PDA

View Full Version : United 93 comes out today are you ready?



beb30
04-28-2006, 10:26 AM
United 93 the film about Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA opens nationally today and personally I cant wait there are really good reviews about it including the following:

Entertainment Weekly: "harrowing, documentary-style reenactment...."
GRADE: A-

New York Post: "...long, brutal and honest..."
GRADE: 3 1/2 of 4 stars

The Onion's A.V. Club: "...unforgettable, honorably intentioned..."
GRADE: B

USA Today: "...unflinching, powerfully vesceral..."
GRADE: 4 of 4 stars

The Village Voice: "...the film nobody wants to see, is worth seeing."
GRADE: N/A

The New Yorker: "...stunning..."
GRADE: N/A

kbrake
04-28-2006, 11:05 AM
Still cant decide if I want to go see or not. Whats everyone else think?

remdog
04-28-2006, 11:35 AM
It's one of the few films I've wanted to see lately but, I have to admit, I'm a bit scared of it. I've often thought of what it must have been like to be on that plane. (For the last 5-6 years I've been on at least two flights per week, 30 weeks per year so I could imagine being in that position.)

If it truly is done honestly then I think I would be OK with it but I don't want any dramatization or false heroics. I just want to know what it was really like.

I know that no one will ever really know what it was like at that moment in time but.....

Rem

registerthis
04-28-2006, 11:45 AM
I think it's too early for a film like this to be made. The aftershocks of the attacks are still reverberating, and the attacks themselves are still fresh in the mind for many across the country.

I know I have no interest in seeing it, and many I have spoken with about it feel the same way. It's a day not many people in this country would like to relive.

westofyou
04-28-2006, 11:47 AM
The knowledge of what happened on the plane is about par with the knowledge of the morning movements of Pompeii in 79 AD.

HotCorner
04-28-2006, 12:19 PM
The knowledge of what happened on the plane is about par with the knowledge of the morning movements of Pompeii in 79 AD.

Voice recordings from the cockpit, documented cell phone calls and records from the FAA and military would suggest otherwise.

I plan on seeing this movie but not sure when. I would also like to see World Trade Center with Nicholas Cage which is due out in August.

westofyou
04-28-2006, 12:23 PM
Voice recordings from the cockpit, documented cell phone calls and records from the FAA and military would suggest otherwise.Somewhat the equivalent of the worker frozen by ash at his potter wheel. Or the mother suckling her infant, you know limited information and the rest is filled in.

Johnny Footstool
04-28-2006, 12:37 PM
Personally, I wouldn't want to watch this in a crowded theatre, because I think this would be a very visceral, emotional experience and I don't want to be caught up in the emotions of other people around me. But I do want to see it.

I'd compare it to "Elephant" or "Bowling for Columbine" -- movies I wanted to see, but didn't care to share the experience with 200 people I don't know.

I'll probably rent it or catch it on a movie channel in a few months.

vaticanplum
04-28-2006, 12:50 PM
I think it's too early for a film like this to be made. The aftershocks of the attacks are still reverberating, and the attacks themselves are still fresh in the mind for many across the country.

I know I have no interest in seeing it, and many I have spoken with about it feel the same way. It's a day not many people in this country would like to relive.

I agree completely. I don't think this is a country that has learned how to grieve, and that films with violin-soaked scores is still looked on as the way to go. I do not want to see it. It was real life, and not necessarily real life that I want to see as portrayed in the movie just yet. Not to mention the implications that may come from such a film that could affect the way we view current political situations that in fact aren't at all related....but that's for the peanut gallery I suppose, and anyway I haven't seen it so not very fair of me.

Roy Tucker
04-28-2006, 12:56 PM
I think it's too early for a film like this to be made. The aftershocks of the attacks are still reverberating, and the attacks themselves are still fresh in the mind for many across the country.

I know I have no interest in seeing it, and many I have spoken with about it feel the same way. It's a day not many people in this country would like to relive.
I agree completely.

My wife and I were in the theatre a couple weeks back and they had on the trailer for this movie. I'm a pretty stolid guy and have emotional armor a few inches thick. But just seeing the trailer really upset me. It's still all too fresh and raw.

I will say this though. I read the Time Magazine article about these 9/11 movies. And for Flight 93, they talked to David Beamer (Todd Beamer's dad) and he was OK with it. I used to work with David and a more quality and distinguished guy you'll never find. So if he's good with it, then at least the movie must be done well.

pedro
04-28-2006, 01:07 PM
I couldn't want to see a movie less.

TeamBoone
04-28-2006, 01:11 PM
CBS already did a TV version... and as much as it pained me to watch it, it was very very well done, though brutal. I'm not sure what the theater version could possibly add.

And, believe it or not, they actually know quite a bit about what happened because several of the passengers were on cell phones with loved ones (why the phones weren't collected by the terrorists is beyond me). Many of those phones were still on during the fatal event.

Those people were very very brave.

HotCorner
04-28-2006, 01:11 PM
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/united_93/

Rotten Tomatoes has it rated a 94 which is esteem praise. From all reviews I've read, it appears to have been done in the right manner.

Johnny Footstool
04-28-2006, 01:15 PM
I agree completely. I don't think this is a country that has learned how to grieve, and that films with violin-soaked scores is still looked on as the way to go. I do not want to see it. It was real life, and not necessarily real life that I want to see as portrayed in the movie just yet. Not to mention the implications that may come from such a film that could affect the way we view current political situations that in fact aren't at all related....but that's for the peanut gallery I suppose, and anyway I haven't seen it so not very fair of me.

Maybe one of the reasons we haven't learned how to grieve is because we don't like to confront real, raw emotions. If something could potentially hurt us, we hold it at a distance. We'll take a glossed-over spectacle like "Titanic" instead of something raw and realistic like "Elephant".

Personally, I think the best way to with pain is to confront it, not ignore it.

MWM
04-28-2006, 01:47 PM
I couldn't want to see a movie less.

Pretty much how I feel. It seems like whenever Hollywood tries to dramatize an real life event like this they fail miserably. I don't think will be an exception. Most of know what happened, why do we need a movie. They'll most likely over-dramatize it and turn the characters into typical over the top movie characters.

registerthis
04-28-2006, 01:56 PM
Personally, I think the best way to with pain is to confront it, not ignore it.

But there are many ways to deal with pain that don't involve a complete re-enactment of the event itself. Not wanting to see video repeatedly o fthe planes crashing into the towers doesn't mean that an individual is "ignoring pain", it's simply something they may not wish to deal with again.

RBA
04-28-2006, 02:07 PM
I'll wait for the DVD.

HotCorner
04-28-2006, 02:10 PM
Pretty much how I feel. It seems like whenever Hollywood tries to dramatize an real life event like this they fail miserably. I don't think will be an exception. Most of know what happened, why do we need a movie. They'll most likely over-dramatize it and turn the characters into typical over the top movie characters.

I think too many people are making assumptions about this movie without looking into it.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20060428/ENT02/604280313/1027/rssenq0501



Greengrass' aim for reality even extends to the use of Sept. 11 participants to re-create their activity, including the chief of air traffic control operations, Ben Sliney, one of several people who play themselves. Pilots and some of the flight attendants in the film are played by real airline pilots and crew members.

The ultimate effect is incredibly moving and reaffirms the courage of the United 93 passengers. The well-made and heartfelt "United 93" is a superb film and a worthy memorial.

RedsBaron
04-28-2006, 02:43 PM
I think too many people are making assumptions about this movie without looking into it.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20060428/ENT02/604280313/1027/rssenq0501
Yep.
Today's Wall Street Journal has a review of the film by Joe Morgenstern on page W1. A few quotes from the review:
"Never has an audience brought to a motion picture what we bring to 'United 93'-a sense of dread caused by an open national wound. We are vulnerable to the formidable force of Paul Greengrass's documentary-style drama from its first quiet moments, in the dawn of September 11th, 2001, and by its first hushed words, spoken in Arabic by one of the hijackers: 'It's time.' Each of us will decide for ourselves whether it's time to see such a film, time to risk more pain against the possibility of some catharsis, or at least some useful vision of the events of that day. If the answer is yes, then this film is well worth the risk. It's an anguishing, literally spell-binding vision of what happended on the ground as the twin towers of the World Trade Center were struck, and in the cockpit and cabin of the airliner that was diverted, by a passenger revolt, from its flight path to the U.S. Capitol."
****
"I realize that I'm using conventional filmmaking terms to discuss matters of immeasurable gravity. But 'United 93' is a movie, and we respond to it, at least in part, as a movie audience, despite the admirable absence of recognizable actors (The performers, most but not all of them professionals, are uniformly superb.)
"It's a movie that singles out a hero, as movies do: Ben Sliney, who, during his first day on the job as national operations manager at the FAA's command center in Virginia, decides to ground all air traffic across the nation in the wake of the twin towers' destruction. 'We're at war with somebody,' he says, 'and until we figure out what to do about it we're shutting down.' (Mr. Sliney is played, with uncanny star presence, by himself.) It's a movie that generates almost unendurable suspense in the run-up to the hijackers making their move, and then again in the desperate minutes when a few passengers improvise a plan to wrest control of the Boeing 757 from their captors.
"Paradoxically, the least convincing parts of those last minutes are the ones that dramatize the transcripts of passengers' telephone calls. Factually true to life, they're also bigger than life, by the very nature of the emotions expressed, and so the obligatory close-ups feel like Hollywood conventions. At the same time, the dramatic inventions-conversations among passengers and crew, furtive glances and whispers by the hijackers-seem entirely authentic. And the savagery of the attack and counter-attack is unsparing-so much so that we may feel a primitive lust for revenge that's shocking in its own turn."
****
"This movie bears little outward resemblance to the fervently patriotic dramas that Hollywood made during World War II, films like "Guadalcanal Diary" or "Bataan" that necessarily, stressed heroism over suffering and slaughter. 'United 93' seldom tells us what to feel, or when to feel it, at least until the shattering climax. Quite remarkably, though, its clear-eyed view of an unprecedented American tragedy leaves us with emotions that audiences of those earlier days would readily recognize-love of country, bottomless grief, an appreciation of life's preciousness and fragility. A film that can do this and also teach is to be cherished. And seen. It's time."

creek14
04-28-2006, 02:44 PM
I don't think it's too early. I think too many people have already forgotten.

Red in Chicago
04-28-2006, 02:49 PM
I don't think it's too early. I think too many people have already forgotten.


bingo...we have a winner!!!!

Falls City Beer
04-28-2006, 03:05 PM
I don't think it's too early. I think too many people have already forgotten.

I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether it's too early or not. But I disagree with your second sentence. Compared to the southeast Asian tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina, 911 stands out like a needle in the eye of the American consciousness right now. It's everywhere and it's changed everything--the dominoes from that event continue to fall before our eyes in both fast-and slow-frame.

Some days when I watch the news it feels like it happened yesterday.

pedro
04-28-2006, 03:19 PM
I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether it's too early or not. But I disagree with your second sentence. Compared to the southeast Asian tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina, 911 stands out like a needle in the eye of the American consciousness right now. It's everywhere and it's changed everything--the dominoes from that event continue to fall before our eyes in both fast-and slow-frame.

Some days when I watch the news it feels like it happened yesterday.

that how I feel about it too.

Johnny Footstool
04-28-2006, 03:26 PM
But there are many ways to deal with pain that don't involve a complete re-enactment of the event itself. Not wanting to see video repeatedly o fthe planes crashing into the towers doesn't mean that an individual is "ignoring pain", it's simply something they may not wish to deal with again.

We're not talking about repeatedly watching a video of the planes crashing into the towers. We're talking about humanizing the events in a meaningful way.

This isn't a story about how people died. It's ultimately a story about how people chose to live what they knew would be their last moments.

To me, ignoring it is denying yourself the opportunity to heal.

Unassisted
04-28-2006, 03:44 PM
I plan to see it next week, once the opening weekend crowds have subsided.

RedsBaron
04-28-2006, 04:06 PM
I intend to see the film--time, work, and family activities permitting. I do not know if I want any of my sons, even my 15 year old, to see it, and I do not expect to leave the theater in a happy frame of mind--just thinking about the events of that day brings a lump to my throat.

beb30
04-28-2006, 04:15 PM
I agree with creek, and personally hearing people say things like "i think its to early" "i dont know if i can cope with it" "Its to emotional" i find it a little ridiculous. What happened, happened 5 years ago. Learn from our mistakes and move on to better our future.

I just really dont understand how someone can say its to early for a movie like this :confused:

beb30
04-28-2006, 04:16 PM
We're not talking about repeatedly watching a video of the planes crashing into the towers. We're talking about humanizing the events in a meaningful way.

This isn't a story about how people died. It's ultimately a story about how people chose to live what they knew would be their last moments.

To me, ignoring it is denying yourself the opportunity to heal.

Great post

KronoRed
04-28-2006, 04:18 PM
Too soon, maybe in 5 years.

Danny Serafini
04-28-2006, 04:19 PM
I agree with creek, and personally hearing people say things like "i think its to early" "i dont know if i can cope with it" "Its to emotional" i find a little ridiculous. What happened, happened 5 years ago. Learn from our mistakes and move on to better our future.

I just really dont understand how someone can say its to early for a movie like this :confused:

I have to agree. It's been nearly 5 years already, at some point it's time to move on.

vaticanplum
04-28-2006, 05:12 PM
I don't think it's too early. I think too many people have already forgotten.

Wow, I genuinely feel that it invades some part of my consciousness every single day, whether through the media, or from something somebody says, or artistic devices (there have already been several plays written about it), literature, whatever.

Obviously these are our perceptions of things and both totally valid. It's just interesting that there is such a disparity between them, especially since we're both living in America, obvs.

Sweetstop
04-28-2006, 05:49 PM
The film (supposedly pretty good) is out there, and each individual has to decide when it's their right time, if ever, to see it. I do find it hard to believe that "too many people have already forgotten" the events of 9/11. If you live in this country, I don't think that is possible.

creek14
04-28-2006, 05:58 PM
They were making WWII movies while the war was still going on.

Fahrenheit 911 came out, what, three years ago?

RedsBaron
04-28-2006, 07:14 PM
I agree completely.



I will say this though. I read the Time Magazine article about these 9/11 movies. And for Flight 93, they talked to David Beamer (Todd Beamer's dad) and he was OK with it. I used to work with David and a more quality and distinguished guy you'll never find. So if he's good with it, then at least the movie must be done well.
I had a trial yesterday and I am just now catching up on my non-legal reading. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article by David Beamer on page A18. In that article, he wrote:
"Paul Greengrass and Universal set out to tell the story of United Flight 93 on that terrible day in our nation's history. They set about the task of telling this story with a genuine intent to get it right-the actions of those on board and honor their memory. Their extensive research included reaching out to all the families who had lost loved ones on United Flight 93 as the first casualties of this war. And Paul and his team got it right.
"There are those who question the timing of this project and the painful memories it evokes. Clearly, the film portrays the reality of the attack on our homeland and its terrible consequences. Often we attend movies to escape reality and fantasize a bit. In this case and at this time, it is appropriate to get a dose of reality about this war and the real enemy we face. It is not too soon for this story to be told, seen and heard."
***
"I encourage my fellow Americans and free people everywhere to see 'United 93.'".

Falls City Beer
04-28-2006, 07:43 PM
"....In this case and at this time, it is appropriate to get a dose of reality about this war and the real enemy we face. It is not too soon for this story to be told, seen and heard."
***
"I encourage my fellow Americans and free people everywhere to see 'United 93.'".


Hmm. This certainly raises a couple of questions: what exactly IS the "real enemy we face?" And what "war" are we talking about?

Do I sense some conflation of conflicts in the way a number of our politicians would have it?

And isn't this kind of talk better served on ochre's forum?

creek14
04-28-2006, 07:45 PM
Hmm. This certainly raises a couple of questions: what exactly IS the "real enemy we face?" And what "war" are we talking about?

Do I sense some conflation of conflicts in the way a number of our politicians would have it?

And isn't this kind of talk better served on ochre's forum?
It is now.

Falls City Beer
04-28-2006, 07:45 PM
It is now.

Honey, I'm not the one dragging jingoistic quotes onto this website.

GAC
04-28-2006, 07:47 PM
I couldn't want to see a movie less.

Same here pedro. I think of those family members who had loved ones on that plane.

I'll wait till it comes out on DVD, and then probably watch it. The concessions are far cheaper at home. ;)

westofyou
04-28-2006, 07:49 PM
Honey, I'm not the one dragging jingoistic quotes onto this website.
Jingo was my favorite Beatle.

marcshoe
04-28-2006, 07:59 PM
I don't think it's too early for the movie to be made, but it is too early for me to see it. I watched the second plane crash into the WTC from an Arizona hotel room as I sat beside my suitcase, ready to go out the door and catch a United flight home from Sky Harbor.

Add that to the idea that, as a United reservationist, I possibly put some of those people on that plane, and no, I'm not yet ready to watch the movie.

vaticanplum
04-28-2006, 10:38 PM
So I read some of the tidbits on here, and then I read this excellent, and, I think, even-handed review:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/28unit.html?8dpc

and I think I made some unfair assumptions about the movie itself. It sounds like it's been made better than I would have expected, with a good amount of cross-cutting between the scenes, with no one in the movie really portrayed as a "hero" and whatnot (and no string music). The reviewer also brings up what I think is at the crux of my reservations: it's not too early to make or see a film about this per se, but it is too early for answers. The reviewer seems to think that it is a good, honest, painful retelling of events, but that doesn't necessarily lead to catharsis.

So as an artistic endeavor, it now interests more than it did previously. Personally, though, I'm still not ready to see it.

RedsBaron
04-28-2006, 11:02 PM
Honey, I'm not the one dragging jingoistic quotes onto this website.
Nor did I. David Beamer lost a son on United Flight 93. Some posters here have raised a question about how accurate the film is, wondering if it overdramatized the events of 9/11 or if it is too soon to see a movie about that terrible day. Beamer evidently believes that the film is accurate and that it is timely.

IslandRed
04-28-2006, 11:40 PM
I posted on this topic on another site... really, the whole "it's too soon" versus "people need to see it" is a matter of personal taste, not an absolute. Speaking only for myself, I know the story of United 93. I fully remember the anger and sadness and, yes, pride that boiled over in me. Later on, I read everything I could about the flight, what happened and how, and to whom. But there's a point at which a person has dwelled on something as much as he needs to.

I haven't forgotten that day and I never will. Watching this movie right now won't do anything but give me an anger infusion that I don't want or need. Someday that will change, and I'll watch it then.

savafan
04-29-2006, 03:42 AM
It didn't really occur to me until I looked at myself in the mirror while brushing my teeth, but I was wearing my American Red Cross United We Stand America T-shirt today. An odd coincidence.

I agree with those who say that it is not too early for a film like this. If this was your run of the mill Hollywood exploit the story for cash film, I'd be against it, but that's not what this movie is. This is a tribute to those who were onboard that plane and, for what it's worth, saved the White House while sacrificing themselves (although it could be argued that they were going to die anyway, they didn't sacrifice themselves, that logic makes what they did no less heroic).

I do want to see this film, but I'm not sure I want to see it in the theater. I may wait until I can watch it and reflect upon it alone by myself.

creek14
04-29-2006, 07:57 AM
Honey, I'm not the one dragging jingoistic quotes onto this website.
I love it when you call me honey. :cool:

RedsBaron
04-29-2006, 08:15 AM
For what it is worth, the summary on Yahoo of 14 critics' reviews of the film are all positive. Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle called it "powerful and thoughtful" and rated it as a B+, while Manohla Dargis of the NY Times said it could "provoke tears and a headache," rating the film as a B-; E!Online also gave the film a B-. The other 11 critics cited rated the film as an A or A-. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said that it "is a masterful and heartbreaking film, and it does honor to the memory of the victims"; Ty Burr of the Boston Globe said called the movie "a harrowing, honorable, even necessary memorial"; and Bob Longino of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said "It easily ranks as the best movie so far this year."
I haven't seen the film yet, but the reviews of critics and the support of the film by those who lost loved ones on Flight 93 would indicate that it is an accurate movie that does not simply exploit a tragedy.

SandyD
04-29-2006, 09:47 AM
Alfred and I talked about this movie yesterday.

He saw a preview so he could review it. I'm kind of relieved, because I don't think I want to see it. And I'd feel obligated to go with him if he asked.

He said it was very well done, but not for everyone. When it ended, he could hear sobs from the audience. No chatter when people were leaving the theatre, just quiet sobbing.

He also said it's not for children, and maybe not for people who are claustrophobic, because the tight jerky film sequences in places.

Personally, it's too soon for me. But frankly, I'm not sure I'll ever want to see it. Even on DVD. I'm sure others feel differently. And that's ok too.

RedsBaron
04-29-2006, 10:17 AM
He said it was very well done, but not for everyone. When it ended, he could hear sobs from the audience. No chatter when people were leaving the theatre, just quiet sobbing.

He also said it's not for children, and maybe not for people who are claustrophobic, because the tight jerky film sequences in places.


My wife doesn't really want to see it now, but I do not want to take any of my sons (ages 8, 13 and 15) to it, but I do want to see it.

creek14
04-29-2006, 10:25 AM
We were talking about this movie this morning at work. You know we live this stuff every day here. Pretty much everyone wants to see it. I was a little surprised about that.

I have done a 180 about this between when I first heard about the movie and now. I was in the "it's too soon" camp. But now I feel I owe it to the people on that flight and their families. Those families wanted this movie to be made. They are proud of the actions their loved ones took on that terrible day. If by going to see this movie somehow honors their memory, then I'm going to go. No matter how painful it might be to watch.

Highlifeman21
04-29-2006, 11:03 AM
Still cant decide if I want to go see or not. Whats everyone else think?


I'm against this movie for a number of reasons. In its defense, I've heard that it's very Pro American and Pro War, so that might change my feelings on it.

1. I don't think we'll ever really know what happened to United 93 that brought it down. There's the version the movie presents which paints the passengers as heroes (which I don't mind), and then there are military versions that the Air Force brought it down 1 of 2 ways: by using a concentrated microwave emitting device, or by conventional weaponry (missles and or other ammunition). I'm not trying to stir up conspiracy theories, just simply offering reported other versions of how United 93 crashed outside of Pittsburgh.

2. I think it's too soon to make a movie like this about that event. IMO, give it a decade. We're not there yet.

3. I don't like to see Hollywood making a buck on an American tragedy. I haven't seen any confirmed reports of the box office take being donated to any good causes, and that concerns me. My first opinion of this movie was that Michael Moore must be involved in some capacity. Thankfully, he's not. I just have a big problem with Hollywood making a buck on this event.

4. Why not bring this movie out around the anniversary? You could encompass the full spectrum of emotions and deal with them more adequately.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my views, but this is honestly how I feel. Everytime I see the trailer on TV, I honestly feel sick to my stomach.

creek14
04-29-2006, 11:14 AM
the Air Force brought it down 1 of 2 ways: by using a concentrated microwave emitting device, or by conventional weaponry (missles and or other ammunition).
If the AF planes in the air at that time were armed, then this could have happened. Armed planes weren't flying in that airspace until later in the day. The only way the AF could have brought it down was for a pilot to use his plane as a missile. And that didn't happen.

As for your microwave idea. Uhhh, no.

Highlifeman21
04-29-2006, 11:59 AM
If the AF planes in the air at that time were armed, then this could have happened. Armed planes weren't flying in that airspace until later in the day. The only way the AF could have brought it down was for a pilot to use his plane as a missile. And that didn't happen.

As for your microwave idea. Uhhh, no.


I'm just repeating things said to me by my brother in the Air Force. He said the technology was available at the time, and that there are constantly C 130s up in the air with these features equipped. Apparently a concentrated "beam" of microwave energy aimed at electrical systems causes them to fail, which could have been the case for United 93, but I guarantee if this is the case, the Air Force won't ever admit to this.

IIRC, there were also eyewitness reports in PA saying there were at least 2 military planes around United 93 when it went down.

I'm glad that you were so quick to prove me wrong though...

creek14
04-29-2006, 12:05 PM
I'm just repeating things said to me by my brother in the Air Force. He said the technology was available at the time, and that there are constantly C 130s up in the air with these features equipped. Apparently a concentrated "beam" of microwave energy aimed at electrical systems causes them to fail, which could have been the case for United 93, but I guarantee if this is the case, the Air Force won't ever admit to this.

IIRC, there were also eyewitness reports in PA saying there were at least 2 military planes around United 93 when it went down.

I'm glad that you were so quick to prove me wrong though...
Well I'm not *in* the AF, but I have worked for the AF for the past 17 years. And with the job I have, I know about some of this stuff.

I really don't care if you believe me or not. Just telling you how it is/was.

savafan
04-29-2006, 12:08 PM
3. I don't like to see Hollywood making a buck on an American tragedy. I haven't seen any confirmed reports of the box office take being donated to any good causes, and that concerns me. My first opinion of this movie was that Michael Moore must be involved in some capacity. Thankfully, he's not. I just have a big problem with Hollywood making a buck on this event.



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/3782484.html

Universal Pictures announces plan to donate 10 percent of first three-days' box office to campaign

Associated Press

SOMERSET, PA. - The Flight 93 National Memorial will receive part of the box-office revenue from the new movie about the airliner hijacked during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Writer-director Paul Greengrass' United 93 opens April 28, and Universal Pictures will donate 10 percent of the first three days' grosses to the memorial, the Families of Flight 93 said.

Gordon Felt, whose brother Edward was a Flight 93 passenger, said the studio's efforts "to help permanently memorialize the bravery of the 40 passengers and crew of Flight 93 who chose to fight back in the face of violent adversity are remarkable."

Last year, the official 9/11 Commission report said the hijackers crashed the plane as passengers tried to take control of the cockpit.

Chris T. Sullivan, who heads a $30 million fundraising campaign for the national memorial, said he hopes United 93 will result in worldwide support for the proposed monument in a field near Shanksville.

United 93 chronicles in real time the hijacked United Airlines flight that crashed Sept. 11, 2001, killing all 40 passengers and crew. The film makes its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York next month.

The winning design for the memorial was modified after some critics protested that its initial crescent shape symbolized Islam. The memorial's name also was changed from "Crescent of Embrace" to "40 Memorial Groves."

cincinnati chili
04-29-2006, 12:22 PM
I'm not likely to see the movie, and I was skeptical about it at first. However, there are several factors here that make me think that the film makers had good intentions, and that this was more than just a big money-grab:

1. Several of the families were consulted on this project, and many were in attendance at the premiere (check out Bob Mondello's audio review here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369172)).

2. The project was done by a guy who's more of a documentary-style filmmaker, rather than a Jerry Bruckheimer type.

3. Several people in the movie play themselves (obviously not the people on the plane, but many of the people on the ground). This suggests to me that if the filmmakers had tried to overdramatize or alter the actual events, somebody would have objected.

I don't begrudge anyone for seeing this, and I can't say the same for all movies that have come out in the past year.

GAC
04-29-2006, 12:31 PM
I'm against this movie for a number of reasons. In its defense, I've heard that it's very Pro American and Pro War, so that might change my feelings on it.

Must not have been made in Hollywood then. And no Alec Baldwin. :lol:

Sweetstop
04-29-2006, 02:21 PM
I've seen the director Paul Greengrass' "Bloody Sunday", a re-creation of the clash between British soldiers and Irish civil rights workers in Derry, Northern Ireland in 1972. It is quite compelling.

A quote from The New Yorker's David Denby's review of "Flight 93":

"This is true existential filmmaking: there is only the next instant, and the one after that, and what are you going to do? Many films whip up tension with cunning and manipulation. As far as possible, this movie plays it straight. A few people made extraordinary use of those tormented minutes, and "United 93" fully honors what was original and spontaneous and brave in their refusal to go quietly."

TeamBoone
04-29-2006, 05:56 PM
[QUOTE=Highlifeman21]IIRC, there were also eyewitness reports in PA saying there were at least 2 military planes around United 93 when it went down.

/QUOTE]

That may be, but it doesn't mean the AF brought it down.

Several of the people on that plane were on cell phones saying their goodbyes to loved ones just before they stormed the cockpit... and some if not most of those telephones were left on during this selfless act.

There's also the blackbox.

The Baumer
04-29-2006, 06:05 PM
I am conflicted to watch this because of the artistic liberties and dramatization that is unavoidable when making any film. It's a touchy area when you have to "make up" dialogue and events when supposedly portraying a recent, true event tragedy. This isn't even to mention the fact that there are those out there who believe the plane was actually shot down, and not crashed.

The Baumer
04-29-2006, 06:07 PM
Regarding making money on the tragedy, blame the studios for that. They are the ones who greenlight films based on dollar signs. Most writers, directors, & actors still see their work as art and a way for them to memorialize or give honor to things.

TeamBoone
04-29-2006, 06:09 PM
The TV movie, Flight 93, is on A&E tonight. I thought it was well done.

RedsBaron
04-30-2006, 08:37 AM
The TV movie, Flight 93, is on A&E tonight. I thought it was well done.
My family and I watched it last night. It was well done.

beb30
04-30-2006, 02:16 PM
I went out and saw United 93 last night, It was very well done, felt almost more like a documentary. I liked how there were no stars in the movie as it may have drawn attention to just one character. There were some people crying at the end but you expected that, seemed like everyone enjoyed movie.

Highly Recommend it:thumbup:

OldRightHander
04-30-2006, 06:51 PM
We're not talking about repeatedly watching a video of the planes crashing into the towers. We're talking about humanizing the events in a meaningful way.

This isn't a story about how people died. It's ultimately a story about how people chose to live what they knew would be their last moments.

To me, ignoring it is denying yourself the opportunity to heal.

I haven't seen it yet, but I couldn't sum up my attitude about it any better than you just did here.

Jpup
04-30-2006, 08:41 PM
I might go watch it when it's on here. For some reason it's not in the theatre here yet.