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

[Holadem]

Hmm...yeah......... (?!)

That review is funny because her descriptions of the movie sound very positive to me (emphasis on neutral, dispassionate observation), until she litters them with her interpretations. Sounds like she couldn't handle the movie not taking side, her reading of the final act is quite telling "take that, Osama?" :rolleyes.

Edit: quote from the link:

She can't handle it... this is someone who clearly would have preferred grand pronouncements with swelling music, flag-waving moments, the works. This movie will allow you to relive a tragedy. It will not provide you with some kind of catharsis.

--
H

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think it's just a difference in sensitivity to motion sickness. Some people can play first-person-shooter games for hours - I get oogy if I play for 20 minutes or so...

 

[Tino]

I was so engrossed in the film that I didn't notice the shaky camera at all..and I usually hate that technique.

I credit Paul Greengrass' for telling the story in such a riveting way that I didn't notice.

The worst offender for me in that category was Tony Scott's Man On Fire. That film gave me motion sickness.

 

[Nathan V]

Hmm, I have no problem with Tony Scott (who utilizes multiple exposures, not handheld shakycam), but Bourne Supremacy drove me insane. I felt the direction in that was terrible in terms of editing rhythm and covering the scenes, especially the action (aka i had no idea what was going on, and i wasn't even at least being bombarded with beautiful, if frenetic imagery). I'm willing to give Greengrass another try though. EW says the film contains takes that are as long as FORTY MINUTES!!! Is this true? If so, that would be awesome.

 

[JeremyErwin]

"Handheld Shakycam." Hmm. Maybe I'm far too generous when I refer to it as "tripodless scope". I'm of the opinion that scope, because the lenses have a short focal length, can't really be applied to non-blocked scenes. The "focus puller" has to work overtime. But perhaps I'm just boasting of my cinematographic naivety. I noticed that the film is very harshly lit-- the combination of shaky camera movements and harsh lighting serve to highlight the fact that few people like to fly, and they just want to get it over with. A morning spent in the air is a draining morning, almost a morning wasted.

Of course, something does happen, and no one, no one in the movie is truly prepared for it. The entire situation is disorientating, and it's appropriate that the film is as well. Scope promises the big picture, but its promises are for naught. Instead, the entire film is an exercise in focusing on the right things at the right time. Because no one on 9-11 was able to achieve this focus, Greengrass denies the viewer the satisfaction.

Similarly, Greengrass's construction of the film's ending mirrors the story he was trying to tell.

so as not to ruin the artistic effect, I've used spoilers.
As the plane crashes, the film, after building to a frantic chaotic "climax", abruptly ends with white text on black. Somber music plays.

 

[Holadem]

I took the harsh lighting quite litterally: It was an absolutely gorgeous day on the East Coast that morning.

--
H

 

[Patrick Sun]

Not quite. The EW article stated that the highjacking footage inside of the United 93 was shot in long takes to sustain the tension of immediate terror, as long as 40 minutes, but the film is edited and pieced together throughout the last half hour of the film that takes place primarily on the plane, so don't expect a 40-minute long tracking shot within the film.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Can I just ask that posters refrain from saying "this review" or "that review" without identifying the author of said review? This seems to be a well trafficked thread, and a page break or another post could well interrupt the flow of conversation. Thanks.

 

[Michael Elliott]

It's really hard to judge this "movie" because I'm really not sure it was made for "entertainment" reasons. As technically brilliant as the film was, I think the power of the story is in the fact that it's all true and the viewer it overly familiar with the events. There was a lot of debate on whether people were ready for a story on 9/11 and I thought they were. After seeing the film I somewhat wished I hadn't watched it. The 9/11 events are a bit too sensitive for me and this film was pretty much too well made and there were several moments where I turned my head to the side not wanting to watch anymore. The theater had around 100 people there and I've never heard such a quiet crowd. Before the movie, during the movie and then after the movie. Dead silence. Since the film wasn't made for entertainment and it's hard to view it that way, I'm not sure what the reasoning is. I know it's very doubtful I'll ever watch this again but I guess the film does serve a purpose in the fact that we shouldn't forget what the passengers did. I don't think seeing this movie will make me remember any better so in the end I'm really not sure if it was worth sitting through because of the emotional level it brought me to.

:star::star::star::star: But I wish I stayed at home instead.

 

[JeremyErwin]

From The Onion
Is Opening Week Too Soon To See A 9/11 Movie?

 

[Michael_K_Sr]

Technically, I thought the film was very well done...the handheld camera work giving a documentary like edge to the movie. Emotionally, it didn't really have the impact on me as it did on many of the other people in the theater. Four women in the row behind me spent much of the film sobbing and I saw a lot of red, moist eyes when exiting the theater. I don't know...one of my friends found it odd that I didn't have a huge knot in my stomach afterwards. I guess it's just because I'd read up on the subject so much over the last 4 1/2 years that I really didn't feel blindsided by anything I saw. Still, I'd recommend the film to just about anyone (leave the young kids at home.)

 

[Colton]

How does this film compare with FLIGHT 93 (TV Version) which was directed by Peter Markle.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/

I watched this version over the weekend.

- Colton

 

[JeremyErwin]

what is this?

Metacritic gave Flight 93 a 72, and United 93 a 90.

erm, maybe that was a little snippy. But it's unfair to judge a film in bits and pieces. Either the pieces fit together into a coherent whole, which merits good reviews, or it doesn't, which generally merits bad reviews. United 93 was a good, coherent film. I haven't seen Flight 93, but since television critics seemed to bring up "Amy Fisher", or some other nonevent that also inspired tv movies, I'm guessing that Flight 93 didn't aspire towards art. United 93 does, and on this level, I think it succeeds.

 

[Shaun]

I watched Flight 93 on A&E back when it premiered in January. Just like United 93, it is well made and just as intense and hard to watch.

Out of the two films, Flight 93 is probably more emotionally dramatic/touching as far as showing the passengers phone conversations with their families and loved ones as they say goodbye. It feels like more of a "Hollywood" version filmed using Steady-Cam with a musical score adding to the tension and emotion. United 93, on the other hand, has more of a "fly on the wall" perspective, where you feel like you're one of the passengers on board and you feel like you're one of the flight controllers. The use of shaky cam in United 93 also really gives the film a chaotic and realistic feel.

Other differences between the two -

Flight 93 has CGI special effects scenes of the plane from the outside, showing it changing altitudes and turning and shaking, where United 93 is shown completely from the inside of the plane. Example - The crash, in Flight 93 it is shown from the outside showing the plane upside down zooming overhead and then you see the black cloud of smoke. United 93 shows this from the passenger point of view as they struggle with the terrorist pilot in the cockpit, the ground becomes closer and closer, then fades to black. In my opinion, both are equally effective and terrifying.


Flight 93 also shows the aftermath and the crater with EMS arriving, while in United 93 after the plane crashes and fades to black it goes right into a short explanation followed by the credits.


Both movies strive for accuracy, though some things shown in one were left out of the other and vice versa and artistic license was obviously taken to make up for what is not known.

Both are excellent films, though with the edge going to United 93 for realism.

 

[Holadem]

I haven't seen Flight 93, but I very much doubt that a Hollywoodized version of events as you describe would be more emotionally touching for me.

--
H

 

[Mary M S]

I have some of Tony’s concerns; I know that this movie with its current levels of critical acclaim will [re]write history, and that sort of thing bothers me. Popularization always writes history slowly daisy-chaining acceptance that this is indeed exactly what happened as years increase.
Thankfully it sounds like it is as neutral as possible while satisfying a filling in of blanks.

...I guard myself to an extreme against tendencies towards ‘rubbernecking’. In public when any commotion is going on, I turn my gaze and back quickly away once ascertaining no threat of personal physical danger is involved. My small token to afford privacy to any parties involved. I will not look past the split seconds it takes to determine situational awareness.

I don’t know if I am ready to relieve the emotions of that first week. My husband was sleeping in..since he is a pilot...and I also had family concerns knowing my sister was in NY on a business trip always doing breakfast once at the Towers those trips, I woke him very abruptly. It turned out my Sister was safe only within line of sight at the Tommy Hillfiger showroom that morning, my husband made it to the display just seconds before second impact. I will never forget when the additional news of Washington first broke I felt (and said)
“This is surreal. Are we at war???”

The saving grace for me is the fact that relatives back the film, if it is any condolence to them that Americans support this film with their viewership numbers; I would like to give them that small solace. . If it honors the dead, in any sense for having been dealt by fate the hand of being a soul aboard that flight # that day.

Do any feel there is a learned benefit from this film, or is it solely an "experience"?

 

[Andy Sheets]

"Hollywoodized" in this case would be a relative term. Flight 93 is actually rather dry and understated compared to most movies.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

"Do any feel there is a learned benefit from this film, or is it solely an "experience"?"

Mary,
One of the great joys of being a people person, loving books, and loving movies is the increased perspective or outlook one can gain with such pursuits. Experiences can be teaching tools. United 93 did not teach me anything intellectual about the events of the day. It crystallized the timeline a bit, but 20 seconds at Wikipedia could have done that. United 93 did teach me philosophically a bit. The experience of something is far more personal than the knowledge of something. I did not experience, not for a moment, even a fraction of what the passengers on that plane did. but seeing through their eyes, as represented by the film, gave me the briefest taste of the horror involved, of the universality of courage, and the price of it. Dave Beamer had a nice quote. He lost his son Todd on United 93. When asked if it was too soon for the film, he replied it was too soon to forget.

I intellectually understood what being a parent was about as I was preparing to actually do it. But the experience was a far different thing. I remember 9/11, what I wore, where I was, what was said. But experiencing it again was a far different thing. It was quite meaningful to me. Perhaps not educational, but no less meaningful for that. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Mary M S]

"loving books"..."Experiences" = teaching tools..."universality of courage".
I believe in remembrance.
It is beneficial to have a forum wherein you can bounce these kinds of contemplative thoughts off other members.
Thank you Chuck. Eloquently stated.
I will see the film.

 

[Shaun]

Holadem,

I was just trying to describe some of the differences between the two films, with regards to what was shown on screen and the events that took place. While both films are equally powerful and emotional, out of the two, Flight 93 feels more like a "movie", with CGI special effects, a more prominent musical score and being slightly less chaotic. While United 93, has more of a documentary/gritty "you are there" style.

For me, seeing both sides of the phone conversations between the passengers and their families/loved ones on Flight 93 really heightened the emotional impact as opposed to United 93, where you just see the passengers perspectives.