Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/flight93/)
Release Date: April 28, 2006
Starring: JJ Johnson, Gary Commock, Meghan Heffern, Olivia Thirlby, Khalid Abdalla, Opal Alladin
Written By: Paul Greengrass (Bloody Sunday)
Director: Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy; Bloody Sunday)
Premise: A real time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on 9/11 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.
I have no real bias against this movie, but it kinda made me feel sick watching that trailer. It's just too goddamned soon for a movie about this. About real people. I think this will be a disgrace.
It's films like this that make me hate people.
It really made me sick... nobody wants to relive that, or remember it like that... I dont fucking get how they make this... what is the fucking positive message about it? Its nothing like Oliver Stone's project.
Quote from: kal on January 06, 2006, 12:15:41 AMwhat is the fucking positive message about it?
i think it's that brave people can do something about terrorism/sacrifice their lives for the greater good etc. i think it's an amazing story, but this dramatization is really unneccesary if you've read about it. too little actually happened to make a movie. even a real-time movie. and they're going to have to make up an ending. based on the teaser it'll be silly and upsetting.
I'm willing to give this guy a chance 'cause bloody sunday was a really really good film. but yeah, the premise sounds retarded and I hate these films with their obvious ideals and phony emotions. post 9/11 is just badtimes for American films, because, unlike a post-war Italy or something, America's hardly even processed the tragedy and its place in the world ('cause unless you lived in New York, most people never experienced it), instead people were all told how to feel and went on with their lives.
Wait wait wait wait wait...
I think it's entirely unfair to judge the quality and relavancy of the movie based on that teaser. Let's be clear: the teaser shows nothing. It contains graphics intended only for this teaser.
Sure, it might be too early for a silly dramatization, but if it's an urgent examination of everything (it's real time, but no one said that it was nothing but the plane interior), the political climate and conflicts, etc. etc. in other words, if it has something to say, then NOW is the time for it. NOW. I don't want to see safe pussy movies about 9/11, personally. I think there are some things we need to look at seriously and with urgency. Why wait? Because it's uncomfortable? Because it's about real people (a lot of films are based on real people)? Is it really all that respectful to wait until it doesn't hurt anymore? We still live in the midsts and shadows of 9/11. Now could be the perfect time for a movie like this.
And we can't know if that is the case or not based on 2 minutes of a radar graphic and people saying bye on their cell phones.
The same sentiment goes for Stone's film.
yeah but no one is judging the quality of the movie...people are reacting to the idea of such a movie which is perfectly fair.
Looking back on what people have said so far (i.e. "it'll be silly and upsetting"), yeah they are generally judging the quality of the movie, and this is based on the impression that it is nothing but a dramatic retelling, or even exploitation, of an upsetting subject matter.
But how can we bash even the idea of the movie when we don't exactly know what the ideas in the movie are? That's my point. Maybe there is more in this than the teaser would suggest (especially since this teaser suggestion just about nothing). Maybe this could be a film bold enough to give us a kick in the pants in revealing the complexities of the whole situation. I think most people simplified it too much (bad terrorist people blew up heros, let's be patriotic and prove that we're not to be messed with, and then forget about it a few years later).
With Bloody Sunday, Greengrass made a film in which he fully displayed how the political complexities led to a specific act of violence. I can easily see how this movie would be more than just about how a group of passengers overtook some terrorists.
The only complexity to this is how will they show terrorists taking over a plane with boxcutters? And were there only forty people on the plane?
I don't think there is as much complexity as you think, unless they milk some sentimental bullshit.
i have no problem with movies about 9/11. i'd like to see a romantic film that takes place in the Twin Towers about two people who fall in love each other despite their socioeconomic differences. i think it would be a moving piece, especially the breathtaking climax where the two lovers jump out of the building in each other's arms and fall to their deaths in a dramatic slow-mo shot as Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" swells on the soundtrack.
Quote from: Gamblour on January 06, 2006, 04:20:29 AM
The only complexity to this is how will they show terrorists taking over a plane with boxcutters? And were there only forty people on the plane?
I don't think there is as much complexity as you think, unless they milk some sentimental bullshit.
I'm talking about political complexities. Religious complexities. Moral complexities. What led to this moreso than just the heroic passenger stuff. And I don't exactly understand how, as stated in your last sentence, milking sentimental bullshit would make it more complex. OF COURSE I wasn't talking about the complexities of hijacking a plane with a boxcutter!
I just don't think that Greengrass, a British filmmaker who has proved that he has a point of view, a strong political awareness, and has a major sense of urgency to his films, signed on to make a film that's just 100 minutes of telling America how big its dick is. In other words, I don't think this will be a blindly patriotic film, wallowing in sentiment. I think it will provide interesting commentary on a recent event that changed the world. I don't think this will be the simple film the teaser suggests it will be (read the article about film trailers in that thread if you don't already know that studios dumb down and change the whole idea of their movie to better sell it). I've yet to see Greengrass settle for simple. The Bourne Supremacy, while not necessarily all that fantastic, was not a simple or dumb movie. And Bloody Sunday (which, in subject matter and tone, more closely matches this new film) shows a brilliance and a daring to give a hard long look at a government that fucked up. Sound familiar to 9/11? Sound like potentially interesting material for a movie? I think so. And you can't say that was easier to do because it happened so long ago, because Bloody Sunday was and is still a sore subject for both Ireland and England, and as an English filmmaker, Greengrass did not shy away from his government's part in the slayings of innocent people. Bloody Sunday WAS a daring and relevant film, and stunningly well made.
I know that there is a great film to be made about 9/11, that should be made NOW and not when it's not important and actually relevant anymore. It would be denying something to not make that film. Now, is either this film or Stone's film The Great 9/11 Film? I don't know. I'm just saying that it's impossible to tell based on that trailer. I do feel that these two filmmakers are good candidates in that they've each proven their ability to make great films that do not shy from true horror or political shadiness, which exist in spades with this subject matter.
what political "complexity" did Bloody Sunday show? It showed the Irish side of the story and ended with a U2 song. It was really good because it used Dogme techniques to heightened the realism, but where was the relevancy in that film? It was about half as relevant as the U2 song, and how daring was the U2 song? How can you judge other filmmakers' "political/mora/religious" complexity when you're overglorifying the virtue of one film by one filmmaker as such? How does that make you different from the rest of the posters who are merely "generally" reacting with the same fervor just on the opposite spectrum? No matter how high you think your awesome horse is, it's time for you to get off it.
Quote from: matt35mm on January 06, 2006, 04:56:09 AM
Quote from: Gamblour on January 06, 2006, 04:20:29 AM
The only complexity to this is how will they show terrorists taking over a plane with boxcutters? And were there only forty people on the plane?
I don't think there is as much complexity as you think, unless they milk some sentimental bullshit.
I'm talking about political complexities. Religious complexities. Moral complexities. What led to this moreso than just the heroic passenger stuff. And I don't exactly understand how, as stated in your last sentence, milking sentimental bullshit would make it more complex. OF COURSE I wasn't talking about the complexities of hijacking a plane with a boxcutter!
See, to me, there's nothing complex about this. This whole event happened in like half an hour. Terrorists took over a plane, people tried to stop them, and it still crashed. Politically....terrorists are bad? Freedom is good? Morally...don't kill people? Maybe I'm oversimplifying it. But I honestly can't see how this can have vast ramifications interjected into such a short, tragic tale. I mean, really, how are they going to hit at anything complex, but by doing the most tasteless thing and using real aspects of these people's lives? Please, clarify how making THIS film into a movie about a government that fucked up will help or appeal to anyone. The biggest tragedy in the history United States may or may not have been its own fault, but are you going to preach or rub this in people's faces while using one of the most tragic parts of it all? I mean what the fuck.
Quote from: pete on January 06, 2006, 11:24:38 AM
what political "complexity" did Bloody Sunday show? It showed the Irish side of the story and ended with a U2 song. It was really good because it used Dogme techniques to heightened the realism, but where was the relevancy in that film? It was about half as relevant as the U2 song, and how daring was the U2 song? How can you judge other filmmakers' "political/mora/religious" complexity when you're overglorifying the virtue of one film by one filmmaker as such? How does that make you different from the rest of the posters who are merely "generally" reacting with the same fervor just on the opposite spectrum? No matter how high you think your awesome horse is, it's time for you to get off it.
You're right. I was trying to ask everyone to give it a chance and went too far with my points.
Although I do think that Bloody Sunday was a relevant movie, because the issues at hand were still existing at the time the film was made. The investigation of Bloody Sunday was reopened after the film was made, as I understand. It showed the event from the Irish point of view, but Greengrass used that to show his feelings about it as an Englishman. It was more than simply showing the event. It had more meaning than that. Its political complexities were in the scenes that showed what led to the British leader of the troops make his decision, and how it all went wrong. But, you're right that I'm overusing that and that was a smaller scale accomplishment than what he'd probably be able to do with this movie.
I was equally wrong to judge the relevance of the film based on all of what I said as those who judged based on that teaser. All I really mean to say is that I believe that there is more to that film than what the teaser suggests.
And Gamblour, I don't know if I was just unclear before, but I believe this film shows events outside of the airplane. If the whole event happened in a half an hour, as you say, then what else is in this movie? It's obviously not just all about this singular event. There were accusations that the American government had some knowledge of this plot, and this movie might possibly delve into that.
But I do apologize for taking these possibilities of what the movie might be too far. That was pretty hypocritical of me to speculate that much when I was asking everyone else to hold off on speculation until we get more substantial information of the movie.
Quote from: matt35mm on January 06, 2006, 02:20:04 PM
And Gamblour, I don't know if I was just unclear before, but I believe this film shows events outside of the airplane. If the whole event happened in a half an hour, as you say, then what else is in this movie? It's obviously not just all about this singular event. There were accusations that the American government had some knowledge of this plot, and this movie might possibly delve into that.
From interviews and articles I've seen, it sounds like the movie intercuts between the events on the plane and in the air traffic control and military control facilities. It also sounds like it's not going to touch anything more controversial than "they might not have responded quickly enough" with a forty-foot pole.
I have no problem with the film being made, I just have yet to hear any legitimate reason for anyone to actually
watch it.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on January 05, 2006, 10:48:56 PM
It's films like this that make me hate people.
Well said. This was an awful trailer, too. Everybody involved should be embarassed.
Quote from: polkablues on January 06, 2006, 05:44:34 PM
I have no problem with the film being made, I just have yet to hear any legitimate reason for anyone to actually watch it.
i know a guy who laughs at horrifying events when they occur in movies, like suicides and people dying of AIDS, and he LOVES that "Faces of Death" series. i'm sure he'll get a kick out of this.
Quote from: Gamblour on January 05, 2006, 10:10:06 PM
It's just too goddamned soon for a movie about this.
Way too soon. I have faith in Paul Greengrass making something good out of it though, so I look forward to seeing this in maybe 10 years.
Isn't this an A&E movie?
Quote from: squints on January 30, 2006, 10:27:53 PM
Isn't this an A&E movie?
And before that, it was a Discovery Channel movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470764/
Well, the A&E movie did really well, scoring as the network's most watch thing ever. That bodes fairly well for the Greengrass movie, insomuch as whether or not people are ready for a 9/11 movie.
Quote from: matt35mm on February 02, 2006, 05:21:21 PM
Well, the A&E movie did really well, scoring as the network's most watch thing ever. That bodes fairly well for the Greengrass movie, insomuch as whether or not people are ready for a 9/11 movie.
But then it just adds to increasing pointlessness of it all.
What is the purpose of these movies' existence? Is it just enough to go, "This happened"? And if so, why do we need two TV movies and one theatrical to point that out? If they're going to keep reiterating this story, can't someone at least go a little ways out on the limb and say, "This happened, and this is what that means"?
Quote from: polkablues on February 02, 2006, 06:49:32 PMIf they're going to keep reiterating this story, can't someone at least go a little ways out on the limb and say, "This happened, and this is what that means"?
someone who watched it can.
Quote from: picolas on February 02, 2006, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: polkablues on February 02, 2006, 06:49:32 PMIf they're going to keep reiterating this story, can't someone at least go a little ways out on the limb and say, "This happened, and this is what that means"?
someone who watched it can.
And yet I don't think these films' target audience is really the "context" crowd.
New Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/)
Hmm this doesn't appear to be the disgusting film it's cut out to be. For some reason, I find the the air traffic controllers' point of view very interesting. Did the terrorists have bombs like that? What about security? This seems like it's respectful, but people will still hate it.
I'm skeptical.
Most people are/will be skeptical, and my guess is most people who do see it will acknowledge that it's a good film but hate it anyway. And all of that is reasonable, I think.
For me, I expect interesting things based on a few clues. First, I thought Bloody Sunday was brilliant, so Greengrass will always be on my list of filmmakers whose films I'll catch. Secondly, this film, as with Bloody Sunday, was written by Greengrass (unlike The Bourne Supremacy), and so it's important to note that he wrote and directed from a British perspective, which should be interesting, and perhaps not as blindly patriotic as this film could have been. What this means is that this could be less of the studio picture that it might seem like. I'd be tons less interested if there were 3 writers for hire credited with the screenplay. Thirdly, there are no famous actors in it, which, paired with the new trailer (and lack of elaborate action sequences), give me the impression of a much lower-budget picture than it might initially seem like.
This all adds up to make it closer to Bloody Sunday--that is, a raw, intimate, fascinating, and almost behind-the-scenes look at this huge event--than some brainless studio venture. None of this guarantees anything for me, and I could still hate the movie if it really is an exploitation piece, but I hold out hope. We shall see. I can't fault anybody for being skeptical, but I will be watching this (unless the reviews are horrible).
Quote from: matt35mm on March 24, 2006, 10:37:45 PM
Thirdly, there are no famous actors in it,
that's what i like about it.
and i'm in the mood for a rousing story of minor victory among greater tragedy.
September 11 plane drama to open NY film festival
NEW YORK (Reuters) - "United 93," a film dramatization of the events on the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, will have its world premiere at a New York film festival next month.
"'United 93' recreates the doomed trip in actual time, from takeoff to hijacking to the realization by those onboard that their plane was part of a coordinated attack unfolding on the ground beneath them," organizers of the Tribeca Film Festival said on Wednesday.
The festival was founded by actor Robert De Niro in 2002 to help revitalize lower Manhattan after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Opening films in previous years have been comedies such as "About a Boy" and "Down with Love" as well as the thriller "The Interpreter" last year. This year's choice of "United 93" as the opening film returns the focus to Tribeca's roots.
"The festival was basically created eight months after September 11 and it was to give our neighborhood something to look forward to and to help the renewal, and to do that you need to laugh," the festival's co-founder Jane Rosenthal told Reuters.
"We found ourselves for several years saying we need a comedy. In year five, we need to remember," she said.
Written and directed by Paul Greengrass, director of "The Bourne Supremacy," the film is billed as a drama about the passengers, crew, their families on the ground and the flight controllers who watched as events unfold on the fourth airline hijacked on September 11, 2001.
Two of the planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the third into the Pentagon. Passengers on the fourth plane sent messages to loved ones saying the plane had been hijacked and they were going to try to overcome the hijackers.
Rosenthal said that after nearly five years there was a danger the events of September 11 were fading from people's memories. "A lot has happened in the world and as a country we seem to have a short term memory loss," she said.
Some of the relatives of those who died on United 93 are expected to attend the premiere in New York on April 25, the first night of the festival which runs until May 7.
"It is never easy to relive the events of 9/11, yet I support 'United 93' as a tribute to the heroism of my brother and the 39 other passengers and crew who collectively chose to say 'no' on that fateful day," Gordon Felt, who lost his brother Edward on September 11, said in a statement.
The films in competition at the festival include several with political themes, particularly related to the Middle East and the war in Iraq.
"We're a festival that was started because of an act of war, so we have always had films and panel discussions that bring up difficult subjects," Rosenthal said.
Theater Pulls Trailer for 'United 93'
A New York City movie theater has pulled the trailer for "United 93," which chronicles in real time the hijacked United Airlines flight that crashed into a Western Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11.
The AMC Loews Lincoln Square 12 theater in Manhattan said it made the decision after viewers complained they found it too upsetting.
"I don't think people are ready for this," theater manager Kevin Adjodha said.
"One lady was crying," Adjodha told Newsweek. "She was saying that we shouldn't have played the trailer. That this was wrong."
Universal Studios in Los Angeles, meanwhile, said it would go ahead with plans to show the trailer for the thriller, which is scheduled to open in theaters on April 28.
Adam Fogelson, Universal's president of marketing, said the trailer would be shown only before R-rated movies or "grown-up" PG-13 ones.
"The film is not sanitized or softened, it's an honest and real look" at the events of Flight 93, Fogelson told The New York Times in Tuesday editions. "If I sanitized the trailer beyond what's there, am I suggesting that the experience will be less real than what the movie itself is? We as a company feel comfortable that it is a responsible and fair way to show what's coming."
"United 93" is scheduled to make its world premiere on opening night at the Tribeca Film Festival in Manhattan.
The festival, which was created to help lower Manhattan recover economically from the attacks, begins April 25 and runs through May 7.
The trailer begins with images of passengers boarding the plane on a sunny morning, and builds to a disturbing scene that includes actual news video of a plane about to hit one of the World Trade Center towers. It then returns inside Flight 93 as terrorists begin hijacking it and a passenger calls his family to tell them of the impending disaster.
The Families of Flight 93 have said that Universal Pictures will donate 10 percent of the first three days' grosses to the memorial.
Rotten Tomatoes Reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/united_93/)
Yes, this seems destined to be the movie that people will dislike or even hate while having to admit that it is a fine film.
Funnily enough, I've interacted with a lot of the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement due to my organizing of a screening of Loose Change here at UC-Santa Cruz, and they are ready to bash this film as well (not because it's too early, but because many of the truth movement people are convinced that there is something fishy about flight 93 that won't be shown in this film).
That said, I think that the reviews show what I expected from Greengrass, who I think is one of the best of the filmmakers that tackle socially and politically touchy material. I also think most of this "too soon" stuff is absolute bullshit. I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, but I believe that there is a place in art and cinema for this. The things that are most incindiary, the closest to our nerve, THESE are the things that absolutely must be dealt with head-on in art of any sort. To say that it's too soon is to imply that we can be in a position to be less affected by it in 5 more years, which is likely true, but it is missing the point entirely. If people feel that they cannot handle it, that is a decision that they must make for themselves, but to say that it is wrong to put this out there makes me angry. So much of the history of controversial art has been plagued by rabble-rousing. And yes, I am calling this film a work of art. Good art? I don't know; I haven't seen it. But I do see it as an artistic project, absolutely.
This was Greengrass's project from the start; it was not Universal's idea. Everybody involved (including the family members of the victims who approved of the film, I would guess) knew that this would not be what much of the public would want to see right now.
However, the people who say that it's too soon due to our current lack of information about what happened have a valid point. Given that, I still feel that this is something that had to be done NOW, while it would still arouse passion, anger, while it would still engage people simply through its existence! I'm sure the film will be tough to handle for those who bother to see it, and that is how it should be.
If some people should choose to wait a few years before watching this film, that's their choice. But I believe that everything is fodder for the artist... for EVERYONE, actually. From the biggest tragic event to the most personal dream, the internalization and output of these things in an honest manner is the beauty and importance of art, and is humanity incarnate, I believe. Perhaps I ought to be more cynical and look at United 93 as nothing but a capitalization on a terrible event, but I just can't see it that way. If someone has something to say, it is their responsibility and right to say it. I won't say that it's anybody's responsibility to listen to what that person has to say, but I admit that I do feel that I must watch this film.
9/11 has been dealt with in songs, books, various other writings, paintings, and other art forms. I think it says something that the idea of a movie should arouse so much passion. Firstly, I think it says that most people still regard movies as less an art form than a piece of entertainment, but as I've said, I feel that there is a place in cinema for this. Secondly, cinema is the most visceral and realistic of all art forms--and this film, specifically, looks to have a style of "hyper-realism" to boot. Everything else that has dealt with 9/11 has been in the past-tense, because it's easier to digest. No other piece of art about 9/11 has given a serious, present-tense look at an event that was recent enough that we all can, and must, bring our own experiences of the event to it.
Why a re-enactment? What would be the point of simply watching these events unfold? Please, please, please, before you think about answering that question, watch the movie and see if the movie has an answer. I certainly don't mean to praise the film before I see it; that's not what I've tried to argue here. Certainly, given that I have enormous respect for Greengrass's filmmaking, I expect that I shall appreciate the film, even if I don't enjoy it. That's why I posted the Rotten Tomatoes reviews at the top. Either way, I've only meant to say that I feel that the boos that have been tossed at the trailer have been unfair, and that there IS a place in cinema to tackle the most serious and sensitive subject matters.
United 93 Actor Denied US Entry
In a security move more sad than it is surprising, the man who plays the lead hijacker in United 93 has been told by the American embassy in London that he probably will not be allowed into the US in order to attend the film's Tribeca premiere next week. The actor, Lewis Alsamari, deserted from the Iraqi army in 1993, fled to Jordan, and then was granted asylum in England, where he has established a successful acting career; he is still an Iraqi citizen, which he suspects is part of the reason the US is wary of allowing him into the country. However, Alsamari, who says he still has not seen the final cut of United 93, is still hopeful -- since he was granted permission to travel to the US for filming only the day production on the film began, he believes the embassy may relent at the last minute and again allow him to enter the country.
How stupid is this country? Just when you think it cant be that bad, it gets worse...
Mixed feelings greet 'United' at Tribeca
Source: Hollywood Reporter
NEW YORK -- The mood was upbeat Tuesday before the world premiere of "United 93," the opening-night feature of the Tribeca Film Festival. Popcorn and soda were passed out in the lobby of the Ziegfeld Theatre, and members of the film industry chatted with one another.
But inside the auditorium, when Tribeca co-founder Jane Rosenthal acknowledged the presence of about 90 relatives of the victims of the flight that was hijacked on Sept. 11 -- the rebellion aboard United Flight 93 is re-enacted in Paul Greengrass' film for Universal Pictures -- the audience was given an inspiring yet somber reminder of the day that inspired the festival's founding five years ago.
As they took their seats, each audience member was given a pin commemorating the doomed passengers on the flight and promoting donations for a planned national memorial in Shanksville, Pa., where the plane went down. And even amidst the smiles and pleasantries in the lobby, mixed emotions were very close to the surface when audience members were asked about the film they were about to see.
"I'm very anxious about the film in two different ways," CBS Corp. president and CEO Leslie Moonves said. "I'm anxiously looking forward to it, but I'm also anxious about my reaction to it. I still think it was totally appropriate for Universal to make the film and appropriate for it to open the festival."
While expressing great enthusiasm about the launch of this year's Tribeca fest, Katherine Oliver, of the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, said, "I'm curious to see the reaction to the film because it's a very sensitive topic."
Tribeca co-founder Robert De Niro began the evening's series of introductions by acknowledging the audience's difficulty with the subject matter, something Universal is facing as it prepares for the movie's release Friday. "Given our festival's founding after Sept. 11, for many of us, the story is difficult," he said. "We applaud the participation of the family members -- your participation means a lot."
De Niro's characteristically brief remarks were followed by Rosenthal's appearance. "The film exemplifies the highest form of the human spirit," she said. "It leaves us with a new memory that is uplifting."
After thanking the film's producers and a number of Universal executives -- including Universal Studios president Ron Meyer, Universal Pictures chairman Marc Shmuger, production president Donna Langley and publicity exec Michael Moses -- Rosenthal introduced the family members to a standing ovation.
Real-life Sept. 11 stalwarts, including New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly, Empire State Development chairman and commissioner Charles Gargano and former New York City fire commissioner Tom Von Essen, also were received with applause.
Gordon Felt, a relative of a Flight 93 passenger, stepped before the podium to discuss the $30 million private capital campaign for the memorial, to thank Universal for donating 10% of its opening-weekend gross to the fund and to introduce writer-director Greengrass, whom he thanked for approaching family members in order to present an accurate portrait of their loved ones.
"Our guides to the foundation and legitimacy of this film are the family members," Greengrass said, also mentioning the air traffic controllers, servicemen and others he met with to study the 9/11 Commission Report.
"Universal supported this film unswervingly," he added. "Like many, they believe in the power of cinema to challenge us and change us."
Among those at the premiere were Joan Allen, Josh Lucas, Julia Stiles, Marcia Gay Harden, Tom Selleck, Dominick Dunne and Frank Langella.
"I wanted to support my friend Ron Meyer and his company for doing something of this significance," MPAA chairman Dan Glickman said. "Is it too soon to make it? I think people will judge that for themselves. My judgment is it's not too soon. The longer you get away from it, the further your personal memories are of it. In this film, people can see how average people can rise out of their shells and do amazing things."
Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who heads New York's New School University, said, "Having been on the 9/11 commission, I've heard from victims' families who say this film tells the story in a respectful and restrained way. I feel we need to be reminded of it. My wildest dream would be to recapture the spirit we had after Sept. 11."
But perhaps actor Gabriel Byrne best summed up feelings about the film: "I can understand why some people don't want to see the film, and I can see why there's a compulsion to confront it, because in many ways we still haven't confronted it."
I've seen the movie. Initial reaction: I feel like I'm going throw up. That tense, muscle-tightening queasiness when say, you are personally threatened, or have just witnessed something shocking (my 2 closest relatable experiences: witnessing a road-rage beating, and escaping death in a car accident).
As for the film, it's impeccably made and staged. Greengrass knows his shit top to bottom. Honestly, I have not one gripe with the actual filmmaking itself. It succeeds at it's goal: to realistically portray the events of that day. It's on par with "Bloody Sunday," it's that type of film. You see how the system fails, and how out of control things can get so fast. And how we're all human, no matter what side you're on.
When the shit goes down, you might think you're prepared, but you're not. The chaos and screaming in the plane once the terrorists spring into action is, quite simply, horrifying. It's so overwhelming.
The finale is what disturbs me most of all, because let's face it, that's what this story is about: the passengers fought back. That's what you're there to see. That is what makes this story different. You see everyone fight for their lives. And it gets UGLY, particularly when one passenger holds up the 'bomb,' and is so elated at their success. And I can't help but wonder with the wrong audience, this film will play a whole lot differently. When the passengers bum-rushed, I heard someone behind me clap and get excited. Just one person. And that gave me the biggest chill of all.
Greengrass made the best possible film about this subject, I couldn't imagine it being done better (sadly though, I can imagine worse, and I fear it will come). It's clear-eyed and honest. However, I don't want to see it again. I could never imagine buying it on dvd. Hell, even recommending it to anyone-- I mean, this movie will fuck you up, I don't care what your politics are, or how you feel about the world. It's real people in the worst situation imaginable. Do not expect to walk out feeling patriotic or elated respect for those who died. It's not a tear-jeaker. This film grabs you by the chest and shakes the shit out of you. This is how ugly the world is. Deal with it.
But still, I have to say one last thing. This film is dangerous. It will provoke a reaction. I'm worried that someplace, somewhere, someone is gonna get hurt after this movie, for all the wrong reasons... and in that instant, roles will be reversed.
P.S. Don't be surprised if this movie makes 'Passion' money.
Quote from: Weak2ndAct on April 26, 2006, 12:52:21 AMP.S. Don't be surprised if this movie makes 'Passion' money.
The movie isn't about Jesus.
People care about 9/11, but how can you compete with the Lord?
I think EVERYONE cares a lot about this, maybe even more than the Passion. The Passion went after religion and its something very powerful in this country, but this is a about a current even, still very current, and very much in everybodys mind. It just happened! And it shocked the world more than anything we've seen for a while.
What I'm not sure if its people are going to be scared to see them or not ready. When reviews come out Friday also, we will see what they say and what the general reaction is. I think a lot of people will read the revews on this one to see if its worth it. 95% of the people who go to the movies dont give a shit about the filmmaking aspect, and they just want to go and be entertained for a couple of hours. If this film makes them sick or causes a big shock or discomfort, it will bomb.
So its really hard to predict this one...
Quote from: Myxo on April 26, 2006, 06:36:51 AM
Quote from: Weak2ndAct on April 26, 2006, 12:52:21 AMP.S. Don't be surprised if this movie makes 'Passion' money.
The movie isn't about Jesus.
People care about 9/11, but how can you compete with the Lord?
it's a talking point. ppl are always harping on about jesus and wanted something new to say about the man so mel gibson gave them something new to harp on about. this is the same thing but with america's other favourite subject, Terrorists On A Plane.
An uncommon 4 star review from Berardinelli, who seems pretty ecstatic over it. http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/u/united93.html
I didn't plan to see it, but due to some good early press I might just have to. I think its easy to misread this movie as exploitation, but the fact that no famous actors are being used shows that this isn't necesarily financially motivated. As long as this is this case, I have no problem with it and I don't know that it is "too soon."
This began with no trailers.
To me, this movie was about what now means. It brings us back to that day, but on a smaller, human scale. What does now mean when you're boarding a plane like perhaps you do quite often? What does now mean for the man who plans to hijack a plane? What does now mean when you're facing a situation like that? What does now mean when there is no "should I?" between you and cracking a hijacker's neck?
Film is always present-tense (well, you could argue whether it's always or most of the time), and Greengrass has a way of approaching that with such a clinical feel. I don't know if others would use the word clinical, but it's the word that comes to mind for me. Clinical doesn't mean emotionally detatched, in my mind, but rather it suggests an open-eyed and whole look to me. Or at least I use it in that way. The way a doctor would operate surgery is clinical, but not emotionless, and one must pay every fiber of attention that they can to it. What we see is something raw--life, exposed. You can smell the blood. What life really is, in a biological and humanist sense, comes into full view, and with that, of course, is the view of what death really is. I become horrified by the delicacy of life. These are the effects that both Bloody Sunday and United 93 have on my senses and emotions. It's what Greengrass does. Through that, and through the lens of NOW, comes an appreciation of life and of the moment--both that moment and this very moment. This is the value of the film, of the recreation of events.
I don't know if I have any real criticisms of the film. It's fascinating, yet perhaps overly long, the way information comes into light at the air traffic control stations. I can't quite call it feeling long a criticism, because it fits. The real-time build of dread is necessary, and actually quite fascinating. However, for me, I could only hear air traffic talk for so long before starting to mind-drift into questions about how they shot the film, about the actors playing themselves, and so forth.
Which brings me to why Bloody Sunday worked a little bit better for me. While watching United 93, once in a while I became aware that I was watching a movie. This isn't really necessarily a fault of the movie--it doesn't have any movie-isms about it. No classy yet distracting compositions or anything. Nothing that suggests anything other than cameras there on that very day. But I still remembered that I was watching a movie from time to time. With Bloody Sunday, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie. I don't know if the difference was in the movies or if it was my state of mind while watching it. I might just as easily have remembered that I was watching a movie during Bloody Sunday, I don't know.
But towards the end, I again became completely lost in the film, engrossed. Most people probably will, too, because the film absolutely swarms our senses as we see these people fight for their lives. After the film, I was left thinking about now, and what that means. It's not that we've forgotten 9/11 and need to be reminded, and it's not masochism to watch a re-creation of terrible events--we just need to be shaken sometimes into what life and now mean to us on a fundamental level.
Quote from: matt35mm on April 28, 2006, 10:32:57 PM
This began with no trailers.
To me, this movie was about what now means. It brings us back to that day, but on a smaller, human scale.
I started reading Matt's review but then got this far and feared that I'd be swayed by his review. That's because I so thoroughly agree with these first lines of the review.
The film was an action movie without the histrionic cut-aways, without the all-star actors, without the Hollywood subjectivity. It was the movie told in the present tense, as Ebert says. It was being on the plane, it was being in the air traffic control, without the affter effect, without the implications, without the media blitzkrieg; simply the crashes, the highjacks, the bomber running down the aisle, the airphone conversations, the goodbyes; the hardboiled SoCal community shutting their mouths for the first time - I saw it in a jam packed theater, today, the opening day, and no one whispered, no one cracked jokes, ate popcorn, we watched, stunned.
If the movie was to be done, it was to be done this way. I loved it.
Edit.
And now I read his review and it just makes me want to see Bloody Sunday, because I haven't yet. And I agree that at times I looked around the theater, conscious of the movie going experience. Right before the plane gets taken over, while the movie holds inevitable suspence quite well, it perhaps takes for granted that we are charged for the event a little too much. It has happened, after all. I can see the audience in my peripheral vision while I wait for the cabin take over. But still. Now, years later. The in-between. It's hard to say. What it wanted to do, what it had to do.
I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?
Quote from: musse on April 29, 2006, 11:01:44 AM
I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?
I haven't seen Zero Day, but I took a look at the trailers and clips from that film, and I would say no. I'm not going to detail why for fear of ruining United 93 by telling you exactly what it's like in too much detail and comparing/contrasting the two films stylistically. If you're going to eventually see it anyway, it'll be best to answer your question yourself.
Though I can say that Zero Day looks like a video diary approach, and that's not at all United 93's approach (nobody is aware of the camera in United 93, and nobody tells you all their thoughts and feelings about anything, either).
Quote from: matt35mm on April 29, 2006, 11:16:05 AM
Quote from: musse on April 29, 2006, 11:01:44 AM
I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?
I haven't seen Zero Day, but I took a look at the trailers and clips from that film, and I would say no. I'm not going to detail why for fear of ruining United 93 by telling you exactly what it's like in too much detail and comparing/contrasting the two films stylistically. If you're going to eventually see it anyway, it'll be best to answer your question yourself.
Though I can say that Zero Day looks like a video diary approach, and that's not at all United 93's approach (nobody is aware of the camera in United 93, and nobody tells you all their thoughts and feelings about anything, either).
Oh sorry I didn't mention it but towards the end in Zero Day you're seeing the event through the security cameras around the school (with faint audio of the event) and more dominantly, the 911 emergency operator on one of the phone lines documenting it. It was not easy to sit through that, just wondering if United might have the same effect.
Quote from: musse on April 29, 2006, 11:30:13 AM
Quote from: matt35mm on April 29, 2006, 11:16:05 AM
Quote from: musse on April 29, 2006, 11:01:44 AM
I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?
I haven't seen Zero Day, but I took a look at the trailers and clips from that film, and I would say no. I'm not going to detail why for fear of ruining United 93 by telling you exactly what it's like in too much detail and comparing/contrasting the two films stylistically. If you're going to eventually see it anyway, it'll be best to answer your question yourself.
Though I can say that Zero Day looks like a video diary approach, and that's not at all United 93's approach (nobody is aware of the camera in United 93, and nobody tells you all their thoughts and feelings about anything, either).
Oh sorry I didn't mention it but towards the end in Zero Day you're seeing the event through the security cameras around the school (with faint audio of the event) and more dominantly, the 911 emergency operator on one of the phone lines documenting it. It was not easy to sit through that, just wondering if United might have the same effect.
Oh. It has the same effect of not being easy to sit through, but the approach is still different. We hear air traffic control speak about the other 3 hijacked flights, but Flight 93, we see and hear full on.
I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.
Quote from: Myxo on May 01, 2006, 05:40:27 AM
I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.
what the hell? the popularity of a film doesn't determine how many theatres it opens in. that's determined by studio honchos after considering how they will make the most profit.
in fact, since united 93 came second at the box office this week with half as many theatres as RV, it would mean more ppl are interested in it per theatre than RV. hence making it the more popular film of the two. i don't understand what you're saying.
this was a harrowing film. i saw it yesterday in a packed east village theater, and you could sense the collective feeling of dread amongst the crowd even before the universal logo came up. it's like the feeling you get on a rollercoaster just as you're going up the big first hill (which is always the scariest part). i went w/ four friends and we all had stomach aches coming out of it. this movie dives deep into the pit of your stomach. as the second act of weakness said it himself, it will make you sick.
god bless greengrass for doing this the right way. we don't see the media frenzy or the president's reactions or a bruckheimer-esque explosion of the twin tower. ben affleck is not in it. the score hits the right balance of suspense and fear w/o shoving it down our throats. the actors give "real" performances w/o coming off like amateurs.
while i think the film is superb, i dont' blame anyone who is afraid to see it. i'm afraid to see it again.
Quote from: Pubrick on May 01, 2006, 07:08:24 AM
Quote from: Myxo on May 01, 2006, 05:40:27 AM
I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.
what the hell? the popularity of a film doesn't determine how many theatres it opens in. that's determined by studio honchos after considering how they will make the most profit.
in fact, since united 93 came second at the box office this week with half as many theatres as RV, it would mean more ppl are interested in it per theatre than RV. hence making it the more popular film of the two. i don't understand what you're saying.
I'm referring to the comparison made from a box office standpoint that United 93 has a good shot at making "Passion money". After a quick look, Passion opened in 3,006 theaters. If studios thought more people were interested in a film like this, why didn't it get a wider release? I'm not implying that I actually know what the studios were thinking. Hell, maybe it will expand to 3000+ theaters this weekend. I'm just curious, why the low profile on opening weekend?
Quote from: Myxo on May 01, 2006, 04:56:19 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on May 01, 2006, 07:08:24 AM
Quote from: Myxo on May 01, 2006, 05:40:27 AM
I love how "RV" opens in 3,639 theaters this weekend while "United 93" ends up in 1,795. So, I guess we're more interested in a Robin Williams family vacation comedy than we are a 9/11 drama? Hell, even "Stick It" opened in more theaters at 2,038.
what the hell? the popularity of a film doesn't determine how many theatres it opens in. that's determined by studio honchos after considering how they will make the most profit.
in fact, since united 93 came second at the box office this week with half as many theatres as RV, it would mean more ppl are interested in it per theatre than RV. hence making it the more popular film of the two. i don't understand what you're saying.
I'm referring to the comparison made from a box office standpoint that United 93 has a good shot at making "Passion money". After a quick look, Passion opened in 3,006 theaters. If studios thought more people were interested in a film like this, why didn't it get a wider release? I'm not implying that I actually know what the studios were thinking. Hell, maybe it will expand to 3000+ theaters this weekend. I'm just curious, why the low profile on opening weekend?
Universal didn't expect it to make a lot of money. The whole thing was a big tossup and could have gone one way or another. My feeling is that maybe up to 50% of the people who did see it didn't originally plan on seeing it, and finally went after the overwhelmingly good reviews. It'll also be due to the good word of mouth that the film should hold on in the top 10 for quite a while.
But remember, just 3 weeks ago or so, everybody was ready to bash this film. The Passion had a built-in audience that was probably ready to go no matter what the reviews said. People certainly care about 9/11, but few people are going to go to any 9/11 movie that happens their way. The whole thing was very iffy, so this first week was a little bit of a toe in the water thing. Theater owners were probably a bit anxious as well.
It's likely that it will expand next week. And don't forget, 10% of opening weekend grosses were donated to the 9/11 Memorial, so...
Quote from: matt35mm on April 28, 2006, 10:32:57 PM
Which brings me to why Bloody Sunday worked a little bit better for me. While watching United 93, once in a while I became aware that I was watching a movie. This isn't really necessarily a fault of the movie--it doesn't have any movie-isms about it. No classy yet distracting compositions or anything. Nothing that suggests anything other than cameras there on that very day. But I still remembered that I was watching a movie from time to time. With Bloody Sunday, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie. I don't know if the difference was in the movies or if it was my state of mind while watching it. I might just as easily have remembered that I was watching a movie during Bloody Sunday, I don't know.
Do you think this might be because, as an American, you have more proximity to 9/11 than the Irish massacre? That's what I was thinking while watching it; I'm much more critical of this treatment, just because I'm closer to the event; I remember the morning it happened, etc. I wonder if people who were in Ireland on that day felt the same way when they watched Bloody Sunday.
The movie was as good as it could be. I have no criticisms of it, on a technical level. I don't think it was too long at all, and everything was spot on. The only problem I have with it is that, due to the nature of Greengrass' style, it presents itself as the reality of what occurred, when in fact there's no way to know how accurate it really was. This isn't the movie's fault; it's just the nature of this particular story. At a certain point, when the passengers started to plot to take over the plane, it started to feel more like a regular movie - it was entering the realm of the speculative, and it became a little bit easier to watch at that point, and even, on a certain level, easier to enjoy (although enjoy is the wrong word).
Actually, the worst part for me was everything leading up to the point when the hijackers take the plane. Prior to that, it was nearly unbearable, but after that point, some of the tension eased up a bit.
Quote from: Ghostboy on May 02, 2006, 10:52:47 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on April 28, 2006, 10:32:57 PM
Which brings me to why Bloody Sunday worked a little bit better for me. While watching United 93, once in a while I became aware that I was watching a movie. This isn't really necessarily a fault of the movie--it doesn't have any movie-isms about it. No classy yet distracting compositions or anything. Nothing that suggests anything other than cameras there on that very day. But I still remembered that I was watching a movie from time to time. With Bloody Sunday, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie. I don't know if the difference was in the movies or if it was my state of mind while watching it. I might just as easily have remembered that I was watching a movie during Bloody Sunday, I don't know.
Do you think this might be because, as an American, you have more proximity to 9/11 than the Irish massacre? That's what I was thinking while watching it; I'm much more critical of this treatment, just because I'm closer to the event; I remember the morning it happened, etc. I wonder if people who were in Ireland on that day felt the same way when they watched Bloody Sunday.
No, not really. I don't feel that sensitive about 9/11 treatments, to be honest. It's fodder like everything else. It's an extremely important thing to me because humans died, and only because humans died. Honor that, and I won't be critical of anything else. Go ahead, present whatever reality you choose to, and present it as realistically as you want to. I would never say, "What? You can't do that with 9/11!" The event itself is no more sacred to me than the lives lost, and the lives affected.
And like I said, I had no criticisms for the movie, because I felt that it valued life. The film would have been nearly as powerful for me if it were entirely fiction (and arguably, it essentially is), and I would be affected by the situation. The truth doesn't have to be the truth of 9/11; it, instead, has to be based in the truth that people did die, people do die, people are still dying, people will die. I and everyone around me will die. I was very moved by this movie, but I can be equally moved by fictional characters dying if it's done well. It's all based on the same true story: life is precious, and can be lost needlessly.
Most people probably wouldn't agree with me, and would feel that the facts of 9/11 have to be represented properly. But for me, Irish lives, American lives, 33 years ago, 4.5 years ago... they were all honored as human lives lost (I don't really care about the hero stuff--EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it some more, if their fighting back did indeed save the lives of others at whatever target the hijackers had, then yes, that is important), and I will shed tears for any and all of them. It's the only thing I have bothered to latch onto these days; otherwise, I'm pretty disillusioned, or apathetic. I can't and don't believe anything I hear, so the facts and the specific date of 9/11 don't really matter to me. Politics, religious war, oil, money, power... fuck all of that. It's all skewed and/or corrupt, and I just don't care very much.
It's the lives, period. Our history (human history) is the history of innocent people dying for stupid shit. That's what makes me angry. That's what 9/11 was to me... another link in a forever running chain of unnecessary deaths that now our leaders are only adding to. I could go on an on, so it's better that I just stop now. I know not everybody's going to agree with me.
So to clarify, the reason that I slightly preferred Bloody Sunday was because I absolutely forgot that I was watching a movie. It's a delicate state-of-mind to balance... it's possible that just watching this with an audience slightly distracted me from being 100% lost in it. Any little thing can cause you to remember that you're sitting in a theater watching a movie, and it wouldn't be the movie's fault. Another minor thing is that I also felt the grittier and grainier look (due to 16mm) gave Bloody Sunday a little more of a "realistic" feel. Some of that movie looked like newsreel footage. Also, some of the aftermath stuff in Bloody Sunday ("You will reap a whirlwind!" and the very last line) was such a powerful punch in the gut for me.
But in both cases, my heart was deeply affected.
havent read any of this thread except for Weak's post.. and i basically felt the exact same way he did.
cool to see the best movie of the year already come out.
Again, I'm late for comment, but I'll give my lowly opinion anyways.
Greengrass has finally proven his filmic capabilities. His last film, the Bourne Supremacy, was a mess. The story was typical for action films but the editing had no gears to switch to as the momentum of the story went along. It was chaotic from the very beginning. In the Bourne Identity, the filmmakers typically filmed the story of Jason Bourne but kept the focus on his amnesia and sense of self. In the Bourne Supremacy, they filmed in an amnesia state but concerned themselves with the surface action story. The former wins for better focus.
Now, with United 93, the editing is heightened to cinematic literature. This film is not a usual tragedy-to-drama parable, but a full scale re-imagination of what happened on Flight 93. The reality is strictly details. Greengrass flushes the film with constant editing and an over use of hand held camera work. A sense of foreboding doom is felt in control room scenes as every small moment is another foreshadow to the tragedy. The ingrediants in this film is to keep the audience as uneasy as they felt that day. It is a film made out of urgency and made directly out of a national feeling to relive what we can't go back to and to imagine a situation we can't ever know.
When I say the film is 'cinematic literature', I make two points. The first is this film couldn't be adapted to any other medium and truly be what it is here. Greengrass is very aware of his resouces in one sense to grab at an urgency that only film can instill through editing. Editing has gottten so good its even surpassed the feeling of reading a book 'on the edge of your seat'. One critic actually made a comment years ago that because editing has gotten so good that the need for thriller books with their systematic details was useless because they couldn't keep up with the pace and excitement of a well edited action film. Greengrass takes this advice and applies it to the purpose of a personal experience felt on the most tragic level.
The other point is that if 9/11 happened ten years before it actually did and this film was appropriately made as many years later the results would be very different. In 1996 the resources to make a film of this intensity with this type of budget would have been impossible. The film that would have been made would have been more like a drama. My film professor made a smart comment once that 10 years of film was equivalent to 100 years in books. He's correct in so many ways. I remembering watching a documentary on the progression of cinematography and getting this new historical perspective of how film art developed according to the development of what cameras were able to do. In some ways the fact that United 93 does exist is a marker in film history.
The fact that this film is a marker does not make it art though. For how riveting the experience of watching United 93 is, it does not compensate for everything required in a great work. Stanley Kauffmann comments, "The film doesn't help us to admire those passengers any more than we did when we read the first news reports. Unlike innumerable works of art about historical tempests, United 93 leaves us pretty much where we were before it appeared." There are no creative strokes, greater comment, or personal will in United 93 that the filmmaker brought by the weilding of his own hand. The fact that United 93 tries to exist as a making in pure "realism" only seems to serve a craftmanship existence.
Thus the door is wide open for Oliver Stone with 'World Trade Center'. His film has the opportunity to be everything United 93 wasn't and in turn be the more memorable work. I don't think audience memory will be kind to United 93. I imagine as people will want look back to 9/11 they will search for films that make them understand what happened that day instead of reminding them just how painful it was.
I think this film is probably one of the more important films to come out in a long time, simply because of its relationship with its audience. Hiroshima mon amour develops the idea of a culture forgetting about tragedy, and while that film was very forward with its idea, Greengrass' film provides a memento mori so that we do not forget. I don't believe this film will be remembered unkindly because it's a purely present-tense film that provided (me at least) with an opportunity to really reflect and remember the pain. Tucking away pain will only cause it to boil, and films like these need to be made, especially ones like this done in such a respectful manner.
I agree with GT on a few points, that we do not really get to know the people involved that well, and that is very apparent with the overabundance of Air Traffic Controller scenes. I think the film is very patient, but the events on United 93 are built up to so slowly, I too wonder if we couldn't gotten some more time with the people. It's like looking at a painting, and figuring out which people are which and what their actions are. They're almost completely anonymous. I think this is good, for it allows the film to about the "event" and the act of bravery. But then why not have more of the people? I think I'm overanalyzing it, damn you GT.
I liked the film a lot. I felt like I would explode into tears at any moment if I let myself go too much and really realize what was happening to these people. The sequence where everyone is praying, including the terrorists, it's just fucking brilliant and beautiful. The final shot and the score that hangs over into the black.......goddamn, it's just so powerful, and it shows that the film has been this almost symphonic crescendo that just ends.
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on May 25, 2006, 06:07:14 PM
I think this film is probably one of the more important films to come out in a long time, simply because of its relationship with its audience. Hiroshima mon amour develops the idea of a culture forgetting about tragedy, and while that film was very forward with its idea, Greengrass' film provides a memento mori so that we do not forget. I don't believe this film will be remembered unkindly because it's a purely present-tense film that provided (me at least) with an opportunity to really reflect and remember the pain. Tucking away pain will only cause it to boil, and films like these need to be made, especially ones like this done in such a respectful manner.
I agree with GT on a few points, that we do not really get to know the people involved that well, and that is very apparent with the overabundance of Air Traffic Controller scenes. I think the film is very patient, but the events on United 93 are built up to so slowly, I too wonder if we couldn't gotten some more time with the people. It's like looking at a painting, and figuring out which people are which and what their actions are. They're almost completely anonymous. I think this is good, for it allows the film to about the "event" and the act of bravery. But then why not have more of the people? I think I'm overanalyzing it, damn you GT.
I liked the film a lot. I felt like I would explode into tears at any moment if I let myself go too much and really realize what was happening to these people. The sequence where everyone is praying, including the terrorists, it's just fucking brilliant and beautiful. The final shot and the score that hangs over into the black.......goddamn, it's just so powerful, and it shows that the film has been this almost symphonic crescendo that just ends.
i was late in seeing this, but yes, excellent review and spot-on.
it's an amazing story, and i'm glad it was told this way, grateful even. imagining the way this event could've been (and probably will be) cheapened and sentimentalized onscreen makes me cringe. the movie avoided all the crap and told its story with brilliant power, focus, and honesty. i'm fascinated by how the film opened, and was incredbily moved by the closing moments..
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 19, 2006, 02:19:10 AM
The fact that this film is a marker does not make it art though. For how riveting the experience of watching United 93 is, it does not compensate for everything required in a great work. Stanley Kauffmann comments, "The film doesn't help us to admire those passengers any more than we did when we read the first news reports. Unlike innumerable works of art about historical tempests, United 93 leaves us pretty much where we were before it appeared." There are no creative strokes, greater comment, or personal will in United 93 that the filmmaker brought by the weilding of his own hand. The fact that United 93 tries to exist as a making in pure "realism" only seems to serve a craftmanship existence.
Thus the door is wide open for Oliver Stone with 'World Trade Center'. His film has the opportunity to be everything United 93 wasn't and in turn be the more memorable work. I don't think audience memory will be kind to United 93. I imagine as people will want look back to 9/11 they will search for films that make them understand what happened that day instead of reminding them just how painful it was.
I don't think it serves only as a reminder of how painful it was.. although i don't think painful remembrance is entirely irrelevant either.
Bush to see "United 93" movie with families of lost
George W. Bush, whose presidency will forever be entwined with the September 11 attacks, gets to relive part of the day on Tuesday night by watching the movie, "United 93."
The film, which opened last month to critical acclaim, tells the story of how al Qaeda hijackers took over the flight and steered it in the direction of Washington D.C.
Passengers learned from cellphones that three other hijacked planes had already hit their targets -- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They decided to rise up and attack the hijackers, who crashed the plane into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board.
"The president has always said that ... the passengers and the crew members on the flight were heroes," said White House spokesman Dana Perino.
Bush was to watch the movie in the White House theater with his wife, Laura, along with some family members of those who died on the flight.
United 93 is the first feature film to deal explicitly with the events of September 11, 2001
I haven't seen the film, but is it possible this film might be viewed by some as right-wing propaganda meant to re-instill a blind patriotic faith in the "war against terror" being waged in the middle east? Also, I can't help but notice that some of the people giving this movie high praise were also impressed by the "Loose Change" 9/11 Conspiracy film. If you have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of the published reports of what happened on 9/11/01, is it not a slight conflict of interest to praise the subject matter in "United 93" considering the possibility that nothing you see in that film really happened? It is a known political tactic to create tragic heroes to drum up public support for government actions. I am not a conspiracy buff at all, but something about this film makes me very uncomfortable...the idea that those passengers were forced to give up their lives in exchange for being perceived as heroes by american movie-goers doesn't sit well with me...and hardly seems like a fair exchange. Not sure if I'm getting my point across here :yabbse-undecided:
keep an open mind, my friend. if you play too much imaginary ideological chess inside your head, you'll miss the actual voices from actual people.
Quote from: 1976 on June 04, 2006, 04:59:53 PM
I haven't seen the film, but is it possible this film might be viewed by some as right-wing propaganda meant to re-instill a blind patriotic faith in the "war against terror" being waged in the middle east?
i have a friend at work who refuses to see the film for that reason. but i agree with pete.
Quote from: pete on June 04, 2006, 05:03:15 PM
keep an open mind, my friend. if you play too much imaginary ideological chess inside your head, you'll miss the actual voices from actual people.
that said, i am really sad i missed this. hopefully the dvd release will be speedy.
Quote from: modage on June 04, 2006, 05:24:41 PMhopefully the dvd release will be speedy.
Gee, when might that be? :ponder:
Due on 9/5 from Universal is Paul Greengrass' controversial but well made United 93, in both full frame and anamorphic widescreen versions (SRP $29.98 ). Extras will include audio commentary with Greengrass, as well as the United 93: The Families and the Film documentary.
This film was out of left field for me. Right now, as it stands, it is probalby the best film of 06. My only exposure to Greengrass was through The Bourne Supremacy which I found to be frustratingly disappointing. Then he does United 93 and pretty much hits every note as perfectly as he could. Writing, editing, cinematography, acting...every stylistic choice fit the content. Even small touches, like showing the Terrorists get ready in the morning end up being subtle yet profound. With a project like this, it is so easy to slip up and trivialize an event like 9/11 and I assumed that would happen here with incorrect stylistic choices. Yet, it didn't and United 93 ends up being tragic, horrifying, beautiful and true all at the same time. A very difficult feat to accomplish.
finally saw this last night and i do think its a good film, but i dont think its a great one, the best of the year, or one that will go down in history. why? partly as GT mentions that maybe the scope of the film is too limited. to examine only these events of 9/11 and not give it more context will surely have a greater affect on all of us who remember that day but a generation down the line, it wont bring up the same feelings. and most of its power will be lost because it reduces it to, basically a thriller. and a thriller where there are no characters to speak of and the bulk of the film is spent in the air traffic control rooms and NOT on the plane. (this was probably my biggest problem with the film, the film is called United 93 and i was prepared to spend 2 hours with these passengers but it seemed like too much time was spent seeing the air traffic controllers respond to the larger events. so maybe had the scope been even MORE limited it could've suceeded if we'd only known what the passengers on the plane knew?) but essentially without the feelings that we bring to the film that give it a greater meaning, the film is essentially just a made-for-tv true story. it is the best made-for-tv true story ever made, but i dont think it will stand the test of time.
I'm about 100% sure if the film had just stayed inside the plane, it would have completely sucked.
The trailer suggested it did just that... we were lead to believe it was all weepy phone calls and "oh my, we're all going to die" for two hours, but what we got was so much more.
It's an experience film... these were the ONLY people who were able to fight... they were the only ones who could and did do jack shit to help the situation.
so you see.. the title has TWO meanings.
Quote from: RegularKarate on September 10, 2006, 11:05:29 PM
I'm about 100% sure if the film had just stayed inside the plane, it would have completely sucked.
The trailer suggested it did just that... we were lead to believe it was all weepy phone calls and "oh my, we're all going to die" for two hours, but what we got was so much more.
what we got instead was an hour of people in control rooms responding to the situation/not knowing fully what was going on. sure it was realistic, but was it
interesting?
Quote from: modage on September 11, 2006, 01:06:16 PM
what we got instead was an hour of people in control rooms responding to the situation/not knowing fully what was going on. sure it was realistic, but was it interesting?
Yes
Interesting is subjective so that's a dumb question. Obviously, I found it interesting or I wouldn't have liked it. Not only was it interesting, it was exciting.
I can understand if you don't like movies unless people use clever dialogue or run around in bat suits you might not find this "interesting", but I did.
I think I get GT's point... I don't think he's correct at all because he can't tap into that thing that supposedly beats in his chest for resources... but still, I understand it.
I dont' think this movie was the best of the year or anything, but it's definitely up there (this year has been kind of shitty).
Quote from: RegularKarate on September 11, 2006, 01:12:57 PM
I dont' think this movie was the best of the year or anything, but it's definitely up there (this year has been kind of shitty).
then we're in perfect agreement. i'm not saying i didnt like this movie, but with the reviews you would think it was going to shake the world of film or something. and while i was riveted throughout i couldnt help but feel it was because it was mostly because of the feelings i brought to it. it is well-made, no doubt, BUT if it werent for the feelings i have about the events and that day i dont think it would have nearly the same effect. thats all.
Quote from: modage on September 10, 2006, 11:14:18 AMthe film is essentially just a made-for-tv true story.
I think that's a cop-out description and an insult to this film.
What this film doesn't do that the A&E "made-forTV" film did is what elevates it. No where in United 93 do we cut away to the loved ones on the other end of the phone lines. We do not see the 911 operator, the eyewitnesses that saw the plane before it crashed, etc.; anything of that nature that turns the story melodramatic to 'tug at the heartstrings.' Instead, by being in the aircraft (and the entire third act brilliantly stays there), pure claustrophobia kicks in. The film stays in your face and there is no escape. But the film also needed the air-traffic scenes in the beginning. Without them, you don't establish why the plane was hi-jacked in the first place, and that would have completely assumed you knew the whole story to begin with and completely catered to one's feelings from knowing what happened that day. Without them, I'm sure a lot of exposition in dialogue would have been introduced.
I've read some reviews here that point out that the film doesn't establish "characters." But understand that by foregoing that, the film makes you identify more with
all the passengers. You can understand the situation better with subjectivity. If a few people were established with backstories, that would have made the audience think to root for this guy or follow that woman's doings, sidelining others that weren't given a substory. It would have been a disservice to pick out Todd Beamer and wait for him to say, "Let's Roll!" Cue heroic music. United 93 almost throws this line away, establishing that all the people aboard are given equal attention.
Quote from: modage on September 11, 2006, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on September 10, 2006, 11:05:29 PM
I'm about 100% sure if the film had just stayed inside the plane, it would have completely sucked.
The trailer suggested it did just that... we were lead to believe it was all weepy phone calls and "oh my, we're all going to die" for two hours, but what we got was so much more.
what we got instead was an hour of people in control rooms responding to the situation/not knowing fully what was going on. sure it was realistic, but was it interesting?
I actually thought the sequences in the control towers were just as effective as the sequences inside the plane. I felt like these sequences mirrored our own shock and confusion about the events of that day as they unfolded. I remember watching the TV as the second plane crashed, and knowing that now, very clearly, we were under deliberate attack by somebody or something. Remember all that reporting about there being a bomb in a van one one of the escape bridges? It was the same kind of a mistake as the controllers mislabeling the Delta flight as being hijacked, or not initially knowing which flights had crashed into the towers. There was so much new information that we were being flooded with, that our brains sturggled to process it and make rational predictions about what was going to happen next. We were all partially paralyzed by fear. You can see it in the traffic controllers as they struggle to remain calm and perform their jobs, and for me they were a mirror as to how I, and the rest of my family, responded to the events of that day as they unfolded.
I don't think this symbolism was Greengrasses direct intention, but it's still there...and the fact that he didn't consciously reinforce it makes it all the better anyways.
Quote from: for petes sake on October 04, 2006, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: modage on September 11, 2006, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on September 10, 2006, 11:05:29 PM
I'm about 100% sure if the film had just stayed inside the plane, it would have completely sucked.
The trailer suggested it did just that... we were lead to believe it was all weepy phone calls and "oh my, we're all going to die" for two hours, but what we got was so much more.
what we got instead was an hour of people in control rooms responding to the situation/not knowing fully what was going on. sure it was realistic, but was it interesting?
I actually thought the sequences in the control towers were just as effective as the sequences inside the plane. I felt like these sequences mirrored our own shock and confusion about the events of that day as they unfolded. I remember watching the TV as the second plane crashed, and knowing that now, very clearly, we were under deliberate attack by somebody or something. Remember all that reporting about there being a bomb in a van one one of the escape bridges? It was the same kind of a mistake as the controllers mislabeling the Delta flight as being hijacked, or not initially knowing which flights had crashed into the towers. There was so much new information that we were being flooded with, that our brains sturggled to process it and make rational predictions about what was going to happen next. We were all partially paralyzed by fear. You can see it in the traffic controllers as they struggle to remain calm and perform their jobs, and for me they were a mirror as to how I, and the rest of my family, responded to the events of that day as they unfolded.
I don't think this symbolism was Greengrasses direct intention, but it's still there...and the fact that he didn't consciously reinforce it makes it all the better anyways.
i agree, i just watched this for the first time a couple weeks ago. i really thought it was amazing. i loved the lack of sticking with one protagonist, which made it united indeed. the control tower scenes added atmosphere more than anything.
I'm Canadian myself, and even though by default i can't relate to a lot of what happened to the same extent most of you guys could. i gotta say i was choked up at the end, beautifully directed, and i was so proud of that effort made by those people. truly heroic.