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

[Tino]

OH PLEASE!

Can we please keep this thread on track and not sidetrack it with conspiracy theories?

 

[JeremyErwin]

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

 

[Chuck Mayer]

"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.

 

[Tino]

Sorry but it sounded condescending to me. I apologize if I misinterpreted it. In retrospect, I didn't.

 

[Tony Int]

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.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

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.

 

[Tino]

I believe Paul Greengrass received the blessings of ALL the family members of those lost on United 93.

That endorsement is reason enough for me to see it. From what I have read, all available information was collected in regards to what happened on that flight and carefully researched as to repectfully represent the passengers and what they went through.

Nothing I have read leads me to believe otherwise. It doesn't sound "Hollywood'ized" at all.

 

[Tino]

Btw, United 93 is currently 95% Fresh, 97% Cream Of The Crop at Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/united_93/

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for United 93. Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

Also, please, leave any political or conspiracy comments for another forum and discussion. Anybody that crosses into those areas of discussion will risk closing this thread down as well as losing their posting privileges. This thread is specifically limited to discussion of this film.

All HTF member film reviews of United 93 should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Ashley Seymour]

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

 

[Ashley Seymour]

From Home Theater Forum September 12, 2001 Archive

Out of the horror and confusion of the previous day, information began to trickle in about the possibility that the passengers had acted heroically. Even early skeptics quickly realized the sad truth and heroic end of the passengers.


http://www.hometheaterforum.com/arch...sh+in+somerset

 

[JeremyErwin]

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I also thought Ebert's review was excellent. Hardly a Moore-like screed.

I also thought James B. had a fine review.

 

[Tino]

I wasn't prepared enough.

My God.

It was devastating for me. My heart was pounding from the opening credits and I thought I would have a cardiac arrest during the final unrelenting half hour.

United 93 is as excellent and as powerful as you have heard. It is infinitely respectful of it's story and not sensational in any way, shape or form.

As others have said, it's not a film to recommend or not. It is an experience unlike any other I have ever had watching a film, similar to TPOTC but different also.

It's a film that celebrates courage, determination sacrifice, and above all, LOVE.

If you see it, see it with someone you love.

Amazing

 

[MichaelBA]

A great deal of praise for the movie. But I am curious from those who've seen it, what are simply in cinematic terms some flaws, faults in it?

For example, a member in the Review Thread posted that he though the "constant" use of shaky-cam wasn't quite right.

I'm not interested in whether the film should have been made, and certainly -- which would be against the HTF rules anyway -- any political or social critique.

How does the film stack up as a film? Manohla Dargis in The NY Times found it to be quite conventional:


Any thoughts on the film in terms of plot, narrative, dialogue, characters, sets, design, shots, sound, etc?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

It doesn't stack up as a film. There is no narrative plot, no characterization, and no "flair". It's fly on the wall. The shaky cam did not bother me at all.

The sets were exceptional, the performances were good, not great. It felt workmanlike, but there is no razzle dazzle.

I thought it was all for the better. The story needs no enhancing, no directorial flourishes. It is not Hollywood at all.

 

[Tino]

Ditto!

 

[MichaelBA]

So, is UNITED 93 a pretty much "perfect" film?

I'm truly not trying to be difficult, so please don't mistake my question, which isn't directed to Chuck or Tino or anyone in particular who has seen the film and posted that he or she likes it. I haven't seen it, so I can't do more than ask about it.

But the reviews tend to focus (beyond the politics) so heavily on the emotional and the visceral impact of the film, which is fine -- except it still makes me curious about anything wrong with it in purely artistic, cinematic terms.

Even great, beloved, and important films have flaws, faults. What are this one's? If any, that is. Or are they so minor as to be excusably irrelevant?

Is this merely a temporarily significant film, no matter how very well done, simply because the events depicted are so recent? Or is this a film for the ages, a truly GREAT film that promises a lasting legacy, like say ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN?

 

[Cory S.]

Agree with Chuck, totally.

Although, I had one gripe with the film and that was the passengers relaying message in the couch section in the manner that they did.

Not saying it didn't happen, but the way it was presented, I figured the hijackers would've easily picked up on what they were doing earlier than how the film portrayed it.

There is a language barrier that has something to do with that but I personally felt that the hijackers would've tried to put a stop to all the whispering and planning that was going on.

It just seemed too obvious.

That's my only nitpick. That was the only part that felt a wee bit Hollywood. Other than that, outstanding piece of cinema.

The weirdest part for me and my wife is that we came out of the film extremely pissed, not so much moved by the bravery of the passengers, just pissed at how it all went down in the control rooms and what not.

I mean, we were extremely angry afterwords. And, I still can't figure out why.

Michael, to answer your question, craftmanship wise, it's as perfect as you can get. There's not a wasted moment. The film drips emotion and especially tension.

While I feel that The Passion was more emotional, United 93's tension is second to none in films that I've ever witnessed. It's that tense. It get almost unwatchable once the passengers decide to act. You want to turn away but you can't because it's riveting.

At the same time, that last sequence is more horrific than any horror film I've ever seen. Greengrass builds to this moment and it's almost too real.

Hollywood tends to put a little bit of razzle dazzle in films such as these based on real events, to let the audience know that this is still a film...a Hollywood film.

Greengrass bypass all that crap and keeps it as real as possible. It's remarkable....the craftmanship, I mean.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

It is extraordinarily tense. I had a knot in my stomach that grew and grew. A real physical discomfort that intensified.

No, it's not perfect. The Princess Bride is a perfect film. As I stated, United 93 is not entertaining. I paid to be reminded of a) how awful I felt that day, how scared I was because b) these people deserve to be remembered.

"There is a language barrier that has something to do with that but I personally felt that the hijackers would've tried to put a stop to all the whispering and planning that was going on."

Cory, I saw that as simply calling them on their bluff. They knew they were outnumbered. They had to be aggressive...but not too aggressive. And they knew it.

Michael, there are faults. All minor. And I don't remember them. It is finely balanced, and skips all of the political baggage assigned to 9/11 and terrorism after 9/11. It is very specific, and very limited in it's scope. All for the better. That stripping away of artifice is what gives the film power.