*** Official UNITED 93 Discussion Thread (PLEASE READ POST #29!) (1 Viewer)

[Ocean Phoenix]

Okay, maybe I'm not being fair because I didn't see the whole thing, but I honestly believe that the TV movie Flight 93 was a travesty. And I'm not biased because of being offended about the movie being made. I simply hated the movie because I thought it was overly sentimental melodramatic and corny garbage. I haven't seen United 93, but from what I saw of Flight 93, it looked like everything that people praise United 93 for NOT being - manipulative, exploitive, and contrived.

Having the stewardess laughing as she casually tells the other stewardess "My husband begged me to stay home" and the pilot tell his co-pilot "It's my five year anniversary and I'm going to surprise my wife by taking her on a vacation!" were both pathetically obvious attempts to make the audience cry because they know that these people are going to die. Those scenes reminded me of the episode of The Simpsons in which Homer watches a scene from a cheesy action movie of Arnold Schwarzenegger clone McBain:

Mcbain's partner [wistfully]: "I got a future. I'm two days away from retirement, my daughter just graduated from college...
Mcbain: Little Suzie's growing up.
Mcbain's partner: ...And as soon as we nail Mendoza, me and my wife are gonna go sailing around the world like we always wanted. We just christened a boat (shows Mcbain a picture of his boat called "Live 4 Ever"). Everything's gonna be just perf...
[A thug working in the bar pulls out a hidden gun and shoots Mcbain's partner repeatedly]
Mcbain [clutching his bloody, bullet-riddled partner]: MENNNNNNDOOOOOOZZZZAAAAA!!!

Seriously, this movie was that corny. The conversations between the crew members were shamelessly obvious efforts on the part of the filmmakers to manipulate the audience into pitying their hackeneyed optimism, the conversations between the passengers and their loved ones were nauseatingly melodramatic, and the way that the terrorist character repeatedly makes the plane twist and shake to freak out the passengers was ridiculous. And am I supposed to believe that a terrorist would stand in the aisle silently while the passengers all huddle together obviously plotting against him right before his eyes?

Everyone should be grateful that United 93 is the one that got a theatrical release while Flight 93 was kept on TV, because had the reverse happened, I think a lot of people who are sensitive about the events of September 11 being interpreted through film would be VERY angry right now.

 

[Holadem]

Again, (I know I am sounding like a broken record ) it is based on the assurance that such devices were absent from United 93 that I decided to give it a chance.

Although, I did get a bit nervous at the begining when one of the characters said something like "It's gonna be a good day" .

--
H

 

[Henry Gale]

Like Ocean, I haven't seen either movie, either.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

I’ll accept the grainy subdued color and documentary style camera work as the way the director chose to tell the story. I don’t think he was so much retelling the actual story, as he was remembering the horror as a terrible dream. We the viewers were as much a part of the film as the participants on screen. We have the common memory of where we were and how we learned of the events by watching the same TV coverage as the principals. We are now shown the fear and heroism of those who lost their lives, and of the frustration of the civil and military authorities who could not obtain actionable intelligence until too late. I’ve had many a dream where I feel I can control the course of the events, only to be made impotent by things that constantly do not follow a logical plan.

The flight controllers, pilots and passengers all comment on how beautiful the weather is over New York and virtually the whole nation. The director may have felt the contrast between the extremely beautiful day and the horror the hijackers inflicted was too much to be credible. I would have preferred a brighter image, but again the director went in a different direction.

Much is made of the lack of politics or recrimination in the film. Perhaps we could argue this treatment is a flaw. As is, it will be left to other films to stoke the fires of controversy. The action taken by the passengers of United 93 is commonly regarded as heroic. Their story is worthy of a movie of their struggle and fate, and of the events that transpired that day. To be fair, the film does cover communication from flight 77. What is lacking in knowledge of the other two planes is part of the mystery we share with the ground controllers and military. As in a dream we want to shout out to help them, but we know that we can’t and they can’t do anything to stop the tragedy we are watching unfold.

For every film reviewer who wants to know why and where some critical person or element was missing, there will be dozens of films over the years that will tackle a hundred of these questions.

What happened on United 93 was that a group of Americans got it right. Their heroism is rightly remembered.

 

[RobertR]

Saw the film today. I appreciated the "anti Hollywood" aspect very much. There was plenty of drama and horror and pathos on that day. No need for embellishment. Convincing performances by all, and technically well done.

 

[Brett_M]

This film is like no other I watched in a theatre. I was a wreck during most of it -- nervously bouncing my kneee (as I do when I'm stressed out). The end had me sobbing.

There was one problem. 8 people in the theater. 2 entered about 25 minutes in -- never a good sign.

They sat down to my left and started making out. My first thought was that great Seinfeld where Jerry and his current girlfriend were making out during Schindler's List.

After a couple of minutes, they started talking and laughing -- LOUD.

Two people near them moved. My friend stood up and asked them to "please shut the f*** up." The kept talking but at a lower level.

After a few more minutes, he walked over to them and said "find a park to have this discussion" and headed down the steps for a manger. They got up and walked out.

There were moments when I was not able to focus on the film due to their rude behavior. Maybe that's why I was so stressed. Maybe not.

 

[Rob Willey]

Many movies end with a fade to black and then show graphical postscript info. I thought the full five seconds of black screen with no sound before the first postscript comes up was a particularly interesting artistic choice. Dead silence in the theater where I watched yesterday.

Rob

 

[JeremyErwin]

Patrick Smith, an aviation columnist for Salon discusses the accuracy of United 93.


(Yeah, Salon is a leftie mag. But Smith's column is largely apolitical. I'm sure that the accompanying letters section is not, so... um...
bear Post #29 is mind.)

 

[Shawn.F]

I know its a bit after the fact, but here is the review I posted for the film:

http://www.musicomh.com/films2/united-93_0506.htm

 

[Tino]

Very nice review Shawn.

 

[teapot2001]

I watched about 15 minutes of this and couldn't take it anymore. I had to close my eyes for most of the rest of the movie (I would have left if I wasn't with someone). I was fine with the camera work in Bourne Supremacy but this was too much for me.

~T

 

[Tino]

What was too much? The film or the camera work?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Like me and some others, I think it was the jerkycam that zapped him. I assume that's why he mentioned Supremacy to indicate the camerawork didn't bother him then but did here.

I got sick both times - no more Paul Greengrass flicks for me! :frowning:

 

[Nathan V]

Fantastic, devastating film. The intensity is reminiscent of Gibson's Passion. The writing is just great, and the real-time approach works beautifully. I especially liked the level of detail with which we see the events in the traffic control centers. Great stuff. Using nonactors and no-names was a masterstroke. Greengrass's camerawork too drove me crazy, however; I did have to look away for several moments. Bourne II simply gave me a bad headache; this made me worry about if I would vomit or not (I didn't come close, thankfully). The content and remainder of the film is so overwhelming though, so excellently conceived, that I can't really fault his choice of camerawork. Clearly handheld is the way to go, and I prefer the scope ratio- it allows for stronger compositions, and the inherent contradictions of handheld scope are always exciting to me, but I do feel he goes overboard with shaking the camera, particularly towards the end. Remeber Soderbergh's Traffic, which is also entirely handheld (except 3 shots), and he was able to convey versimilitude without making us throw up. Bloody Sunday (an equally devastating film, one of those movies that can really make you angry), which follows an identical format and approach as United 93, is digestible on the small screen as far as camerawork is concerned. I think U93 will be, for all intents and purposes, a perfect film on dvd.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Brian Perry]

I found the movie excellent, but very difficult to watch.

My heart rate starting increasing about 15 minutes into it -- right around when the first plane was hijacked, I think -- and it stayed accelerated until the end. And like several others, I felt physically ill from the camera shake during the plane scenes. This was the first movie I've seen where members of the audience (including myself) were not reclining in their seats but rather watching with elbows on knees.

The only minor quibble I had is how the one hijacker got the materials for the fake bomb aboard. It seems as though even pre-9/11 security measures would have detected someone trying to sneak in large batteries, clay bars, and wires in a carry-on bag. I wonder if the methods used by all four of the terrorist "teams" that day were the same. Perhaps the research indicated (through phone calls made by the passengers) that they saw some kind of bomb. It just seemed as though the one in the movie was a bit much.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Folks, this is not the thread to bring up/discuss the WTC film.

 

[Jose Martinez]

It is a powerful film. Deeply moving and intense. My early Best Picture nominee for the Oscars.

As for the camera work, I hardly noticed the hand held motions. It wasn't distracting but more essential to the film, unlike The Constant Gardener which really annoyed the hell out of me.

 

[Holadem]

Some rare levity on this topic: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48747

--
H

 

[Carl Johnson]

I saw the film today and it was very well done. It felt as though a film crew had tagged along with the terrorists and the flight crew and I was watching the events live. Considering the subject matter I thought in advance that the film would be emotionally devastating but it wasn't. The scenes where the passengers were calling their loved ones to say 'I love you' were emotional but even those weren't so bad. I'll admit that there were tears streaming down my face but I've had stronger reactions from 9-11 news footage.
I've heard that the producers called the surviving families of every person that was on every one of those planes and 100% of them were in favor of making the movie. That's a powerful statement.

 

[TonyD]

watching the dvd now.

i normally hate the shaky cam stuff but i barely thought about it here.

half hour in, and this is as intense a film a have seen in a long time.

i'm surprised there isnt a topic in the dvd section yet.