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

Re: Flight 93 Discussion

I had thought no, but I feel compelled to see it. My father, who likes generic action and sci-fi pictures, feels obligated to go see it. That surprised me. I thought I might wait until DVD, but now don't think I should. I love movies, and this is a movie that should be seen.

That said, I am not looking forward to it. I DON'T think it's too soon. I DO completely trust the director and the studio to get it as right as possible. It doesn't affect my personal or political feelings either way. I just know how badly it's going to hurt. It's only supposed to be 90 minutes, but I know it'll be rather painful. The only relatable film is The Passion, which was a soul-draining and exhausting affair. But 9/11 is etched into my memories. I'm fairly laid back, but I couldn't get through the opening secion of the 9/11 Commission Report. I was bawling. So, I am sort of dreading seeing the film.

But I really think if the families can watch it, can relive it, who am I to not pay my money and see the film. That's what is driving me.

And it's UNITED 93. They changed the title, for the better in my opinion. It works on more levels.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

Shoot, the mods are quick! Thanks. "Too soon" is relative. For many people it might be "too soon", and they should forego seeing it. Others probably could have seen this a few years ago. CHUD has had a lot of coverage on the film, Paul Greengrass, and some of the actors. Check it out for some interesting thoughts, especially from the director himself..

I do want to applaud the studio (Universal) for making the film. It could have been a lightning rod, and they have absolutely no marketing data to support it's financial prospects. It doesn't fit into any genres, and so they essentially went in blind to the business risks. While we can sniff at 10% of the profits going to the Flight 93 fund (still trying to raise money for the land in NC), that's a significant investment. So, a big thanks to Universal.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I saw United 93 at a private screening and believe me, it is one of the most gripping and intense films I've ever seen, especially the last hour of the film. The attention to factual detail leaves almost nothing to be desired, to say the least.

This is the type of film that strongly deserves Oscar consideration next year, in my humble opinion.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I wasn't all that interested when I first heard of it a little while back, but the reviews seem to be extraordinarily good, so I'll probably go and see it.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I honestly don't know - was the A&E version met with even half the apprehension, or is the fact that this is a theatrical release that makes all the difference? It's still the same subject matter, after all. One had TV ratings to gain, the other has box office receipts to gain. Both were 'approved', so what is the difference in terms of overall controversy?

I'm not saying 'what's the point', I'm asking questions - I only say that so there's no confusion between genuine interest and sarcasm...
especially when topics like this can be so easily misinterpreted in discussion.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

what was the original title?

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

Flight 93.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

While I'm sure this movie is excellent and done only with respect to the subject matter, I can't imagine that many people wanting to go and see it. It may not be too soon for some people but it's definitely way too soon for other people.

Personally, I doubt that I'll ever see it because I don't want to make myself miserable by watching it. I know what happened that day and the sacrifice that was made and I don't need a movie to remind me of it.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

This was one of my most anticipated movies. I hope I won't leave disappointed.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

Oh. OK. I suppose that "United 93" does make a better title, though thinking about it too much reminds me that the terrorists targeted those two airlines for propagandistic reasons. Ahem...

I hear that the most "philanthropic" time to see this film is opening weekend. True?

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

My thoughts are nearly identical to Chuck's.

I've avoided 9/11 for almost 5 years now. A couple of weeks ago I watched the trailer and determined I shouldn't see this. Now I feel drawn to it. Maybe it's time to take a look. I don't need to see this movie to 'remember', but maybe I need it to move to a new place.

The wife doesn't want to see it. Hard to imagine watching this alone in the theater.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I had no interest in this movie, but Ebert's review changed my mind, I may just give it a chance.

--
H

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

My guess is that the A&E version simply didn't catch much awareness from people because it was on a cable tv station. Theatrical movies are far more visible in terms of advertising.

I saw parts of the tv movie and that was hard enough, so no thank you to a theatrical version. It's still too soon for me.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I will see it...but on DVD in the privacy of my own home. Something that strikes this personally is an experience where I prefer to be alone. For those that can handle seeing it in a public forum I salute you.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

That guy needs to loosen his tinfoil cap. Is he really suggesting that United 93 didn't happen?

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

There is so much information out there. You just have to do some research. Trouble is most people do not want to look at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_co...ited_Flight_93

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

Mmm. A literary work shouldn't be judged on the basis of its genre. Why not let it it naturally fade into obscurity?

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

"I know what happened that day and the sacrifice that was made and I don't need a movie to remind me of it."

I don't need it. I want it.

I just got back from seeing it...alone (thanks for the heads up, Quentin). My wife wasn't interested, and I couldn't wait.

I'm not going to review it, but I do have to unleash some of the emotion, so please bear with me. The film is unbearable, and gets more and moreso approaching the conclusion. But in the end, it provided a clarity long since lost in the 4.5 years since the day (more on this in a moment). I had a knot in my stomach, and it grew and grew, and I simply couldn't cry it away. In the middle, I found myself looking at the margins of the images.

1) It's very well-made.

2) There is no party line or slogan.

3) There is no audience manipulation in the direction or editing.

I will never watch it alone again, but I will screen it with my son in nine or ten years. It's been a long time since 9/11. We've had 2 elections since then, and countless reminders, and new Departments, and thousands of "news" stories to dull the memory a bit, to gloss it, to put it in the backseat. And rightfully so...you can't live with that horror every day. Humans endure with such tricks. But a solid reminder every now and then is a very good thing. There are two stories in the film...the morning unfolding for the FAA and the military, and the events on Flight 93. One informs the other, but they never meet. It reminded me of the uncertainty of that day...no one knew the seismic shift that had occurred, and we were all very scared. It was nice to see that again, without the government and media bywords we've used to distance ourselves from how we felt. I felt like shit, and I feel like shit now. It's not closure. It's no call to arms. It's just a call to remember.

Not a complete list:

CREW:
- Lorraine G. Bay, Hightstown, N.J., flight attendant
- Sandra W. Bradshaw, 38, Greensboro, N.C., flight attendant
- Jason Dahl, 43, Denver, Colo., captain
- Wanda A. Green, 49, Linden, N.J., flight attendant
- LeRoy Homer, 36, Marlton, N.J., first officer
- CeeCee Lyles, Fort Myers, Fla., flight attendant
- Deborah Welsh, 49, New York, N.Y., flight attendant


PASSENGERS:
- Christian Adams, 37, Biebelsheim, Germany, foreign sales manager, German Wine Fund
- Todd Beamer, 32, Cranbury, N.J., account manager, Oracle Corp.
- Alan Beaven, 48, Oakland, Calif., environmental lawyer
- Mark Bingham, 31, San Francisco, Calif., public relations firm owner
- Deora Bodley, 20, Santa Clara, Calif., university student
- Marion Britton, 53, assistant regional director, U.S. Census Bureau
- Thomas E. Burnett Jr., 38, San Ramon, Calif., medical research senior executive
- William Cashman
- Georgine Rose Corrigan, antiques and collectibles dealer
- Joseph Deluca
- Patrick Driscoll
- Edward Felt, 41, Matawan, N.J.
- Colleen Fraser, 51, Elizabeth, N.J., chairwoman, NJ Developmental Disabilities Council
- Andrew Garcia, 62, Portola Valley, Calif.
- Jeremy Glick, 31, West Milford, N.J.
- Kristin Gould
- Lauren Grandcolas, 38, San Rafael, Calif., sales worker, Good Housekeeping magazine
- Donald F. Greene, 52, Greenwich, Conn.
- Linda Gronlund, 46, Warwick, N.Y., environmental compliance, BMW
- Richard Guadagno, 38, Eureka, Calif., manager, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
- Toshiya Kuge, 20, Tokyo, Japan, student
- Hilda Marcin, 79, Budd Lake, N.J., retired teacher's aide
- Waleska Martinez, 37, automation specialist, U.S. Census Bureau
- Nicole Miller, 21, San Jose, Calif., student, West Valley College
- Louis J. Nacke, 42, New Hope, Pa., distribution center director, Kay-Bee Toys
- Donald A. Peterson, 66, Spring Lake, N.J., retired president, Continental Electric Co.
- Jean Hoadley Peterson, 55, Spring Lake, N.J.
- Mark Rothenberg, Scotch Plains, N.J., owner, MDR Global Resources
- Christine Snyder, 32, Kailua, Hawaii, arborist, Outdoor Circle
- John Talignani, 72, Staten Island, N.Y., retired restaurant worker
- Honor Elizabeth Wainio, 27, Watchung, N.J., district manager, Discovery Channel stores

Edit: Tino, I think Chris was simply pointing out the emotional pain that goes with looking at the info. I almost discussed the conspiracy theories, but why give them credence. People believe what they want to, facts be damned, in many cases. Not worth the effort.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I thought long and hard before posting this. If it were any other forum, I would not have, but I know how open minded and intelligent the HTF members are, I figured they would understand my point (not that you may/will agree, but understand where I am coming from). I am NOT attempting to thread crap and sincerely offer up this point, not to start a debate, but in an attempt see what other may think of my point of view.

While I was present at the WTC on 9/11 and lost several co-workers in the attack, I have no interest in seeing this film. Not because it would be emotional, I don't really think it would be for me. But because it is a dramatization of what happened, "based on a true story" if you will and I think that a lot of people are losing sight of that fact. I know that the filmmakers did research and much of what happened on the plane can never be known, but it is this lack of knowledge that keeps me from wanting to see this film. From what I have been hearing from the press and from others that have seen the film, many act (react?) as if this is actual footage from the incident and accept the entire movie as all fact. I feel that I would watch the film and wonder throughout "did that really happen?" "was this added for dramatic effect?".

I guess my concern is that people will watch this movie and (whether the filmmaker's intended it or not) that it will become the "truth of what happened" and our "history" of that day and incident will have been created by Hollywood. While I know that most of us do want to think that the passengers on that plane did rise up in a "John Wayne--you ain't doing this to America" type of way, I think that it should be kept in mind that this is a filmmaker's interpretation of what HE thinks MAY have occurred and it is not a documentary based entirely on facts. Hollywood created this to elicit emotions in the viewer and boxoffice, not to tell the facts of what happened (they can't, cause we don't know).

Don't get me wrong, this isn't the only time I have had issues with Hollywood playing fast and loose with actual events. I don't watch the show, but anytime I hear a promo for Law and Order or the like and they have taken an actual crime and juiced it up for entertainment purposes, I always think, how many people are going to watch this and think that this is exactly what happened in real life.

Sorry for the long post. This post is not in any way intended to diminish or invalidate anyone else's opinion, feelings or thoughts on the movie, but for some reason that I am not sure about, I felt that I needed to get that off my chest.

T.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

Actually, Tino, I misinterpreted it. Chris' link does connect to the 9/11 Conspiracies page. And I agree with Tino, I'd rather not waste time with it. I'll listen to any theory once, but as soon as I see it is fueled by something other than fact-finding, I'm done with it.

"While I know that most of us do want to think that the passengers on that plane did rise up in a "John Wayne--you ain't doing this to America" type of way,"

Tony, thanks for your thoughts. That's not at all how it's portrayed in the film. And the film is as accurate as it can be, based on forensic, and other, evidence. Yes, plenty of it is unknown, and anyone who can stomach the film probably knows that. If people want to let Hollywood write their version of history...that's their choice. I knew full well I was seeing a dramatization. The film is not Hollywood at all. In the least, in any typical way.

Re: UNITED 93 Discussion

I'm surprised Roger didn't call up Michael Moore and ask him to write the review.