacks. As the bombings continue, the US government responds by declaring martial law, sending US troops, led by Gen. Devereaux, into the streets of New York City.

At first glance, The Siege looks to be a jingoistic, typically heroic American patriot film. But upon further review, and if you honestly give this movie a chance and listen to what it has to say, you'll see that it wants us to listen, it wants us to learn and it wants us to just look at the possibilities of " what if? ".

This is one of the best movies that I have seen in recent years and what kind of stumps me is the negative criticism surrounding the film, not just the complaint of racism ( I'll get into that later ) but about the film in general. And I have come to a conclusion that not everybody will agree with and certainly many will dislike.

The positive reviews that have been in the IMDb have been, at least a great many of them, from people that are nationalities other than American. And perhaps the reason for that is that we can sit back and look at the U.S. from afar and it may be easier for us ( as non Americans ) to understand more clearly what this movie is trying to say. And it may be easier for us ( whatever nationality we happen to be ) to understand what is wrong with America and why a film like this is just trying to give one possible reason for the decay of American society. That is not to say that our own countries don't have problems, because they do, but we can just see what is wrong with America a little easier, we are not blinded by our own patriotism. It may be easier still for perhaps Europeans to appreciate the movie even more than others because maybe their own countries have been under siege at one point or another. And maybe the relevance is that much more prevalent when you have been that close to something.

And what this movie has to say perhaps should not be taken lightly.

Steve Martin's character in " The Grand Canyon " uttered the line " watch the movies, they have all of life's answers. " Perhaps that has never been more true than what this film's message is. And I believe that message is that sooner or later if there is always going to be that one watch dog, that one Big Brother that is known as the United States, then something like this may happen. What if....

I truly believe this movie has been unfairly criticized about it's apparent racist tones. Every time there is a bombing by terrorists that are Arab in heritage, there is always a scene that follows where the Arab leagues lend their support and let the FBI know that they want these criminals brought to justice just as much as anyone does. " They love this country just as much as we do. " Denzel says in one of his speeches to the people in charge. Is it really racism when a movie tries to explore what could happen when one body of government takes matters in their own hands and breaks international law? To me every effort was made to show Arabs as normal, family loving, law abiding, peaceful citizens that they are. A bunch of Arab terrorists does not mean that all Arabs are fanatics that are bent on destroying America. That perception is like believing that all we as Canadians do is play hockey, drink beer and play in the snow.

The movie itself is so well acted and it is so well written that I really can't understand why Washington did not get a nod for best actor. He is mesmerizing. And I think his final confrontation with the general is tense, and brilliant.

Washington plays Hub, a very patriotic, by the book FBI agent that is personally affected by all the chaos that has ensued in his city, and he plays him brilliantly. Bening and Shaloub are also wonderful in their roles and the music in the film is haunting. Willis is a little weak in the film but that is minor in comparison to the rest of the movie.

If you haven't seen this film because of what you have heard, give it a chance, it is well worth it. And try to watch it and listen to what it has to say. You may be surprised. I'm not sure if something like this could ever happen to the US, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

Robert Leffingwell is the president's candidate for Secretary of State. Prior to his approval, he must first go through a Senate investigation to determine if he's qualified. Leading the Senate committee is idealistic Senator Brig Anderson, who soon finds himself unprepared for the political dirt that's revealed, including Leffingwell's past affiliations with a Communist organization. When Leffingwell testifies about his political leanings, he proves his innocence. Later, however, Anderson learns that he lied under oath and even asks the president to withdraw Leffingwell for consideration, especially after the young senator begins receiving blackmail threats about a skeleton in his own closet.

An ill President wants his nominee for Secretary of State confirmed in "Advise and Consent," a 1962 film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Alan Drury and directed by Otto Preminger. It was the first film in seven years for Gene Tierney and the last for Charles Laughton. Tierney couldn't have chosen a better comeback and Laughton a more fitting farewell.

It's up to the majority leader, Bob Munson (Walter Pidgeon) to get the President's (Franchot Tone) nominee for Secretary of State (Henry Fonda) confirmed, but it's not going to be easy. Senator Cooley from South Carolina (Laughton) believes that Robert Leffingwell once had Communist ties and doesn't want him confirmed, even if it means digging up marginal people (Burgess Meredith) who claim to have known Comrade Leffingwell. An ambitious, aggressive young senator (George Grizzard) loudly wants Leffingwell approved, and he will do anything to make it happen - even if it means blackmailing the chairman of the hearing, Brig Anderson (Don Murray). There is pressure on the President to withdraw Leffingwell, and he refuses; the President puts pressure on Anderson to get him confirmed, and, sticking to his own principles, Brig, despite a tremendous threat to his home and political position, refuses to reconvene the hearing. Meanwhile, if Leffingwell stays in and there's a tie, it will be up to the Vice President (Lew Ayres) as the President of the Senate, to break it.

This is a brilliantly done film that has you glued from the first moment to the last. It not only gives a vivid portrait of politics and how the Senate works but keeps the viewer in suspense for the entire movie. The acting is magnificent. Franchot Tone gives a sturdy performance as a President running out of time; Lew Ayres underplays and makes sympathetic the role of the compromise Vice President; Walter Pidgeon is elegant and authoritative as the majority leader; Henry Fonda gives a straightforward, honest portrayal of a man who wants to serve his country but has to go against some of his own beliefs in order to do it. There isn't a wrong note throughout, even down to a very young and pretty Betty White who has a tiny role as a Senator and Peter Lawford as a Jack Kennedy type. Inga Swenson is the insecure Mrs. Anderson and gives a heartbreaking performance as a loving wife who feels she has failed her husband in some fundamental way. Laughton is great, but he is given some very florid dialogue, and he rises to the occasion by hamming it up. It was an appropriate choice given the script. Gene Tierney, as a wealthy widow/hostess who sees Pidgeon on the side, looks beautiful and gives a charming performance.

The end of this movie is incredibly powerful, and the scene with the President, Vice President and Senate Majority leader Munson is one of my favorites for a special reason. In the book, the Vice President, who is terribly worried about the President's health, has an encounter with the President and then goes back to his office and expresses some emotion about the meeting. Though the scene isn't in the film, Lew Ayres obviously read the book and has the same emotional reaction, but unspoken, on the Destroyer. Unless you've read the book, you won't pick it up, but it's an even greater scene if you have.

IMDb members have posted that nothing has changed today. In politics, I'm sure that is true. In films, unfortunately, things have changed. A character-driven film rich in dialogue like "Advise and Consent" is hard to come by. See it and revel in the film-making past and shake your head at the timeliness of the story.

Jack Burden is a newspaper reporter who first hears of Willie Stark when his editor sends him to Kanoma County to cover the man. What's special about this nobody running for county treasurer? He's supposedly an honest man. Burden discovers this to be true when he sees Stark delivering a speech and having his son pass out handbills, while the local politicians do their best to intimidate him. Willie Stark is honest and brave. He's also a know-nothing hick whose schoolteacher wife has given him what little education he has. Stark loses the race for treasurer, but later makes his way through law school, becoming an idealistic attorney who fights for what is good. Someone in the governor's employ remembers Stark when the governor needs a patsy to run against him and split the vote of his rival. The fat cats underestimate Stark; but Jack Burden, Stark's biggest supporter, overestimates the man's idealism. To get where he wants to go, Willie Stark is willing to crack a few eggs - which ... 

Broderick Crawford always said that the greatest thing about winning the Oscar and the acclaim that goes with it for his performance of Willie Stark was that it broadened his casting potential. For a dozen years or so he played nothing but dumb henchmen and sidekicks to various star. He was quoted as saying he was not the world's greatest wit, but he hated always playing half a one. Though he eventually returned back to the ranks of featured performers, the Oscar for Best Actor in 1949 assured him better roles the rest of his life. 

Of course Crawford's Oscar was not the only one that the film got. It was also the Best Picture of 1949 and in her screen debut, Mercedes McCambridge got the Best Supporting Actress nod. McCambridge was maybe the toughest woman ever portrayed on film so far, a hard nosed political operative who's carrying an empress size torch for Crawford who can't see her in that way at all.

As I said before All the King's Men though suggested by the life of Huey Long is not that life at all. Willie Stark is his own unique character. For one thing the unnamed state that All the King's Men took place in is not necessarily the American south. If it were you might see a black face or two in the film. Huey Long in his rise to power in Louisiana used economic populism in his rise to power. He did not like the race issue, felt it was not the future for the south. In that he was far seeing, but if he had to, Long could race bait with the best.

Do you remember in Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams has Stanley Kowalski reference Huey Long by telling Stella and Blanche in no uncertain terms like Huey Long says, he's king in his own castle. Streetcar is set in New Orleans and Williams well knew the power of the Long name in Louisiana. 

Secondly, Stark's family consists of his wife, adopted son, and father who lives with them. Or rather lives on the old homestead as Stark decides that plain Jane Anne Seymour ain't quite what he needs for a first lady of the state. Although Huey Long was not a model husband to Rose McConnell Long, he never would have thought of divorcing her and leaving her with their three children for a nano-second. 

Long's family also consisted of a lot of brothers, eight in fact. Huey's brother Earl was three times Governor of Louisiana and his life story is told in the film Blaze with Paul Newman and Lolita Davidovitch. Huey's son Russell unlike being a crippled football hero as John Derek is here was elected at the age of 30 to the United States Senate in 1948 after World War II service with admittedly not any qualifications other than his name. But that name in Louisiana is to this day mighty potent and Russell Long had a distinguished career in the U.S. Senate for over 40 years. In fact when Huey was assassinated in 1935 and Rose McConnell Long received a temporary appointment to fill his seat, the Long family established a unique record of father, mother, and child to serve in the U.S. Senate. And a bunch of Long brothers and other relatives held various elective posts in Louisiana for generations.

Like Long however Stark is a self made man with an all consuming passion to get ahead in life. He was born in the most humble of circumstances to a piney woods sharecropper family and lifted himself up to be Governor of his state with national ambitions. And like Long, Stark establishes a political machine in his state that bordered on fascism.

Which is why the novel by Robert Penn Warren sold so well in 1947. Maybe it took a war with fascism to educate the American public as to exactly what Huey Long might have represented in the Thirties. Didn't matter in Louisiana though because Earl Long was elected in 1948 to one of his terms as governor as was Russell to the Senate.

All the King's Men entertains us with a fascination for the characters created by Warren and brought to the screen so vividly by Director Robert Rossen. The whole film is narrated and seen through the eyes of John Ireland who as a reporter discovered Stark running for local office in his backwoods county. Ireland was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor in what was probably his career role, but lost to Dean Jagger for Twelve O'Clock High.

At the time he was married to Joanne Dru who is also in the film and she was grateful to not be doing another western. She plays Ireland's love who later falls for Stark. As Henry Kissinger said about his romantic success, "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and I think Rossen was trying to prove it here. She got her career role here as did her brother Sheppard Strudwick who alone sees Stark for what he is.

It will be interesting to see if the new version of All the King's Men measures up to this 

Noel Holcroft is a foreign-born American citizen working in New York as an architect. In Geneva he meets with a respected Swiss banker who tells him he has been designated to be executor of a huge 4 1/2 billion dollar trust fund designed to make reparations for the war crimes of the Nazis. Holcroft's father, who committed suicide in 1945, was a key Hitler financial advisor who became conscience-stricken about German war atrocities, turned against the Fuehrer, and covertly diverted Nazi funds to a secret Swiss account. Under the terms of the covenant Holcroft must locate the sons of his father's two associates so they can jointly activate their fathers' account. They battle the sinister forces seem to be trying to prevent them from signing the document as it is believed that it will be used to establish a Fourth Reich. 

The Holcroft Covenant have as far I know only received bad reviews... Knowing that, I nonetheless bought the film on DVD out of curiosity. I've a fondness for bad movies and I have an affection for the espionage genre.

The Holcroft Covenant is based on the novel by Robert Ludlum . I've read a couple of his novels and they can be, if one is in the right sort of mood, exciting.

The thing one has to remember is that Ludlum's novels is about conspiracies and complicated plots and not about characters. They are plot driven. And that more than often does not make for a compelling movie experience. Somehow that was not taken into account when the transition from novel to screenplay was made.

When you go to the movies you want to care about the people in it. That's basically a film's measure of success. And thus The Holcroft Covenant fails.

But John Frankenheimer is not the one to blame. Based on the material he was given, he made a fairly interesting movie which showcases his talent as an action director. At times excellent, but not overwrought like most of the action movies are today. But apart form the scenery and the action-sequences, the films weak point lies in its characters.

They are neither very believable nor interesting enough to hold your attention. Even the star of the movie Michael Caine, a seasoned heavyweight in the espionage genre, seems out of sync in this one.

If you don't expect too much , you'll be moderately entertained. But knowing that the film is made by veteran craftsmen like John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod, one tends to be a bit disappointed.

Pete St. John is a powerful and successful political consultant, with clients spread around the country. When his long-time friend and client Ohio senator Sam Hastings decides to quit politics, he is rapidly drafted to help with the campaign of the man destined to succeed him, unknown and mysterious businessman Jerome Cade. In parallel and unaware of the potential dangers, he proceeds to unravel the mystery surrounding Hastings dropping out with the aide of his ex-wife, a prominent Washington-based journalist. But interests more powerful than local arm wrestling are at stake and things start getting awry.

Nearly 20 years after its initial release, Sidney Lumet's "Power" is more timely than ever. With the U.S.A. currently under the leadership of an individual who entered the Presidency with no democratic mandate, having lost the general election, who attained office by virtue of a de facto appointment by the United States Supreme Court, and who has since chosen to make the country the aggressor in an internationally condemned war of 'preemption', many Americans are left wondering how such a mental and political lightweight attained the highest office in the land. This film helps make clear the process by which many venal, poorly qualified candidates are able to achieve office in American politics. It portrays the power of the most adept advertising industry in the world as it is used to slickly package a political product for the voting public's consumption, and how foreign economic and political interests can play an important role in the process.

With a sizable cast, it's perhaps not surprising that the quality of the performances varied as widely as they did. Richard Gere does an excellent job as Peter St. John, the packager for candidates running in several different elections through the course of the movie. Denzel Washington displays a reptilian cold-bloodedness as his antagonist, a quality he will bring to full fruition in the later "Training Day" (2001). J.T. Walsh, one of the best at playing villains, is also good in his limited role. Kate Capshaw and E.G. Marshall hold up their parts well, but Julie Christie and especially Gene Hackman are not at their best here. Beatrice Straight received a well-deserved Razzie nomination for Worst Supporting Actress. After her big scene, there wasn't a piece of the set that didn't have her teethmarks all over it. 

The cinematography, by Andrzej Bartkowiak, was terrific, and the musical score complemented the film well, particularly the repeated use of Bennie Goodman's "Sing, sing, sing" with its driving drum solo (by Gene Krupa in the original recording, I believe) used to symbolize St. John's ambition.

Two trivia points: The television game show St. John turns on in his hotel room when he discovers his phone has been bugged is, appropriately, "The Price is Right." The rock outcrop scenery for the political commercial supposedly being filmed in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico is actually part of Vasquez Rocks in southern California, a backdrop that has been used in countless movies and television shows.

As political films go, "Power" is much better than average and well worth viewing. Rating: 7/10.

Neil Jordan's depiction of the controversial life and death of Michael Collins, the 'Lion of Ireland', who led the IRA against British rule and founded the Irish Free State (Eire) in 1921.

I saw this first in the now defunct Capitol Cineplex in Cork. I was surprised to see so many senior citizens in the cinema. The cineplex was so scummy it had to be something special to draw them in. Some of them might have been old enough to remember the civil war or at least to have had a close family member killed in it. Many of them were clearly moved by it particularly the end with its archive footage. It is a moving film, but you have to be careful. 

One should never confuse history with entertainment and this is not a history lesson. All the major events are there, but there is a horrible bias from the director. I don't like DeValera or what he stood for, but what was hinted at the end in this movie is a travesty. If such a thing is true, you have to prove it, you can't slyly hint at it. There are other insidious things such as mortars and car-bombs which are clear reference to the 1970s-90s Northern conflict. Such weapons did not exist in 1916. To me this is an oblique way of implying that the Provos are somehow the legitimate heirs of the IRA in 1916 which of course they are not. 

Despite this I enjoyed the movie a lot. The production values and acting was so good, it really felt like a timewarp. Neil Jordan is a great director, Neeson and Rickman are superb in their parts. Rickman looks so much like DeValera it is uncanny. I even liked Julia Roberts. It looks like she made a fair attempt at a Dun Laoghaire accent and of course it sounded phony. Southside Dublin accents all sound phoney to me anyway so I didn't mind. The best moment was the scene where Collins starts the civil war sitting behind a howitzer aimed at the Four Courts and fires. You can see a huge explosion and bits coming out portico. I actually felt scared that they had damaged this famous Dublin landmark. This won't mean much to someone from overseas, but anyone familiar with the Four Courts and the resident lawyers (sorry "barristers") in their eighteenth century costumes would surely enjoy firing an artillery piece at the overpaid clowns. I wish I had a howitzer like that.

In 1950, 28-year-old outlaw Salvatore Giuliano is found gunned down in a Sicilian courtyard. Little is as it seems. The film moves back and forth between the late 1940s, when Giuliano and other reprobates were recruited by separatist politicians to do their fighting, and the days leading up to and following Giuliano's death. After Sicily's self-rule is declared, will the outlaws be pardoned as promised? And why does Giuliano order his gang to fire on a peaceful May Day rally? Police, Carabinieri, and Mafia have their uses for him. There's a trial after his death: will the truth come out or does the code of silence help protect those in power? 

Francesco Rosi's elliptical film about the notorious Sicilian gangster is quite stunning. This is not, however, a typical gangster film. This film is more about the lives of the people affected by Giuliano than about the gangster himself and this is given extra resonance by the casting of the real villagers in almost all cases. The fact that we never see Giuliano's face makes the director's intentions quite clear.

Giuliano began his professional criminal career when he was caught stealing at a young age and chased out of his village into the surrounding hills where he formed a gang and made a living from robberies and standover tactics. He became feared and respected by the locals and was eventually recruited by regional officials to help in the fight for independence from Italy. The first half of the film explores these events and manages to convey an extremely strong feeling for the time and place. The second half of the film deals with the trial of the surviving members of Giuliano's gang after his death and in doing so illuminates much of what has come before.

It is remarkable how well the film holds together considering the amount of different styles and techniques that were combined in its creation. There are elements of docudrama, courtroom drama, Italian neorealism, crime story and political tract. It is also surprising how well it holds up over forty years later.

Enrico Mattei helped change Italy's future, first as freedom-fighter against the Nazis, then as an investor in methane gas through a public company, A.G.I.P., and ultimately as the head of ENI, a state body formed for the development of oil resources. October 27, 1962, he died when his private airplane crashed, one minute before it should land at Milan airport. Officially, he died of a flight accident. Actually, many journalists explored other plausible reasons for the untimely landing of the small aircraft. 

It must be made clear that "Il Caso Mattei" is a different Italian film.This film is not a biographical analysis of a powerful man who mattered a lot to politicians in Italy.It has been directed by Francesco Rosi,a great Italian film director whose films always made a point to expose what was going wrong with Italy.This is the reason why he can be called the conscience keeper of Italy.Italian actor Gian Maria Volonté shines in one of his life's most outstanding roles as Enrico Mattei,an oil magnate who was one of Italy's most powerful men.Francesco Rosi has made his film in almost a subtle documentary manner but the film has nothing to do with documentary cinema.Il Caso Mattei is considered a supreme example of political cinema genre.It is one of those rare films which succeed in making their point noted without being neither controversial nor brash.This is all due to Francesco Rosi's cool and calm direction.A film to watch if you want to explore cinematographic oeuvre of Francesco Rosi,one of Italian cinema's greatest directors.

A detective (inspector Rogas) is assigned to investigate the mysterious murders of some Supreme Court judges. During the investigation he discovers a complot that involves the Italian Communist Party

This is the political thriller that should be listed even above those of Costa Gravas or The Manchurian Candidate, but is virtually unknown in America. When I saw it at an Italian film class in the late 90's not even the professor had actually seen it - ( though I had).

Rescreening this 1976 film in today's political/terror climate gives this film even more resonance. 

Lino Ventura is the moral center of this unblinking look at Italian politics. He has the kind of "gravitas" of Bogart at his best. If you have any way of seeing this film, you won't be sorry.

If you enjoy it, check out Rosi's "Tre Fratelli" and Ricky Tognazzi's "L'Escorta" with similar subject matter.

FYI, Rosi (Dir) was an assistant to Visconti.

Spring 1936, a young unemployed communist, David, leaves his hometown Liverpool to join the fight against fascism in Spain. He joins an international group of Militia-men and women, the POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista). After being wounded he goes to Barcelona, where he decides to join another group of fighters. They remain in Barcelona and end up fighting other anti-fascist groups. David is disappointed and decides to go back to his old band.

It is, perhaps, surprising that more films about the Spanish Civil War haven't been made. The Spanish landscape, the sheer ruthlessness of any civil war, and the perceived Spanish emotions all combine to make what would appear to be an attractive proposition for a film-maker. The names of Picasso and Lorca will forever have an association with the war, yet where are the artists representing cinema? All the more surprising then that it should have been British director Ken Loach who took up the cudgels. Loach is probably best known for his gritty portrayals of the British working class (and under-class), something that has, perhaps, made him more approachable outside his own country. 

In tackling the Spanish Civil War any writer is faced with the overwhelming complexities that underlie the events. The regionalism (think only of the Catalan and Basque regions, let alone Galicia and Andalusia), the monarchy, the Catholic Church, landowners, trade unions, anarchists plus the leaderships of the Nationalist and Republican movements all combined to create a very tangled web. Add to that outside involvement, principally from Mussolini and Stalin, the vacillation of Britain and France and, of course, the omnipresence of Hitler, and anyone might wonder where to start.

Loach and Allen take their approach through the eyes of an unemployed Liverpudlian, David Carr (admirably played by Ian Hart) who, as a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, answers the call to fight for the Republic. We follow his exploits through a number of episodes, involving battles, falling in love, injury and, ultimately, a degree of disillusion as the reality of Stalin's views eventually come to dominate, and eventually destroy, his cause. The film is supremely well-made, highlighting the horrors, the camaraderie, and the political divisions. In particular, the debate amongst the militia about collectivisation after they have taken a small town takes no sides, but simply allows a number of valid arguments to be exposed within the context of the shifting sands of the war.

There is still ample material for the industry to go on to make more films on this important period in history. But Loach has set the benchmark.

Documentary-style drama showing the events that led up to the tragic incident on January 30, 1972 in the Northern Ireland town of Derry when a protest march led by civil rights activist Ivan Cooper was fired upon by British troops, killing 13 protesters and wounding 14 more.

"Bloody Sunday" is a very startling, cinema-verite recreation of a very specific date (January 30, 1972), in a very specific place (Derry, Northern Ireland) of an event that for the Irish became "our Sharpeville."

But for an American audience with no benefit of subtitles for the brogues and working class Brit accents, no explanations outside of eventual context for lingo and slang (it took me awhile to keep track of "provos" vs "paras"), the quasi-documentary, in-your-face approach takes on a tragic universality.

It could be part of a Cassandra trilogy with `Black Hawk Down' and `No Man's Land' about why military should not be in charge in urban strife, whether as "peacekeepers" or in civil wars or regime changes, no matter how heinous the regime to be changed. A lesson for the Baghdad invasion planners?

Cities are complicated social ecologies, and the film shows a great diversity of attitudes and pressures on all sides, managing to be both clinical in meticulous detail and visceral in shocking impact. The film is probably not objective about the British (I don't think it's a coincidence that the imperious Brit "observer" who takes repugnant charge is played by Tim Pigott-Smith who was a similar colonialist in `The Jewel in the Crown.") A central universal image becomes the awesome power of rock-throwing, unemployed teen-age boys to spark war.

The liberals in the middle, clinging to dreams of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and fair community relations, are morally destroyed over the course of a few hours and the extremists with guns on both sides feed on each other in perpetual destruction like the ouroboros image of the snake eating itself. I kept feeling I missed the exact flash point in a wandering attention moment and wanted to immediately re-watch it to see if I could track the gotcha! moment when escalation could have been prevented, so I look forward to this being available on video tape.

But the film does clearly show that it was attitudes that created the violent outcome and consequent government non-investigation, as we see in so many police situations. Once soldiers enter a city it is a police situation with all those complexities.

I know James Nesbitt primarily from frothy Irish comedies, like `BallykissAngel,' so his staggering portrayal of the M.P. in the middle is a revelation, as he goes from planning a civil rights march to pleading with his girlfriend to physical heroism to a break-down in shock.

The version of the titular U2 song played out at the end, running well past the credits finish, is a moving, live, passionate audience sing-along where Bono shouts out other locales that have experienced similar situations to emphasize the universality.

Sydney Schanberg is a New York Times journalist covering the civil war in Cambodia. Together with local representative Dith Pran, they cover some of the tragedy and madness of the war. When the American forces leave, Dith Pran sends his family with them, but stays behind himself to help Schanberg cover the event. As an American, Schanberg won't have any trouble leaving the country, but the situation is different for Pran; he's a local, and the Khmer Rouge are moving in. 

Oh, this brings me back alright. It was the last days of 1984, and earnest college students like me had much to talk about. Wasn't it wonderful that Walter Mondale had chosen a strong woman like Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate, and wouldn't the Democrats sweep the Northeast at least for that brave move? Does buying a Coke at the local convenience store signal support for the apartheid government in South Africa? Did anyone else see that amazing film about the human price of American involvement in Southeast Asia?

It's nearly 20 years later, and I've managed to shake the ill effects of my youthful liberalism easily enough in most cases. This film, however, packs the kind of punch that isn't explained away by political trendiness.

"The Killing Fields" is a great film that tries and succeeds in capturing much of the carnage and tragedy of Cambodia as the radicalized Khmer Rouge and the U.S.-backed regime of Lon Nol controlling Phnom Penh clash in a fight to the death to be/not be the next domino in the Communist rollover in Southeast Asia. By particularizing the conflict to that of the true-life relationship of two men, New York Times reporter Syndey Schanberg and his Cambodian apprentice and aide-de-camp, Dith Pran, the film forces a level of empathy that is at once uncomfortable and absorbing. It is possible to walk away from this film hating the manipulation, the America-bashing, the easy liberal guilt. But it's impossible to walk away from the human experience borne witness to before the movie's done, if one has any pretense of being human, and that's its great strength.

Oh, it's polemical alright. We hear comments about how the Khmer Rouge's excesses were the direct result of Nixon's secret bombing campaign. (U.S. Counsel: "After what the Khmer Rouge have been through, I don't think they'll be exactly affectionate toward Westerners." Schanberg: "Maybe we underestimated the anger $7 billion in bombing would unleash.") It makes its point, absolves Pol Pot and condemns Kissinger with the same broad brush, and it feels a bit jaded and hollow for that, but I don't know. Schanberg betrays the attitudes of a knee-jerk liberal, and I outgrew that, and maybe I feel superior for that, but Schanberg had AK-47s pointed at his head by 12-year-old brainwashed boys, and I didn't, so shut up already, know what I mean?

The performances are incredible in their verisimilitude, particularly the leads. Sam Waterson burns with righteous anger as Schanberg, and I like his performance for what it is and how he creates that extra level of tension, but he's a butterfly compared to the condor that's Dr. Haing S. Ngor, one of the Academy's most obscure best supporting actor recipients (there was even a joke about it in an episode of "The Simpsons") but someone who didn't just walk the walk. He relived his experience surviving a holocaust that was, per square mile, even more savage than the Holocaust itself. The fact he won a Best Supporting Actor award (Waterson instead was nominated for Best Actor, and lost to F. Murray Abraham for "Amadeus") is one of those perversities of film history, given he carries more of the film than Waterson (who slinks to the background two-thirds of the way in) but also that he personalizes the story in a way that makes the incomprehensible immediate and involving.

We lost Ngor to a senseless murder a few years ago, and have little left to explain what was going through his mind as he relived an experience that cost him his wife and child when he actually lived through it. Roland Joffe does a nice job in the DVD commentary, though, a commentary I put up there with P. T. Anderson's "Boogie Nights" and William Peter Blatty's "The Ninth Configuration" for being worth the price of the DVD and then some by itself. He recalls Ngor's reaction to one child actress whose hard face in enacting a scene convinced Ngor she wasn't just pretending to be Khmer Rouge, and Ngor's request that Joffe participate in one critical scene by muttering real torments Ngor suffered at the hands of the "KR" as a way of enhancing his performance. At one point, trying to convince him to come aboard, Joffe said something about Ngor owing it to his country to bear witness to his story, and that of Dith Pran, and that did the trick, though Joffe seems to wonder if the same sort of manipulation Schanberg pulled on Pran wasn't going on here, too.

It's a great movie because it doesn't shy away from uncomfortable truths, because it never loses sight of the human dimension, and because it gave a pretense of understanding to one of the great human traumas after World War II. We never wallow in gore, but the cost of this war is always with us while we watch. The experience is both endurable and humiliating.

I just wish they reshot that ending, with "Imagine." Joffe in his commentary even notes the lyrics are the sort of thing Pol Pot would have gone along with. It feels forced. Did Yoko Ono give her approval after they explained the scene her dead husband's song would appear in, or after they told her the first nasty execution scene would be shot while "Band On The Run" issued forth from a soldier's radio?

A great movie, of an awful moment in human history. If we have any chance of overcoming man's sorry past, it will be because movies like this one get made once in a while.