United 93

[Future Proof]

So... am I the only one that absolutely will not be going to see this?

You know that directors and screen writers around the world were huddled around the TV on 9/11, licking their chops and rubbing their hands (and other things) together, salivating over all of the money that they could make.

I think I'm going to d/l it via a torrent just to make a point. Will anybody be seeing this and as a proposal for dialog, am I the only one here disgusted over how little tact Hollywood's shown in realeasing this so soon after it happened? I mean, I know it's 5 years but the world wasn't reverberating from Pearl Harbor when Tora! Tora! Tora! or Pearl Harbor came out, not to nearly the extent that the world's still recoiling now from 9/11.

[Malt Refund]

Yup I agree with ya, it's pretty disgusting.. I'm also hoping for a worldwide boycott. It's not even that it's too soon, I'd probably have no compulsion to put myself thru that stuff even 10 years from now. But who knows if the movie making business will even be around in 10 years.. gotta cash in now!

[stimpee]

When I see 9/11 stuff on TV I immediately switch off/over. I've seen and heard all I want to about it to last a lifetime and I'm certainly not interested in some Hollywood exec's version.

[Sean]

I can only imagine the brainstorming meetings they must have had to work out what the earliest "tasteful" release date might be.

This reminds me of something I saw happen at LAX a few years back. I was sitting at my gate, waiting to board my flight, when a middle aged lady slipped and fell as she walked by. People right near her immediately rushed over to lend a hand, except for one guy in particular. He rushed over from further away than anyone else only to hand her his business card before she was even back on her feet. Gotta love lawyers (sorry BB;) ). I guess some people will always just see other's misfortune as an opportunity to make a buck.

[mmm skyscraper]

someone should put together some clips from Man U's 93 season and upload that to the torrent sites

Was Michael Moore tactless for F 9/11?

[Jason Roth]

Not going either.

edit - Micheal Moore's F911 was completely different. He used actual footage, narrated, and drew conclusions. Even if you disagree with him, it's far better than making up what happened, which is the only way U93 could have been written.

[negative1]

i see nothing wrong with this movie..
in fact the family members helped out with it..

now, the twin towers movie by oliver stone..
now that might really be fiction, knowing what
he usually does to conspiracy theories..

later
-1

[mmm skyscraper]

edit - Micheal Moore's F911 was completely different. He used actual footage, narrated, and drew conclusions. Even if you disagree with him, it's far better than making up what happened, which is the only way U93 could have been written.

good point.

Anyone know the name of the Oliver Stone movie?

[adam]

I see nothing wrong with this. He got unanimous approval from the families involved. I understand your fear of it being exploitive, but, none of us having seen it, I don't think it's fair to make that accusation/assumption. There is nothing wrong with the subject matter itself. Everything depends on how it's handled, and we don't know that. From the interview with the director that I read, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Malt Refund]

The Oliver Stone movie is simply titled "Twin Towers".. or at least that it's name at the moment. Like "Snakes on a Plane" it is subject to change based on what polls best.

[Future Proof]

I see nothing wrong with this. He got unanimous approval from the families involved. I understand your fear of it being exploitive, but, none of us having seen it, I don't think it's fair to make that accusation/assumption. There is nothing wrong with the subject matter itself. Everything depends on how it's handled, and we don't know that. From the interview with the director that I read, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

I guess its a personal thing, really. Me personally, I still have very strong and deep emotions about that day, what happened and how it flipped the world upside-down for me. There's a huge difference between making a documentary, and making a drama, especially when we have virtually no knowledge of what was said or took place on that flight. And since you can't objectively report on the chronological events in their entirety, you're forced to fill in, which leads to the movie ceasing to be a documentary and a reporting of facts, and you turn it into a drama, a popcorn-fest... not cool.

[myrrh]

I hope this movie bombs.

They are probably going to hype up all the people on board to make them out like super-american heros etc. It wouldn't surprise it the government had something to do with putting this out, just to remind the masses why we are fighting the 'war on terror'.

And the family member being involved is wack. I am sure he/she got a nice chunk of change for his/her part in it.


On another thing... They are changing the name from "Snakes on a Plane" to something else?! I remember last year in Wired, Samuel Jackson said that he was mad when they said that because the cheesey title was one of the main reasons he signed on!

[Jason Roth]

On another thing... They are changing the name from "Snakes on a Plane" to something else?! I remember last year in Wired, Samuel Jackson said that he was mad when they said that because the cheesey title was one of the main reasons he signed on!

That's the ONLY reason he signed on.

[cured]

I guess its a personal thing, really. Me personally, I still have very strong and deep emotions about that day, what happened and how it flipped the world upside-down for me. There's a huge difference between making a documentary, and making a drama, especially when we have virtually no knowledge of what was said or took place on that flight. And since you can't objectively report on the chronological events in their entirety, you're forced to fill in, which leads to the movie ceasing to be a documentary and a reporting of facts, and you turn it into a drama, a popcorn-fest... not cool.

I agree with Future. The effects from that day still aren't passed yet...we're still hunting the people responsible for that tragedy. A made-for-TV movie would be one thing, but to ask people to go pay cash and be entertained with a movie with subject matter a little too sensitive to see it given a fuck-off Hollywood treatment isn't my thing. I'd watch a documentary any day over a dramatized hold-your-hankey "popcorn" movie, which is not what I'm saying the movie is, but the idea of a movie based on 9/11 is.

[adam]

I hear you, Paul, but drama does not equal popcorn fest. Those are different things. Or you're saying that every drama about real events trivialized them, which I don't think you'd say.

I should stress: it's entirely possible I'll be revising my opinion once I see the film. But I don't think it's right to make such judgements beforehand. (And I have zero interest in seeing it in the theatre, so it'll be awhile.)

[Future Proof]

They are probably going to hype up all the people on board to make them out like super-american heros etc. It wouldn't surprise it the government had something to do with putting this out, just to remind the masses why we are fighting the 'war on terror'.

Well, delving into conspiracy theory territory, I wouldn't doubt the gov't sponsering the movie either. As far as making the passengers look like heroes though, those people were pawns in somebody's game and didn't deserve their fate. I don't know if you can describe a person like that as a "hero" but they certainly deserve some venerable title.

[Future Proof]

I hear you, Paul, but drama does not equal popcorn fest. Those are different things. Or you're saying that every drama about real events trivialized them, which I don't think you'd say.

You're right, I wouldn't. But it kinda just feels the way that it would feel if you lost your sister in a car accident and found out that her husband 2 months after the fact was already engaged to someone else. Would there ever have been a right time to move on? Probably not... but is it unimaginable how that would feel really strange and uncomfortable? Absolutely not.

I have no official, quantifiable way to prove any sort of definitive reason as to why this movie is an abomination, it's just a matter of one's personal taste really...

[adam]

I find calling a movie you haven't seen an abomination to be pretty objectionable. I understand everything you're saying, but as soon as you use language that strong, I can't agree with you. It could be "an abomination", I suppose, but it isn't by virtue of its subject matter. Your analogy about the sister is totally unfair; making a movie about a tragedy is in no way being over to the extent you're suggesting. You can make a movie about events while in no respect being "over" them. I don't think any subject is "taboo" for a serious discussion, and I think any type of serious artistic effort can qualify as serious discussion. Can we infer from the quality of the preview or the people involved that this likely isn't a "serious artistic effort"? That's a matter of opinion. I would say not, myself; I can see how others could say, "Yes, from the preview it seems clear to me that this a plain attempt at emotional manipulation without any real value. It's a cash in." But I think that's possible, and jumping from that possibility to "abomination" is a nice leap.

[Malt Refund]

Heh, they arent changing Snakes on a Plane.. I only mentioned it because the film execs polled people on it and they said the title was too corny, so they tried changing it, and Samuel said no. I mentioned it because film titles, like Twin Towers, are usually in a state of flux.

[stimpee]

someone should put together some clips from Man U's 93 season and upload that to the torrent sitesI don't see why people should have to suffer that. Much more enjoyable to make a compilation of Sheffield United's 93/94 relegation season :D I enjoyed it anyway!

[grady]

I'd been waiting for a while to jump in on this one but I'm feeling a bit more energy today and this film among the other 911 films have been doing two things for me.

1. Making me Pissed off

and

2. Curious

One. From the get go of 911, it was only a matter of time before this started happening. My main problem and why films like Mr. Greengrasses' and Mr. Stone's piss me off is that it seems to perpetuate and cement the uncertainty of that day and what happen into a mythological truth of sorts that people will then believe as actual truth.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but there is just too many damn questions that I have, many more left unanswered or ignored by the government and the american public. With the media now being spoonfed to people I can imagine people buying these stories as fact and taking it just as fact on face value.

When I saw the trailer for this film United93, about a month ago on Inside Man, my antagnoistic friend leaned over to me and whispered into my ear, "Just be quiet, I don't want to hear it." Fine, I'm not going to bitch and moan about this and that in the theater, but seeing the trailer on the big screen projected, had a different effect on me.

Kind of a sick morbid curiosity to see what the director Paul Greengrass is up to and felt so compelled to make this film.

Two. As I read a few reports of advance screenings, one by a journalist whose writing and opinion I admire and enjoy, my curiosity grew to see what the film was. The filmmaker side of me that wants to know and feel the details and the hows and whys of decision made in the production kicked in.

Part of this spurred by this piece (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/04/blown_away.php). Now it didn't entirely sway me over from seeing it right away, but brought about a few different perspectives to light that I hadn't really been considering or seeing from my perspective.

At the moment I'm still undecided on when I will see it, but I know it's only a matter of time before the curiosity will get the most of me.

Finally one last point of interest worth reading in regards to the film about the two NYC Fire Fighters being directed by Oliver Stone. This piece (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/04/memory_lane.phphttp://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/04/memory_lane.php) is from 10.06.01. It's a report on a discussion at the NY Film Festival with of all people Oliver Stone, a few studio executives and some indie film producers.

Reading the piece, that's the Oliver Stone I want to see make a film about Terrorism. Perhaps the wind in his sails was heavily deflated by Alexander, but you read those comments and then see the turn he's taken.

Immediately what comes to mind is he's doing one for the studio to get himself back in good graces before he can do a picture for himself. Then maybe he'll head back down that erradic course that he was on following the inevietable sucess of his film.

[Future Proof]

I find calling a movie you haven't seen an abomination to be pretty objectionable. I understand everything you're saying, but as soon as you use language that strong, I can't agree with you. It could be "an abomination", I suppose, but it isn't by virtue of its subject matter. Your analogy about the sister is totally unfair; making a movie about a tragedy is in no way being over to the extent you're suggesting. You can make a movie about events while in no respect being "over" them. I don't think any subject is "taboo" for a serious discussion, and I think any type of serious artistic effort can qualify as serious discussion. Can we infer from the quality of the preview or the people involved that this likely isn't a "serious artistic effort"? That's a matter of opinion. I would say not, myself; I can see how others could say, "Yes, from the preview it seems clear to me that this a plain attempt at emotional manipulation without any real value. It's a cash in." But I think that's possible, and jumping from that possibility to "abomination" is a nice leap.

Ok -- it's not an abomination... just a wierd twisting of my stomach. Layer that on top of the fact that I've got quite a few doubts about the validity of how things actually happened on 9/11 and what you have is a wierd mis-mosh of feelings on this thing.

I don't see why I have to be neutral on this; I don't see why this plus numerous other things always get a hall pass when you throw the "art" term on it. "Art" isn't the be-all, end-all and there are numerous reasons why one would object to someone's art and choose not to support it. And that's all I'm doing, I'm not telling others not to support this movie or anything.

[ffolkes]

Not only is the subject off-putting, but also the fact that Paul Greengrass agreed on directing this is kinda disappointing.

He did ok on Bourne Supremacy (shaky cameras aside, which might've been more of the cinematographer's fault) so it's a pity that he's moved on to this.

I guess there's always Bourne Ultimatum...

[adam]

You should be neutral on it, Paul, because you haven't seen it. The reason the art label gives it a pass is because, as I said, I don't think any topic is exempt from artistic representation. Therefore, I think criticism of the movie isn't fair solely on the basis of its topic, therefore, I think it makes sense to remain neutral until you see it. Otherwise, you're saying, "You shouldn't make a movie about that! I don't care what your intent is!" Do you not see why I might have an issue with that?

"There are numerous reasons why one would object to someone's art.." Fine...except that you haven't seen the damn movie. That's a troublesome form of censorship. Granted, you say you aren't telling others how to feel about it...but you plainly feel that the movie shouldn't have been made, and you are expressing that. That's not far from censorship, emotion-wise, and that's not far from burning books you haven't actually read.

Extreme comparison, of course. And you're not really under attack here, you said, "I don't see why...," and I'm trying to explain my point of view. All in the spirit of discussion. :)

[Future Proof]

You should be neutral on it, Paul, because you haven't seen it. The reason the art label gives it a pass is because, as I said, I don't think any topic is exempt from artistic representation. Therefore, I think criticism of the movie isn't fair solely on the basis of its topic, therefore, I think it makes sense to remain neutral until you see it. Otherwise, you're saying, "You shouldn't make a movie about that! I don't care what your intent is!" Do you not see why I might have an issue with that?

"There are numerous reasons why one would object to someone's art.." Fine...except that you haven't seen the damn movie. That's a troublesome form of censorship. Granted, you say you aren't telling others how to feel about it...but you plainly feel that the movie shouldn't have been made, and you are expressing that. That's not far from censorship, emotion-wise, and that's not far from burning books you haven't actually read.

Extreme comparison, of course. And you're not really under attack here, you said, "I don't see why...," and I'm trying to explain my point of view. All in the spirit of discussion. :)

I know buddy, no big deal. :)

The only problem with all of this is that these filmmakers chose to make a movie on a controversial topic, I've chosen to speak against it (though I have not recommended a course of action for anyone else to take, nor have said that people that will go watch the movie are bastards or anything like that) and you're saying that this is close to censorship, but aren't you teetering on the same line by trying to correct me?

People have to make up their own minds about this. About whether they believe the movie should've been made, whether it was good, et cetera, et cetera. However -- just because a whole slew of critics come back and say "WOWOWOWOWOWOW movie great yeah heroes terrorists BOOM! 3.5 thumbs up!" doesn't mean that I'm going to rush out and see this movie. But at the same time, I don't expect people listening to me fuss to have my POV, or to make their decision based off of mine.

[adam]

I'm NOT trying to silence you, I'm trying to persuade. But point taken.

NOT

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY "NOT"

[Deckard]

I'm trying to silence you
*snigger*

(s'ok, we know what you meant to write :D )

[Sean]

And the family member being involved is wack. I am sure he/she got a nice chunk of change for his/her part in it. It was actually ALL the family members that they got approval from. It was through interviewing them, and dealing with phone records and such that they apparently pieced together the overall story as best they could.

This article about the premiere makes me feel a bit more open to the idea of it...

http://www.variety.com/VR1117942055.html

[BeautifulBurnout]

Not only is the subject off-putting, but also the fact that Paul Greengrass agreed on directing this is kinda disappointing.

He did ok on Bourne Supremacy (shaky cameras aside, which might've been more of the cinematographer's fault) so it's a pity that he's moved on to this.

I guess there's always Bourne Ultimatum...

Well, he was responsible for:
Bloody Sunday
The Stephen Lawrence Murder (TV)
The One That Got Away (about an SAS man stranded in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War)
Open Fire (about the shooting of David Martin)(TV)
Ressurected (about a british soldier after the Falklands War)

So it is more a return to form really :)

[gambit]

Personally, I'm with adam here. Eventually, someone was going to make a movie about this, and the only questionable thing I see with this is the timing, which is going to be different for each person. I'm not so concerned with how close the events of the movie coincide with the events of real life because any sort of dramatization of any event is never going to be exactly the same. That said, I don't know if I want to see it or if I'm going to see it. I'm not really a movie guy, and I still get worked up when I see video of 9/11.

[ffolkes]

So it is more a return to form really :)

good point, should have looked into those before... haven't seen any of em though. gritty war/political films seem to be his cup of tea then

[Deckard]

One thing that occurred to me is how increasingly these days the line between fact and fiction is less clear cut than it used to be - something that's really been highlighted with the way 9/11 is presented.

Personally I'm more uneasy about the emotionalising (dare I say sentimentalising) of 9/11 in factual output like documentaries and news reports than I am about it in a film that sets out with the honest upfront aim of appealing to the emotions.

News reports don't need to be dressed up, they shouldn't require mood music, soft focus, reporters trying to mimic movie voiceover artists... they just need to tell us the facts in as objective a way as possible. The huge influx of "human interest" into news and the emotionalising of every issue is, to me, far more unsavoury than the idea of making a film based on absolutely anything.

[Sarcasmo]

What interests me, and what might ultimately fuel my curiosity enough to rent it perhaps, is the way that the whole situation is presented. Who are the leads? It's going to be difficult to suspend disbelief and get the same kind of visceral sympathetic response if the actors are ones that we've seen a thousand times before. How are they going to present the shift from paralyzing fear to determination to take action? How far are they willing to go to show two groups of people, one group determined to die to complete their mission, and another group reconciled to death to stop them? And finally, how will it end? What's the most respectful way to end a movie about people that we know died horribly? It's this presentation which will determine whether or not I fall into the same line of thinking as Paul. To be perfectly honest, I have no emotional reaction to the fact that this movie is being released at all. When it finally comes out, I'll probably start forming an opinion about it, but I think that the movie could swing either way. If presented correctly, this movie could be a rather beautiful memorial about ordinary people who were forced to choose between two horrible destinies.

[adam]

One thing that occurred to me is how increasingly these days the line between fact and fiction is less clear cut than it used to be - something that's really been highlighted with the way 9/11 is presented.

Personally I'm more uneasy about the emotionalising (dare I say sentimentalising) of 9/11 in factual output like documentaries and news reports than I am about it in a film that sets out with the honest upfront aim of appealing to the emotions.

News reports don't need to be dressed up, they shouldn't require mood music, soft focus, reporters trying to mimic movie voiceover artists... they just need to tell us the facts in as objective a way as possible. The huge influx of "human interest" into news and the emotionalising of every issue is, to me, far more unsavoury than the idea of making a film based on absolutely anything.

Bang on post. Human interest trends in news make me angry. You should see some of the "newspapers" we have here...but then you probably have them everywhere. And people prefer them.

*infinite sighs*

[BeautifulBurnout]

What interests me, and what might ultimately fuel my curiosity enough to rent it perhaps, is the way that the whole situation is presented. Who are the leads? It's going to be difficult to suspend disbelief and get the same kind of visceral sympathetic response if the actors are ones that we've seen a thousand times before. How are they going to present the shift from paralyzing fear to determination to take action? How far are they willing to go to show two groups of people, one group determined to die to complete their mission, and another group reconciled to death to stop them? And finally, how will it end? What's the most respectful way to end a movie about people that we know died horribly? It's this presentation which will determine whether or not I fall into the same line of thinking as Paul. To be perfectly honest, I have no emotional reaction to the fact that this movie is being released at all. When it finally comes out, I'll probably start forming an opinion about it, but I think that the movie could swing either way. If presented correctly, this movie could be a rather beautiful memorial about ordinary people who were forced to choose between two horrible destinies.

From what I understand from tv and radio reviews, they deliberately chose relatively unknown actors in order to give as much the sense of "ordinary people doing something extraordinary" as they could.

As for the other questions you ask here, these are the very reasons I would like to see the movie too, I think.

[gambit]

From the one review I've heard of it, the movie tends to be more like a documentary than a dramatization. Like this happened, then this, then this, then boom, the movie ends, discuss. Also, ten percent of the profits are going to the memorial fund that has been stagnated for a while. While I don't believe that'll drive anyone to the theaters, that could ease some of the anxieties people have about paying money to see it.

[den]

Here's a good review from The Onion, that brings up a lot of points being discussed here. It sounds like it's not entirely a popcorn movie, and probably one you have to see to make up your mind about.

http://www.avclub.com/content/node/47860

[Malt Refund]

Also, ten percent of the profits are going to the memorial fund that has been stagnated for a while.
10 percent of the profits for opening day will go to the memorial fund.. after that, its all money in the bank.

[potatobroth]

i have no interest whatsoever in seeing this. we all know what happened, we (in my local area) all know someone that was completely fucked up over this whole event, why on earth would i want to relive that horrible day even again? and moreso, why would i want to see a dramatization of the events?

the documentaries from firefighters and the likes were enough for me. this film, as documentary as it could ever hope to be, will still use guesswork and creative license to fill in the gaps between the 4 or 5 cellphone calls and cockpit recorder information that they have.

i dont mean to say that i dont think people should go see this, nor that it isnt well made, but i myself dont feel the need to see it.

[potatobroth]

i see nothing wrong with this movie..
in fact the family members helped out with it..

whats the point of this movie? so we never forget? i dont understand. the family members helped because its the last thing they can do for their loved ones that died aboard or in the towers. but its a wildly unnecessary film, dontcha think? i think it might be tastefully done as i cant imagine this movie would get made otherwise. but its not like F911 in any way, shape or form. F911 made allegations and drew conclusions, F93 does not and cannot. Its just gonna make people depressed and sad again, and i cant tell you how much i dont want to go back in that direction.

never forget. hell, im trying to forget this event, i dont want to be reminded of it in dramatic fashion.

[adam]

whats the point of this movie?

What's the point in any movie about any real events?

[potatobroth]

What's the point in any movie about any real events?

yeah yer right i guess. all i guess i can say to that is that it feels different than other 'real events' movies no?

[Deckard]

whats the point of this movie?What's the point in any movie about any real events?
I've been thinking about this, about big screen dramatisations of real events, and what their ultimate purpose is. And you know, whether it's Titanic or Apollo 13 or even Munich and Schindlers List, people may not like to acknowledge it, but the purpose is ultimately (or at least largely) - entertainment.

Not necessarily entertainment in the Jim Carrey sense, but it's still deliberately allowing ourselves to indulge in the emotion and drama of an event.

It's easy to see how this could be interpreted as effectively implying that the real event needs dramatising and dressing up, an implication that would suggest its not sufficiently dramatic in the first place. It could well be that this is one reason why it's sitting uncomfortably for some (even if they can't quite pinpoint why).

Is it possible that there could be anything in this film that couldn't have been communicated in a documentary? If not, whether we like it or not, this is ultimately playing to our appetite for drama - we're intentionally stepping aboard an emotional rollercoaster because we want to go through with the ensuing ride.

The bottom line is, for 9/11, people don't need to do that to either get the facts or appreciate the horror - we're reminded over and over and over again, by the media, by politicians, by our friends and colleagues. It's still a very recent event and we all recall the horror, we know where to get the facts. Going to see this film is a conscious and unnecessary indulgence in drama, a form of entertainment.

I don't have any moral judgements to make about that, but it's just something I think a lot of people are in denial about. And I'd go further and suggest that for most people, it's the very same appetite for drama that increasingly drives the ratings-driven news outlets to up the ante on dramatising and emotionalising our news.

It probably says more about us than it does them.

(*If we're talking about documentaries, I think that's clearly different, it's about informing, uncovering, exposing, whatever.)

[Deckard]

(Apologies to Treatment regulars for my World-stylee post ;) )

[adam]

But I don't think it's necessarily true to reduce all such movies to the realm of "entertainment". Some are, certainly. Titanic definitely wasn't anything else.

But I think even Munich (and I would say Spielberg's work is almost entirely entertainment) was trying to get people talking about the validity of violence as a response to violence. There is plenty of room in examining real events for ...umm.... thought. Fuck this, I have work to do.

[big screen satellite]

But I don't think it's necessarily true to reduce all such movies to the realm of "entertainment". Some are, certainly. Titanic definitely wasn't anything else.



Before this turns into a world type debate (thred), which i try to avoid, the problem with celuloid and moving image type media, is that its all entertainment, in a sense.

The actual real live events of 9/11 shown on TV screens would no doubt be classed as 'entertainment', (not in a nice sit down and enjoy way), but broadcast news is entertainment whichever way you look at it and whatever this film goes on to show or prove, it is that people will want to watch it...

Some to 'know' what happened, some to dismiss it as crass, and insensitve, and for others as just another film to see...

Is it any worse than the gloryfication of the events in newspapers the days after the event, or the endless programmes anaysing the events, or even TV shows like Rescue Me that have subplots that run off the back off 9/11...

You can't ignore the fact it happened and no one should forget or ever will, but trying to label one movie, even before we've all even seen it, isn't fair...yes it is made to entertain, but so are news programmes. Whats worse: seeing people falling out of buildings live on TV or a film made with the consent of the families who want to show how their loveones died in a way that the world will hopefully understand...

its a debate that will rage on, no doubt... and for some never is too soon, but before people decide on this ,movie, go see it and make up yer own minds...its out there now...we can't do much about it, except discuss and until its been seen there is not much to discuss.

[dubman]

man...

fuck this movie.

they should change the end, have a dance party on flight, land the plane in disneyland, eat some ice cream, and have all of al-queda come for a picture with mickey mouse on which they'll swear they had the best time ever.

fucking movies always memorializing crap.

[gambit]

After reading Deckard's post, an idea struck me about art. When I write a deeply personal story, or not even that put some paragraphs about something deeply personal, it is very cathartic for me, and certainly anyone who has dabbled in art knows what I mean. But not everyone is an artist, and perhaps--and I know I'm leaving myself open to be shat upon here--films of this sort will be cathartic for those non-artistic persons. I don't think this is intended to be entertainment, certainly not entertainment in any traditional form that we're used to. An emotional ride, sure, but I obviously can't say that this film is meant to be cathartic since I haven't seen it yet. But, who knows? It's a thought.

[grady]

Interesting to bring up the notion of catharsis. I came across this while reading Manohla Dargis review in the New York Times today:

"Sept. 11 has shaped our political discourse and even infiltrated our popular culture, though as usual Hollywood has been awfully late to that table. Yet five years after the fact and all the books, newspaper and magazine articles, committees and scandals later, I think we need something more from our film artists than another thrill ride and an emotional pummeling. "United 93" inspires pity and terror, no doubt. But catharsis? I'm still waiting for that."

link (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html)

[adam]

And, I win. You guys lose.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/united93

Christ, read some of those quotes. Very few movies score this well.

[dubman]

And, I win. You guys lose.

(some friggin metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/united93) link)

.

haha, you just zinged yourself.

"these other people opinions totally rule yours!!"

i think everyone lost.
when you see talking heads on news programs stumbling over their own reverence over a hollywood production, awkwardly trying to apply some culturally transcendent quality to this self-congratulating display of "how well someone can register terror and fright," it sounds completely ridiculous.

this flood of overly serious discussion simply because it's a sensitive subject is melodramatically retarded, and i feel like this whole thing is a cultural dance rather than anything honest

[adam]

No, I didn't. Most of these people directly address the concerns brought up here, dismiss them, and have actually seen the fucking movie. Funny that you can't tell the difference between that and, "these other people opinions totally rule yours!!"

[dubman]

No, I didn't. Most of these people directly address the concerns brought up here, dismiss them,

oh, then that's all okay then.

i'm not talking about the movie really, i'm talking about what it's doing, and the makers of this crap knew it would play out exactly as cynically as it's doing now.

funny how your comprehension is sacrificed for how BADLY you want to get so indignant.

[Future Proof]

And, I win. You guys lose.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/united93

Christ, read some of those quotes. Very few movies score this well.

LOL and what do you want me to inscribe on your trophy? :p :D

[Malt Refund]

It opened in third place this weekend.. http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-04-28&p=.htm